On Deciding . . . Better 3.0

Sometimes the uncertainty of the world leads us not to fear but to hope. There’s a commonly expressed belief that “anything is possible”. I’ve worked closely with executives who seem to believe that they can bend the world to their desires by sheer force of will.

Of course this doesn’t work in reality. Our control over future events in a complex world is very limited. Often the path we’ve chosen turns out to be an illusory path. Generally its not a bad thing because the new perspective will usually open up new possibilities and new choices that weren’t apparent at the beginning.

At some point, the odds of success may have dwindled so much that continuing on seems pointless. Admitting defeat is painful, but embracing failure and recognizing mistakes is an important part of learning how to make better decisions in the future.

One must avoid continuing on just because of past efforts. It appears to be a deep seated tendency to consider investment when making future decisions.

There is a reasonable rule that equates investment with current value. Any object which required great effort to obtain has great value because of the cost that would be required to replace it. We have to pay more to buy a gold ring than to buy a siver ring- so we perceive the gold as more valuable than silver. We’d have to be offered more to give up the gold than to give up the silver.

Equating cost with value doesn’t always work because value changes over time. If I pay a lot of money for a diamond and then a year later the market is flooded with diamonds from new sources, my diamond will be worth less.But because I equate cost with value, I’ll feel that my diamond “should” be worth more than its current value because of what I paid. In truth,its only worth what some one else is willing to pay for it. The same effect has been seen in studies of stock market transactions. Owners of shares that have lost value tend not to sell them, believing that they should be worth more and are resistant to accept less than what they paid for them. Sadly, this prejudice leads to investors making the often poor decision to keep their losers and sell their winners, when the exact opposite may be the case. Good decisions in the past are represented by those shares that have gained in value. They may represent the successful, growing companies.

In buying and selling, only the present value should be considered. Cost is known only to the owner and has no effect on current or future value. The losses up until now are often referred to as “sunk losses”. This is money or effort that has been spent, is gone and have no bearing on current value and need to be ignored when making decisions. Its as if every day is newly created and decisions to buy or sell have to be made only on the basis of the current market and belief about the future right now.

SImilarly, past efforts and plans have no effect on the chances of success now. There is only the current situation and belief about the future. Every day is new. We must decide which way to go at every moment as if the past had not occurred. This is why a plan is only a formalization of belief about the future and may need to be changed or abandoned if events unfold in unexpected ways. Mistakes need to be embraced, not covered over. New information must be constantly evaluated for impact on expected chances of success.

Making the right decisions is necessary for success. it doesn’t matter how well one executes on the plan. If the wrong choice was made at the outset, the result is wrong.

The challenge is making decisions under conditions of uncertainty. It’s not knowing what will happen in the future that makes the choice hard now.

Much complexity is illusory and really nothing more than uncertainty. The apparent complexity is in the mind. There is no complex system in the world that maps onto all that thought. In the real world, the die may be cast. We may be entirely unable to influence the state of the world. Yet we build castles of anxiety in our minds worrying about what will happen when it already has.

A large part of our brains is devoted to making sense of the world. Visual perception is of no use without object recognition. Object recognition is of no use unless objects can be categorized as animate or inanimate, food or poison. Our brains constantly pour meaning into the world.

I’m sure we do this as we percieve our own thoughts and intentions. We are each the hero of our own personal narrative. That story provides ego strength and reasons to make decisions that move the story along toward the next desired event.

But what if that story is denied us? We know that short term memory loss leads to confabulation- without access to memory of events the brain is often happy to make up a plausible tale from available facts. How about a whole world?

In a Tiny Universe,
Room to Heal – At Home With Mark Hogancamp – NYTimes.com: ” Feeling shunned by the outside world, he created his own world, a tiny society called Marwencol.
Made from scraps of plywood and peopled with a tribe of Barbies and World War II action figures, Marwencol grew along the side of his trailer home near Kingston. (Mr. Hogancamp named his new world after himself and Wendy and Colleen, two women he had crushes on.) Narratives surrounding a downed American fighter pilot rescued by Marwencol’s all-female population began unfurling against a backdrop that was nominally a World War II setting, in Belgium. The themes, however, were Mr. Hogancamp’s own: the brutality of men, the safe haven of a town of women, the twin demons of rage and fear. Mr. Hogancamp captured his stories with thousands of photographs, shooting on an old Pentax with a broken light meter. The noirish images, complete with blood flecks in the snow, are riveting and emotional.”

We always say that soap opera amnesia, forgetting personal identity, never happens. But its clear that sections of memory for personal history can be lost. Hogancamp seems to have a complex situation combining alcoholism, traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress.

Resulting in story telling. Resulting in art.

This is why I really bought the Sony NEX-5. I’ve had a Leica M6ttl for a few years and have shot some urban street photography projects with it over the years, generally on visits to UK or European cities. The Sigma DP1 often substituted, but I liked the look of film and the rendering of Leica lenses.

Because of their mirrorless designs, the micro 4/3rds and Sony NEX cameras can be used with an adaptor to mount other lens systems, including the Leica M system. They’re manual lenses, so loss of autofocus doesn’t matter. They meter at the aperture set on the lens, but with the sensor and display technology in modern cameras, that doesn’t matter either. One is no longer looking through a dim viewfinder, its an optimized LCD display on the camera’s back.

The Sony NEX-5 has two great advantages for this use. The LCD is bright and high resolution, helping frame and focus. It also detects the use of a legacy lens and provides a focus assist button on the back. Select the option and you get a 7 or 14x magnified view of the center of the image. It works very much like a rangefinder spot on the Leica. Point it at the desired area of focus then recompose. On the NEX-5, pressing the shutter half way snaps the display back to normal.

It works exactly the way I used the M6. Use the rangefinder to set focus or focus range. For most street shooting, I’d be at f/8 to make focus less critical for rapidly changing scenes. If I wanted the isolation of selective focus, it was down to f/2 and some more consideration about where the subject was or would be.

One of the reasons that the M cameras rendered so wonderfully on film was the way the body held the film so precisely flat compared to most SLRs. Loading was more of a pain, but seemed to be worth it. Now with digital sensors,we always have perfectly flat sensors, so some of the M camera body advantages are now no longer relevant. My latest set of tools have largely surpassed the film look. With the high resolution of the D7000 and NEX-5, I get better pixel quality and light sensitivity than any film. VIncent Versace’s Oz techniques with Photoshop lets me pull out any look I want given that I start with the pixel quality.

This morning was my first chance to get outside with the Leica and NEX-5 combination. My widest Leica lens, the 35mm f/2 Summicron becomes a 50mm equivalent crop on the NEX-5 with its 1.5 cropped APS-C sensor. In the street, I like the 50mm equivalent because I often don’t get as close as I’d like to a scene. I’d need to get a 24mm lens to bring back the full 35mm lens point of view. One of the reason’s I went with the Sony over micro 4/3rds is the Sony 1.5X crop compared to the m4/3rds 2X crop. The price and quality of the Metabones adaptor is great.

The light wasn’t anything special this morning, overcast with some haze around. Great for getting long tonality captures and use of some in computer lighting techniques to create a composition.

I really didn’t mean to buy a new camera. I guess I should say that I thought about it and decided not to buy a compact. I wrote about canceling my Olympus XZ-1 order because I have never been happy with a compact. I’ve been impressed with output from the current generation of 10 megapixel compacts like the Canon s95, but for the money, I reasoned that I’d always be wanting a full sized sensor. Better to use the D7000 with a prime or two than a camera that I really didn’t want to work with.

I had also looked at the micro 4/3rds cameras, but they all seemed to be too big to slip into a briefcase like the compacts or my Sigma DP1. If its too big to carry when I can’t bring the D7000 with the Tokina 17-85 mm then I wasn’t gaining anything. Thom Hogan and Derrick Story are both very enthusiastic about micro 4/3rds and similar cameras as a format that is easier to carry than a full DSLR and yet provides equivalent images.

It is Dante Stella that I’m going to have to blame for this. He wrote about the Sony NEX-5 so seductively that I had to try one. And I bought it. My local shop, Service Photo, is dropping Sony so they cut me a good deal on camera and one lens kit. I had about 15 minutes shooting with it today during a visit to Johns Hopkins and the walk yielded this image.

Why the Sony? First of all it really is small enough to drop in my briefcase during a workday like today. I would never have carried the Nikon DSLR to this meeting. The photos you see of the camera makes it look ill-proportioned, but in the hand its a nice compact package that only as large as it needs to be.

As Dante points out, the interface is atypical for a DSLR but works well enough for my style of working. While its often said to be more like a compact camera in operation than a DSLR, it seems to me more like a cell phone interface than a camera interface. As long as I can get to standard camera controls rapidly I’m fine. Aperture, Shutter speed, exposure compensation are all easily changed.

THe sensor in the camera is an APS-C, the same dimensions as the D7000. As you can see, so far the images don’t disappoint. They have the resolution and microcontrast of a DSLR.

Too things really pushed me to buy the NEX-5. First the flip up screen allows the camera to be held at waist level like a TLR. Its a stable, unobtrusive way to hold a camera. This image was taken from waist level. Holding a camera up at arms length is not a good way to get tack sharp images like this, vibration reduction or not.

The second factor is the opportunity to use my Leica lenses on the camera with an adapter. I haven’t used the Leica M6 for at least 6 months but both resist selling the Leica kit and buying an M8 or M9. The NEX requires focusing on the camera screen rather than by rangefinder, but some photographers are doing this regularly. And the Sony’s 1.5 crop keeps lenses closer to their 35mm design than the 2.0 crop of micro four thirds.

Not a typical image for me, but it wall that was on offer for the new camera in the house.

In the documentary, David Hockney: A Bigger Picture, the painter David Hockney talks about how shadows were the reason why he moved to California from rural Britain.

His father was a fan of Laurel and Hardy. In those films, Hockney saw clear sharp shadows all the time, even if the setting was Christmas. He decided he wanted to live in a place like that, where the sun shone and, I think, illuminated the world.

Whenever I arrive in LA, I’m struck by the quality of light. Its as unique as the Old Masters light in The Netherlands and the Renaissance light of Italy.

I recall when I captured this I became aware of that quality of light and tried to capture it in the images, bringing it through the post-processing as well.

The refined approaches of Vincent Versace’s new book,Welcome to Oz 2.0: A Cinematic Approach to Digital Still Photography with Photoshop are contributing to my ability to communicate the quality of light. I’m working on making it my own since my goals are to emphasize the experience of light in a particular place.

I cancelled my preorder for the new Olympus XZ-1 compact this morning after some thought about whether I would really use it much. This is another image from my California trip, again proving to me that I could put the D7000 and Tamron zoom in my carry-on and capture images during a few hours of down time.

There are photographers that I respect who have been using the latest generation of compact cameras and the micro four thirds mirrorless cameras from Panasonic and Olympus as a lighter kit.

I’ve realized that I’m just not a travel, editorial or event photographer. I use my photography as a creative outlet. I return home from a vacation with photographs of stumps and storm drains. The big view location photographs tend to be uninteresting to me when I review the images.

Certainly I always wish I had more visual diary type images, but if I go out with a compact, I end up capturing what I find visually interesting, not what I want to remember.

I use my iPhone camera regularly because its connected and has geotagging built in. I can upload to Facebook for friends and family or send an email or MMS with the image. Downloading RAW files into Aperture just doesn’t have the same spontaneity.

I leave the Sigma DP1 out of the discussion because its a full size sensor compact and provides images of great quality. Its a slow, quirky camera with a slow fixed lens (f/4) and a sensor that doesn’t do well above ISO 400. But its been my travel creative camera and provided some of my best images. I also keep the Leica M6 for shooting film from time to time. But the D7000 is my camera of choice. I don’t see that adding an expensive compact like the Olympus is really going to help me capture more images.

Another take on the subject.

These were taken looking down on the break from the Malibu Fishing Pier. The Tamron zoom is racked out all the way.

One of the tricks here is using FocalPoint to create blur that makes it look like the perspective is closer, like using a tilt shift lens to create images that look miniature.

This is one of the fundamentals of Vincent Versace’s “cinematic” approach. Capture the image knowing what you can do in post processing, but preserve everything in the capture that you’ll need for the further manipulations. On film, you needed the tilt shift lens. In the digital realm, one can easily simulate the effect.

Another principle is to add these effects enough to get the brain to look, but not beyond believability. This is really a cinematic principle. We want suspension of disbelief, not disbelief itself.

I had a few hours to capture some images during a trip this week to LA. This is the ocean at Malibu.

As a workflow evolves, image capture should too. At the time of capture the are the basics of exposure, focus and composition. The post processing starts at capture. When I started capturing some simple wave on sand, I knew that I’d be working with a contrast in tone and texture between green ocean and warm sand.