A.D. Drumm Images, LLC – Landscape, Portrait, and Fine Art Photography in Rochester MN Photography

Our local professional photographers group, Southern Minnesota Professional Photographers Association, meets monthly with various programs, usually 2-3 hours. This month, we brought in Brian DeMint (see his work here) from Missouri. Brian brings a background of painting to his photography, shooting rather ingenious looks and adding his artistic interpretation in post.

We had a full day of presentations and shooting with two fabulous Minnesota models, Molly Olimb and Brittany Bueckers. Brian’s wife, Dena, provides the hair and make-up. The event was at the studio of Sonja Miedtke, a country home with beautiful grounds, buildings, and various props perfect for portrait photography.

When there are lots of photographers shooting a model, one needs to try to find something a bit different. I tend to be drawn to faces – I gravitate toward closer, more intimate shots. I also played with a technique I learned at Photoshop World in Atlanta. Model shoots like this are a perfect place to play with new ideas.

Once I had found a few photos I liked, I pushed a little more in post than I’d typically do. If you’ve seen my personal projects, you know I have no problem opening Photoshop and letting its tools fly. But my general portrait work tends to be more subtle. But with a nod to Brian, I let these images speak to me and guide me onward.

I was rather surprised to find a couple photos, one of each of our models, that just wanted – or, maybe, had – to be monochrome. In fact, the photo of Molly above was the first photo I really put any effort into, and it just said monochrome. The treatment I used actually left a smidge of color, but I think the processing fits the mood of the photograph.

Others just wanted color and lots of it. The red dress was fabulous, and it was amazing against the greenery.

It was a terrific day full of ideas and inspiration. And mosquitos. But, hey, this is Minnesota, so there will be mosquitos!

I like to have some sample prints on hand to show clients. There are many different printing materials available these days. Canvases are popular and the lab I use produces great canvas prints. There are, of course, traditional photographic paper prints and some newer photographic papers that have a metallic look. There are also acrylic prints that are pretty cool now, and I’ve dabbled a bit with those.  And there is a wide variety of art papers available for giclée prints made using pigment-based inks and an inkjet process. And there are metal prints made right on aluminum.

I usually steer my clients toward canvas, standard photo paper, or art papers (I particularly like those without optical brighteners which provide an overall warm feeling) for portraits. Metallic paper and metal prints are best with more contrast and detail like landscapes and city-scapes.

But during one high school senior session, I shot my subject using an HDR technique. It just seemed to fit the situation, and I’ve been playing a bit with HDR portraits. I thought it would be fun and interesting and different for a senior photo. I’ve been looking at it and decided this might really make a cool metal print. And besides, I’ve been wanting a sample to show with this wedge-type stand-out frame.

Today, when I returned home from a shoot, my print had arrived. I have to say I really like it. The look works well on metal and these frames are fantastic for metal prints. I decided to show it off and do a selfie with it hanging in my office! (BTW, I do like my new RF remote control that I’m holding just out of view!)

Before I discuss this patent, let me mention my credentials. I’m not a lawyer nor a patent agent. However, in my long engineering career, I filed and received more than a few patents (all assigned to my employer). I spent many years on an invention review board, I mentored new inventors, and I was awarded a title of Master Inventor. So, I’m speaking with at least some knowledge of this stuff!

Okay – so let’s first talk about what one needs in order to obtain a patent. The invention has to meet three requirements. It must be useful, which really means it has to be something you can make work (which prevents patenting a perpetual motion machine). It must be novel, something not done or described before. And it must be unobvious to someone of normal skill in the art, which is many times the most difficult one to determine.

What does it mean to be novel? Well, it can still build upon other things. So, you can’t patent a telephone, but you can patent a particular improvement to a telephone as long as the improvement meets the three requirements.

The obviousness criterion is tricky. It has to be unobvious to someone of normal skill in the art. If it seems obvious to you, you have to ask yourself am I of normal or above normal skill? The patent office will often cite literature which the examiner says “teaches” the method you’re trying to patent, or something so close that the leap to your method is straightforward.

Being on the receiving end of these (they are called office actions), they sometimes show the examiner just didn’t understand what the invention is. So, it’s a bit subjective, and there’s some wiggle room. And sometimes the examiner is just out of his or her league. Looking at a patent like this one, we wonder what prior art did the examiner look for and find. Patents often cite many other prior patents in the same general area. This one cites no issued patents (there is one patent application from 2003 cited which is strange in that this application resulted in an issued patent, so why cite the application and not the issued patent?). It cites no other prior art – no papers or books.

Now let’s discuss the parts of a patent. There’s the intro stuff: names, prior art, etc. There’s an abstract giving a brief overview. There are figures (three in this case). There is a description of the preferred embodiment. Let me explain that a bit. The reason we have patents (and they are laid out in the constitution) is in many ways to further the transfer of knowledge and techniques to the public. In exchange for doing so – telling the world how you do something – you gain the ability to prevent others from using that for some period of time (20 years from filing for utility patents). This gives people an incentive to not hold onto such things as trade secrets. That’s the idea, at least. In today’s technology world, 20 years might seem excessive.

So, one of the things you must do is describe the best way to do or make your patent. It has to be described in terms that someone of normal skill in the art can understand and replicate. That’s the preferred embodiment.

Finally, there are the claims. This is the meat of the patent from a legal point of view. You claim your invention or inventions, laid out in a way someone could test against for infringement. If it’s not covered by the claims, there is no infringement. There’s again some legal wiggle room that a judge or jury might have to decide. Within the claims section, there are two kinds of claims, independent and dependent. The value of a patent is directly related to the breadth of the claims. That is, if you’re patenting a telephone, and you claim “a device into which one speaks and a second device from which the sound of that speech emanates” it’s better (more valuable) than a claim that includes all the details of converting sound to electricity, using wires, and so on, because it potentially covers a lot more ground. So, radio devices might be covered, or two cans and a string.

The problem with broad claims is it’s more difficult to get your patent. You’re trying to cover more territory and there are more possibilities someone has done something similar already. On the other hand, if you make your claims very narrow, you make it much easier to pass the patent office since no one might have described exactly the detailed method you’re using. (Although, here the obviousness might be a factor.) Anyway, you want all your claims to be valid, but if one gets thrown out, another claim which adds more details (narrows it) might still be valid. So, there are broader independent claims and narrowing dependent claims.

I know that’s a lot to absorb, but the general public doesn’t understand any of this and tend to jump to conclusions like, “Amazon patented shooting against a white background!” Well, no, not exactly. So I got a copy of the patent from Google’s patent search, and I read it.

Asking the question, what problem were they trying to solve? They lay that out in the description. They want the subject to appear floating against an all-white background with a reflection below and want it to be done with no postproduction, either photographs or video. They state that prior art solutions “often involve some type of image retouching, post processing, ‘green screen’ techniques, or other special effects…”

They go on to describe a studio and lighting setup to achieve their goal. It’s pretty specific and their preferred embodiment involves around 50 kilowatts of lighting! Is there anything there that I haven’t seen before? Not much. But let’s look at the claims.

There are 27 claims. If I read them right, there are three independent claims and 24 dependent claims. Claim 1 is the first independent claims, and it’s pretty specific. It has no dependent claims. It’s the one I’ve seen mentioned in other blogs and includes things like ISO of about 320 and f-stop of about 5.6 among other things. It would seem to be pretty easy to avoid violating that claim.

Claim 2 is the next independent claim. It’s broader, but still has some specifics like the use of a cyclorama (we usually just call it a “cyc”), a front light, at least two rear lights, at least one shield (a gobo!). Most of the rest of the claims are dependent on this and add various details.

Claim 25 is the last independent claim describing a “method” rather than the studio arrangement itself. It covers putting the subject on a platform, activating the lights, and turning on the camera. It seems weird to me to have a method claim for this, but what do I know. (I know patent lawyers are sometimes paid by the number of claims, or so I’ve heard!)

So what’s the takeaway? I am surprised this patent was issued even with so many specifics and rather narrow claims. I’d have a hard time arguing this isn’t obvious to any professional photographer who routinely works in a studio with a cyc or does any regular product photography work. But, it’s been issued and Amazon now has the right to defend it using their large resources. Would it stand up to a jury? Who knows.

The other question is why did Amazon bother with this? It could be for protection – in other words, it prevents someone from filing a similar patent and then claiming Amazon is infringing. But they could probably achieve the same thing by publishing the method and making it public and, therefore, prior art preventing a patent.

It’s not the strangest patent I’ve read. But I must admit, I never expected to be seeing patents covering photographic lighting! I did think it might be an interesting one to discuss here, though. Hope it wasn’t too overwhelming!

 

I just returned Friday from my third Photoshop World. My first two were both in Las Vegas, but this time, I attended the conference in Atlanta. There are two conferences per year, one somewhere along the east coast and one in Vegas. I signed up for one of the in-depth workshops that most of us call pre-cons (for pre-convention). This was a class with Moose Peterson. If you’ve read much of my blog, you’ll know I’ve attended several workshops with Moose. He’s one of a few photography instructors from whom I always learn something. His vision and understanding of how we see photographs is awesome.

Moose shoots wildlife and landscapes, but the past several years he’s been shooting vintage aircraft. His air-to-air work is pretty amazing. So our Photo Safari took us to a small airport south of Atlanta housing a chapter of the Commemorative Air Force, folks who buy, restore, and fly these old birds. I’ve seen many of them at airshows when I was regularly attending those (mostly at Dayton, OH). The plan (Plan A, as Moose called it), was to have models there in vintage uniforms as well as the aircraft. But the weather had other ideas, leading to Plans B, C, and D. Moose explained that their uniforms are the real thing, so standing in the rain is not going to happen.

But the CAF folks were great and moved the aircraft out and shifted them around for us. As photographers, we need to still find a shot. I took plenty of photos of the aircraft and did some close-in, detail shots. But I also grabbed some shots of the people who were there. The fellow on the cart moving the airplanes made for a good subject with the planes behind him, and the shot above just said to me a vintage treatment was needed.

Moose did a little lighting demo as he’s been shooting his pilot friends with their prized birds. So, he showed his approach to lighting them. Prior to the field trip, Moose showed some of those portraits and talked about the other half of the lighting – that provided by a setting sun.

The pre-con was just one day, though. The real event started Tuesday and ran through Thursday. Each day was filled with events and classes and the Expo floor. I don’t have many photos from those days – mainly a few on my iPhone – but I did take the big camera to the opening event. As a PSW alum, I knew this would be a ton of fun with some cool photo opportunities. They usually begin with a video featuring Scott Kelby and instructors from his organization with some whacky theme which is then carried throughout the conference. This year, the theme was pirates, and the video was a take-off on Pirates of the Caribbean. Kelby’s video production staff is truly top notch; the videos are really well made and fun. At the end, the “stars” come out on stage live. And this time, they took a selfie!

After the opening event, it’s down to business. I think my favorite part of PSW this year was the variety of classes and how many were really new and different from the last one I attended. Highlights for me were Frank Doorhof, a terrific portrait photographer with a vision that’s truly wild and unique, and Peter Hurley, a NYC headshot photographer. I’ve seen video training from both, and it was fun to meet and talk with them. And Peter is hugely entertaining while he imparts his approach to making his subjects look real and engaged. It was his first time speaking at PSW and his two sessions were packed.

There were also many other great instructors, and I was able to say hello again to Joe McNally. Joel Grimes always has great ideas, makes me really think. It’s not just work as there’s a party the first night and Midnight Madness the second. The second day – especially if you get up early for the Midnight Madness ticket handout – is packed with classes and for me, the longest toughest day. But if you pace yourself, it works.

The Expo seemed smaller to me than in Vegas, but I ended up leaving with a few purchases including Frank Doorhof’s book. Signed, of course.

Photography – I think like any art – is a lifelong learning experience. Techniques, ideas, vision, new or different ways to see light and place it on paper (or on a screen). Photoshop World is an exceptional way to immerse oneself in a learning experience. This will hopefully not be my last time attending!

I’ve been shooting for a while. Actually, a long while. If you read my About page, I talk a bit about how I started seriously into photography. The first good camera I bought was a Canon AE-1 – back when they were first introduced. When Canon produced their New F1, I knew I had to have it.

For one thing, it has a true match-needle metering system. I’ve talked about that before, but basically there are two needles in the viewfinder, one of which is a little circle. That one moves up and down as you turn the aperture ring and the other needle shows the meter reading. When they line up, the camera thinks the exposure is good. It’s nice because it conveys good information in one place that’s easy to interpret without staring at it. Other metering systems at the time were either a meter needle alone (you matched it to some point in the middle) or an electronic system similar to today as those were just beginning to appear.

 

The F1 has been sitting on a shelf. I last used it for real over a decade ago before I bought my first digital SLR. At the time, I was having a problem with the film transport mechanism. It would become jammed and scrunch the film until the film advance lever would no longer move. I recently thought that it might be fun to play with a bit of film, just for something different. I loaded an old roll and ran it through with the back open. It seemed to be working – unexpectedly. I believe the issue is really that it’s just overly sensitive to having the film loaded exactly right.

If I was going to experiment with film, I decided to make it black and white. There’s a character to black and white film which might be fun to play with. Brad and Lindsay agreed to model for me (with their son, Felix). We were going to try for some shots when it was actively snowing last Saturday, but it was coming down so hard and fast that I decided that was just too much on the roads. Instead, we met up Sunday downtown.

I bought four types of film, two rolls each. My first set was the Kodak TMax 100. The idea is to compare the four films to see what look suits me best. Each film has it’s own character. I used to shoot a lot of Kodachrome slide film. It’s look is best explained by Paul Simon’s song.

For this B&W experiment, I decided to also develop the film myself. Although I used to have a darkroom, I didn’t do a lot of film processing. (In fact, Kodachrome had to be processed by a lab.) But, I’ve done a bit of B&W and used to process Ektachrome slide film. I figure it’s probably been 30 years since I last developed a roll of film. It’s not that hard, though. You have a tank into which the film goes, and once it’s in there, everything is done in daylight – i.e. no darkroom needed.

These are some of my shots. After developing and drying the film, I scanned them into the computer where I used Lightroom and Photoshop to finish them. I’m looking more at the film’s character, not trying to replicate the entire old workflow. I did have to remind myself there’s no autofocus – I had to do that manually. And I had to advance the film between shots. While I was very happy with exposures and such, there were some issues: dust, scratches, and water spots.

I’ve cleaned the camera’s film chamber more thoroughly hoping that helps some. And I have a squeegee coming to wipe the film before setting it to dry. I likely scratched it using my fingers for that purpose. Fingers crossed for next time. Fortunately, Photoshop helps solve those problems, although it can be time consuming.

What’s the verdict? For the moment, it’s still an ongoing experiment. I really do want to see how the different films compare. Looking at the images, especially zoomed at 100%, the grain in this “fine grain” film is substantial. More than I expected. But it’s okay, too. Digital photographs can be a bit cold in a sense. They are so good. In fact, we sometimes go to extremes to reduce away any hint of noise, of imperfection, that they become almost industrial. Film is different from that. B&W film, in particular, reacts to the color of the world in a way which isn’t obvious, each film reacting in its own way.

I’m never going to become a film snob for sure. I love digital. Love, love it. But, there’s something fun about setting your exposure, taking a photo, and knowing – but not really knowing – you got the shot. I always remember my mom’s words – “I hope it comes out.” It will be a learning process, too. What do I like and not like about the various looks? Then how can I imbed those characteristics in my digital photos?

Next up is Ilford PanF Plus 50. I burned a roll yesterday outside my house shooting the big heavy snow we were having. I also shot a couple night shots down the street with 30 second exposures. I haven’t shot at 50 ISO since, well, since I very rarely shot 25 ISO Kodachrome.

I hope they come out.