F.R. “Fritz” Nordengren (beta)

Villahermosa is under water. What can we do?

My cell phone lit up with this text message at 10:45 today (11/4/07). The sender was Sue Ellen Ruggles, shown in this photo I took of her holding a mirror up for a young cleft lip patient to see his natural smile for the first time.

The photo was taken in Villahermosa, Mexico in 2000. According to news reports, today the city and State of Tabasco has 800,000 homeless and maybe 150,000 in shelters due to flooding and rain. Potable drinking water has been returned to approximately 30 percent of the area.

Here is Des Moines, a city about the same size as Villahermosa, we were flooded and without fresh water in 1993. Villahermosa, at an average of 10 meters above sea level, will have significant recovery issues
Sue Ellen is reaching out, I am reaching out, and soon, others of our teams will be reaching out to see the best way we can provide aid or be a conduit for aid.

When I left Villahermosa the first visit, I wrote this reflective piece about life’s questions.

More as I know it…

EDIT: Here is a like to Tabasco Hoy http://www.tabascohoy.com/villahermosa/

Or use a translate page to see in English.

Yahoo News photo show 

August 30 1997

Has the media pounded this topic into the ground yet? Do you remember what happened today in 1997? Do you remember what you were doing?

I remember because it changed the way I tell stories. And probably served as a role model for the way others tell stories, too.

Mark Hertzberg broke the news via an email discussion group for the National Press Photographers Association. I was a member and when his email popped up around 8:30, I read with great interest:


Subject: AP/Princess Di accident and Paparazzi
From: Hertzberg
Date: 1997/08/30
Message-ID:
Sender: NPPA Discussion List
Comments: ********************************************************
Reply-To: Hertzberg
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nppa-l
One posting, two subjects, to save bandwith:

1)
>I had a hiatus from daily PJ'ing for a few years, but back then AP paid us
>for submissions. Is this still the case? or only for freelancers and not
>newspaper staffers? Some photogs say yes, others say no. All I know is that
>I ain't getting paid for stuff I send from my paper.

The policy varies from state to state. Wisconsin does not pay. Contact your
local bureau photographer or bureau chief to find out more.

2) It's about 8:30 p.m. central time and CNN is reporting a serious
accident involving Princess Diana in a tunnel near the Seine in Paris. The
gentleman she has been recently romantically linked to was apparently
killed in the crash. A bodyguard/chauffeur was apparently killed, as well.
What is going to be interesting for us to follow in our profession
is that the CNN anchors are questioning tourist eyewitnesses about the
possibility of paparazzi on motorcycles being in the area. They want to
know if they were indeed following the princess, and, if so, if they have
have been the possible cause of the crash. An American tourist says a
photographer with a "professional camera" was on the scene in "five
seconds."

Mark Hertzberg

In the aftermath, the idea of paparrazi and photojournalists being one in the same created an opportunity to tell a story about life as a daily photojournalist working in a community newspaper.  The result was Behind the Viewfinder - A Year in the Life of Photojournalism.  The photojournalists, through me as editor, wrote journals — early blogs — about their daily work and life.  These increbly talented individuals brought digital storytelling on the web to a never before seen level.

Later this year, the site will include a recorded interview of the people who participated in the project.  The interview, recorded in 1999, has been reedited from it’s original public radio broadcast.

Behind the scenes at POY

Interactive categories went over big at 58th Annual Pictures of the Year competition.

There were a combined 51 entries in the two interactive categories at this year’s POY judging in Columbia, Missouri.

As a new media producer, and someone who has seen the high quality work that typically wins this award, I was curious about the judging process and when given the chance to watch part of the judging, I made the trek to Columbia last month.

How is it done? Web entrants are asked to send in a CD or other hard media version of their site, along with the web address of the project. One of the most striking things about judging was the presentation of projects. The judges then sit and watch a large screen projection of the project as an assistant navigates the mouse and their collective direction. The judges toss out links to “click” like captains barking orders to navigate ships into a harbor.

The other most striking thing was that the projects were viewed on one OS (Mac) and only in one browser (Netscape 4.7) and through a large multimedia projector, which makes the screen taller than the judges.

As a producer, I know two things about the web. First, it’s a one-to-one medium. Unlike television where several people can sit across the room and watch a linear program together, the web is one person in front of a screen, making choices about what to read or see or hear next.

The other thing I know is that web browsers show web sites differently. We typically test our projects in a number of web browsers (The Netscapes [4.05, 4.5, 4.7, 6 and 6.01] both on Mac, PC, and Linux) and the Internet Explorers (4.0 5.0, 5.5 again, on Mac and PC) and a few others like Opera. And also, 3 or 4 flavors of AOL’s built in browser on Mac’ and PC’s.

But for this judging, POY chose to limit the experience to Mac and Netscape 4.7. Which really reinforces the fact that on the web, it is an audience of one that matters most. In this case, the “one” is one system viewed by 5 judges.

The judges had a range of new media experience. Some had build multimedia projects, others had not. But really impressed me was the time they spent with each entry. Even if a site didn’t immediately grab their attention, they dug deeper to explore and review it. However, it usually was true that if a project didn’t capture the judges immediately, the deeper site was just as un-interesting.

The judging was kind. In most cases, the occasional broken link was assumed to be functional by the judges. During first round judging, any judge who felt strongly about a project could request that it be included in the second round, even in the other judges had voted it “out”. As a result, here are some things I came away with as general reactions:

1) Big media houses have finally embraced new media. As you look at the list of winners, it accurately reflects the number of entrants from large media organizations. It’s odd to me that a media so easy to publish in, in a contest essentially made up of entries submitted by individuals, lacked a majority of projects entered by individuals. I know from my own surfing, lots of quality sites did not enter the contest.

2) In general, judges disliked technology for technology’s sake. Two projects, judged back to back, included panoramic interactive photos. The judges universally disliked the one of photos only, but enjoyed one which included other story telling elements. As one of the judges commented, ” (if there are) lots of bells and whistles there better be a tune.”

3) Flash is universal. The use of Macromedia’s Flash technology in web projects is everywhere. The projects used flash seamlessly and in most cases, the use of Flash added to a project’s liability.

4) A universal dislike seemed to be Flash interactions that completely removed control from the user. A note to remember, make sure there is some way to navigate and control flash presentations including: stop, back to beginning, or jump specific images.

5) Judges seem to really like flash presentations that teased  in an almost television style - the subject or content of the story. Usually 10  15 seconds in length, these “attract sequences” pulled judges into the project and gave them an overture to the story.

6) Unlike Flash, the use of video is still a hodge podge of interfaces, and technology. One large media company had several entries, and each one used a different metaphor and interface for video. Even accounting for different delivery of video (Real, QuickTime and Windows media) video applications were clumsier than Flash. As interactive sites use more video, producers will need to have developers take care of video details behind the scenes in server based scripts to determine the appropriate format of video, and then show it to the user consistently.

Some of the projects were photography for photography’s sake. Online portfolios of amazing images caught the judges eyes even when there was a lack of a story other than “here’s my work on line.” Others were photo packages designed to supplement on-line reporting. Audio seems to be thought of as an add-on, rather than an integral part of the project. One of the projects I watched had the depth of audio experience of good public radio reporting, Some used audio effects to give feed back on mouse clicks (clicks, music notes, or the over used shutter-motordrive sound), the judges were split on whether this helped or hurt a project.

The winners are good projects. The content was interesting. If more individuals would enter their private stories, next year’s POY could be a very interesting contest.

It’s all about control

Tom Burton and I are back from Venezuela. The medical team is home and the children are safe. If you read last month’s column about the virtual mission web documentary project, or followed parts of it live, you got a chance to see what we were doing. 

I write this month to share two things–both have to do with control.

The first is: the equipment and formats we used give up some of the traditional control over levels and adjustments. With lower price equipment, there is compromise.

The second is: the tools and the execution can give you, as producer and photojournalist, full control over your story and content.

Our project had its share of challenges ­ both technical and executional. All in all, it was a great chance to test the concept, workflow issues and new gear.

Ever hear the joke: don’t try this at home, Hess a trained professional? Well, usually, most “trained professionals” wouldn’t do what we did with equipment. It is almost never a good practice to start a new job, new project, or travel a great distance from support with brand new equipment. But we did. We were lucky ­ and as we discussed last month. Our backup plan was to publish when we returned, which we didn’t have to do.

The Nikon D-1 had fewer than a dozen frames shot on it, and had been out of the box less than a week when we arrived in Caracas. The Powerbooks, donated by Apple Computer, had been in our hands less than two weeks, and the GL-1 had been out of the shipping box from Videosmith for only a few days.

To the credit of the equipment manufacturers, there were no real problems with any of the gear, but the risk factor was high. We were prepared for the worst ­ everything worked and the project was a success in the eyes of the mission sponsor, Operation Rainbow.

In my mind, on a 1 ­10 scale, our project was a strong 6.5 or 7. All things considered, that’s a success. We were able to produce new content every day ­ 3 times each day. The other side is, a few times, we were able to post only parts of our package ­ which resulted in bad pages, broken links and un-proofed versions being “live” for several hours before we could re-connect and correct what was wrong. Okay, maybe some might think that gives the site an edginess ­ but you can’t get away with that for long.

Here’s what we learned about the gear ­ and first off, let me say, some of our “problems” may be attributed to human operator error and a lack of experience with a particular piece of gear. Don’t consider this article a fair “review,” but rather, a field test with some insight as to what you might explore or look for when using these items.

	Hallways become edit booths during a break in the shooting in the hallway just ouside the operating rooms on the 4th floor of the hospital. Fritz Nordengren uses a PowerBook to review photos from the day’s shoot. Photo by Tom Burton.
Volunteers working with Operation Rainbow look over Tom Burton’s shoulder as he writes and edits for the web documentary project. The challenge of such a project is maintaining a level of objectivity when your audience can see what you write as you write it. Photo by F.R. “Frtiz” Nordengren.
	Editing locations were in the recovery area. This young boy was undergoing a cast change. His tears of fear and the high pitched whine of the cast saw made it impossible to edit video and audio, the best thing to do was hold his hand and try and ease his fear. Photo by Tom Burton.

Okay, I wrote before that I’ve heard mixed reviews on this wireless mic setup. Probably both extremes are correct, and it is truly a matter of perception.

Let’s be fair about our expectations. No, this wireless setup does not perform like a Sony or Lectrosonics wireless set. However, it can give a good sound for under $500. I recommend it. But, listen to your audio with good headphones as you record, and if you need more quality invest in a better system.

Both the transmitter and receiver run on 9V batteries, and the unit is SMALL, which is nice. It mounts easily to the bottom of the GL-1 with Velcro and also clips easily to your subject. Its small size allows them to quickly forget they are wearing a mic, and that leads to more natural sound bites. The housing of the receiver and the transmitter are plastic and after time, won’t hold up the way a metal case will. Also, it’s unlikely the housings will stand up to being dropped much.

Digital audio is not forgiving like analog audio. So, the makers of the Samson unit allow some control over the signal leaving the receiver and going into the camera. It does have variable audio output levels of ­10dBv ­20dBv and ­30dBv. Right away, this points out a potential problem when used with the GL-1. Its inputs are ­55dBv or ­35dBv (with the attenuation on). This means you start with a hot audio signal coming into the camera. Then, since the camera has an automatic gain control circuit, the level gets compressed to avoid distortion. There is no way to switch off the AGC, and it is an AGC and not a “peak limiter” which introduces the second issue.

A peak limiter allows manual control of audio until it gets too loud ­ then the peak limiter takes over and compresses the signal to prevent distortion.

An AGC does this AND also raises the levels to the same consistent level throughout. The circuit seeks out a soft signal and boots it to full. This greatly reduces the effectiveness of an add-on mixer like a Beachtek or StudioOne box.

At the last minute, we added a Beachtek box to the GL-1. It is a must for getting XLR inputs into the GL-1, and it does allow you to lower the overall level coming into the camera ­ which will reduce the amount of compression you’ll hear in the audio. It was very easy to overdrive the audio and get too hot a signal coming into the system. Good news: it isn’t distorted; bad news: it’s compressed and sounds it on the tapes.

Another important point to consider with a Beachtek or similar adapter is that the AGC circuit will “average” the left and right channels coming into the camera. If you have only one mic recording, I would leave the unused mic potentiometer up full, and I would also record to both channels ­ giving an equal signal to left and right, to get a more accurate audio track.

In our setup, I left the Sennheiser on the camera hot even when using the wireless, to provide a backup audio track and to try and keep the AGC balanced.

(Note: Baffled by audio? Pick up Joe Rose’s book: Producing Great Sound for Digital Video, published by Miller Freeman books as part of the DV expert’s series)
“I want it now” control: The Nikon D-1

We had great success with this camera. Being new to it, much of the shooting was done in auto mode, and we were very pleased with the results. There were some white balance issues we encountered, along with some frame-to-frame inconsistency with color balance, especially in multi-frame shooting. However, both Tom and I felt it was more attributable to user error than any particular camera failing.

Like most D-1 users, we found batteries went quicker than normal because we liked to look at the previews for instant gratification. More experienced D-1 shooters assure us that as time goes on, battery life “increases” because the LCD screen is left off more. I would guess that is true.

The big surprise ­ as a personal note ­ once I got used to seeing that instant gratification of photos, my motivation to shoot film dropped. I shot almost no film for the entire trip. I’m not bashing film, or saying that digital will replace film. But, I was amazed at the change in my motivation.
The production control: All in a PowerBook

At the center of our ability to produce content and edit was the G3 PowerBook from Apple. We had two identical systems, and then two dial-up connections to the state university, with a 256 link from there to the Internet. Our Internet connection did go down several times. Fortunately, AOL has a dial-up access point in Caracas, and using an AOL connection, we were able to connect and upload pages when our main connection was down. It was, though, a slow dial-up connection, which made it nearly impossible to post high-bandwidth video and audio to our server in the states.

But we were able to create it on-scene.

In addition to Photoshop, we also used FotoStation 4.0 as a digital light table to sort and manipulate photos. FotoStation seems more versatile than Extensis Portfolio, and facilitates cataloging and archiving a shoot such as this project.
Final thoughts: now you’re in control

This project was a great prototype to test workflow. In general, the concept of producing event-based websites is a market with will grow and offers huge opportunities for photojournalists. As a one-person show, or a two-person team, this formula can transfer to trade shows, traveling exhibits, rock and roll tours ­ any event where people come together for a focused activity.

You can control most every element from concept up to and including publication. With these tools, you can capture, create, edit and publish anywhere to the Web. We’ve done it from Venezuela, and I’ll do it later this year from both Mexico and Vietnam.

This is a great time to be a storyteller.

New Year’s Resolutons for New Media Producers

It’s the time of year when we all lie to ourselves:
Lose (random integer here) pounds
Run a mile in less time than it takes to process a roll of C41
Bench press the ISO rating of my favorite film
Visit a homeless shelter, no, wait÷. Volunteer at, no, wait….
Build a homeless shelter
Get my columns to my editor on time

But, kidding aside, there is something about the new year that brings the “potential” for change to our lives. And if you are ready for some change, here is my list of suggested resolutions you can add to your list:

1) Enough is enough. I will stop buying software upgrades just because they are released.
This isn’t meant as a slap to the industry. I believe in worthwhile upgrades. But, I’ve fallen victim to automatically upgrading software because it was released, not because it works in my projects. Premiere 5.0 is one example. A great product, a great company. I saw it at NAB and upgraded. While I edit primarily on AVID, Premiere does some things easier than other tools I have on my shelf–like make QuickTime movies and easy export to Real Video. That was April of ‘98. Now version 5.1 is released and they still don’t support the Truevision DTX video board.(soon they say, soon). My point is, just because it’s released doesn’t mean it works for me.
2) I will help someone who is not on the Internet discover the world of online communication.

It’s time to be a new media evangelist. I’ll give you an example. My sister is 50+ years old and retired at age 50. She’s traveled much of the world, and is an avid movie buff. She used computers in her job. Of all the people I know, she would really enjoy the online experience÷. But, my sister is still off-line. She says she doesn’t want anything to do with computers now that she’s retired. Maybe this is the year I send her Web TV. (It’s not a computer, its TV.)

2a) I will help someone who is on the Internet rediscover the real world outside.

The real world is bigger than 640 x 480.

Ignoring all the pop psyche studies about whether spending too much time on the Internet makes depressed people more depressed, or brings people together ala “You’ve Got Mail.” It’s time to get out of the chair and into the world more. I chose a life as an independent producer to get away from tyrannical bosses and ridiculous schedules.

My email has become one of the tyrannical bosses. Hell, I even give some folks the email address of my digital phone-I can be emailed when I’m in the car! (What was I thinkin’?)
3) As a producer, I’ll make sure the people working with me have the tools necessary to do their jobs.

This is the opposite of #1 above. In my role as producer, I need to understand what tools are necessary for doing the work in my shop. Look at the tools your competitors (or associates) are using and make sure that yours are up to speed.
4) Just for kicks, I’ll try to put together a package using low cost consumer tools.

I think at times, we have so many tools, effects and gizmos available that we forget how to tell a story–simply. So try this some weekend: put together a project using simple consumer tools. Shoot with a VHS C or 8mm camcorder. Edit with an inexpensive edit package like Avid Cinema ($99). Tell a story. Use good light. Listen to the nat sound audio. Edit in camera as much as possible.

I have a Sharp Viewcam we use for home movies. Frankly, I always have fun shooting with this camera. It’s a simple, 8mm format and the quality is not “broadcast quality,” but it does produce a nice image for home movies. It’s a camera you can turn on and pass around the room.
5) I will give someone a “break” into the business.

You remember what it felt like when you got yours.
6) When I see someone’s work I really like, I will let them know.

I will send them an email (see #2 above)–or–I will send them a hand written note (see #2a above).
7) I will learn the difference between editing and spell checking, and do both in my written work.

If your projects use a displayed word–we can’t limit our thinking to “printed” anymore–it’s time to remember the basics. We need to spell check (I’m guilty of this one) and edit. That includes some basic things like lead writing and copyfitting.

Writing for the computer screen includes editing so that the words are easy to read, that line breaks make sense, and the display works well on little screens as well as big screens. If you are doing Web stuff, the “standard” monitor size is reduced to a display area of 600 x 300 pixels after you account for the browser navigation buttons. Web TV is 544 x 378, and a Palm Pilot is 160 x 120. If you are delivering text content to folks on those platforms, editing for the screen is going to be crucial. (We’re blessed at The Digital Journalist with a good editor. Self-editing is much harder.)
9) I will keep a “list” of projects I want to do on my desk at all times.

This is my creative fuel. These are the projects I would do if I had no obstacles. I think Robert Schuller calls it–what would you do if you could not fail. I have a list of 7 to 10 projects I keep in front of me, and every so often I connect with someone who can help take one of them to the next step.

Here are two from my list, anyone interested?

“Seven Rivers - Seven Years” - Interactive & video documentary of life along: The Nile, Ganges, Mekong, Mississippi, Amazon, Chang (Yangtze), Volga

“So Now What do We Do? Ashes to Ashes - Dust to Dust” - Interactive & video documentary describing death and post death ceremony and practice.

9a) And while I’m at it, I’ll keep short proposals for pitches on my hard drive so I can send one out at a moment’s notice. It’s amazing, with the ease of desktop publishing, layout, and mail-merge (or search and replace) how quick it can be to print out (or email) a custom proposal to the sponsor, producer, or client. After all, isn’t that what I bought a computer for?
10) Work less, play more.

My office used to be across the street from a cemetery. In all the time I walked through it, I never saw a tombstone with the epitaph “I wish I spent more time at the office.”

There you have it. From my chair, 1999 looks like a great time to be a storyteller.