“The director of the documentary told me..."

Marcia Clark reports that David Wells lied in Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.

Polanski's Lost Alibi

'“I lied,” Wells told me yesterday, referring to his comments in the movie that he told the judge how he could renege on a plea bargain agreement and send Polanski back to jail after he had been released from a 42-day psychiatric evaluation—the heart of Polanski’s claims of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. “I know I shouldn’t have done it, but I did. The director of the documentary told me it would never air in the States. I thought it made a better story if I said I’d told the judge what to do.”'

Will this change the position of the 100+ directors who have signed the petition supporting freeing Polanski?

Besides removing one of the arguments those supporting Polanski have used, it leaves one curious about the process of interviewing Wells. Will the production of the documentary become a discussion in the -- already overflowing -- set of ethical questions documentarians face?

Carl Schurz Park

I always forget Carl Schurz Park is one block from our apartment. Mrs. New York Portraits and I went for a walk at sundown tonight, through the park and then along East 78th Street. I'm not sure why I like 78th so much, but it feels very neighborhoody to me.

Above: an iPhone snapshot, looking toward the Queensboro Bridge.

Polanski Update

I posted yesterday that Facts Matter in the Polanski case. Since then, many incredible directors, authors, and others I respect have come out in support of Mr. Polanski.

I am still correct, and they are still wrong -- no matter how wonderful they are in all other ways..

I am embarrassed that they have come out in support of this man's actions, as support for an admitted child rapist is a stain on their reputations. I believe the facts will be revealed. I expect some of them may have signed the petition based on their misperception that this was a charge related to consensual sex. A thirteen year old cannot give consent -- and the court testimony reveals she said no, told Mr. Polanski to stop, and resisted in other ways.

There's much more to this, but I want to repost fact one, a fact you can check yourself and decide for yourself: Go and read the victim's testimony, starting on page 26 and count how many times the 13 YEAR OLD GIRL said "NO" and "STOP" and indicated she did not want to stay or for Polanski to continue.

I think that is rape. You may feel otherwise, but I think that's clear.

Whoopi Goldberg doesn't seem to think so, and she is wrong. As are Salman Rushdie, Milan Kundera, Mike Nichols, Claude Lanzmann and Woody Allen.

I'm aware of what seems to be judicial misconduct regarding the sentence. Please note -- not judicial misconduct while determining the facts. Mr. Polanski admitted the facts of the case.

I think Mr. Polanski should appeal because of what happened with the sentencing. Perhaps he will be given time served, perhaps he will be given a substantial sentence. He does not get to decide -- a judge or jury does.

Even if he were given no further time to serve, the facts of the case will not change: the evidence says he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl. There were six charges against him, the outcome was a plea agreement to a lesser charge.

I am embarrassed for those speaking out for him. He committed a crime, and fled when he did not like the sentence he would receive. He did not stay and begin an appeal, he did not argue his case in the media, he fled. And now he's been apprehended. It's a matter for the courts, not for film directors and television hosts -- especially if they have not read the facts of the case.

Yes, I've seen the documentary on the matter. As always, I'm for documentaries on difficult issues. Yes, I'm aware his victim does not want him to serve more time.

But the main point here -- that smart people are signing a very stupid petition, calling for the release of a man who fled sentencing and who did not serve the time decided by the state of California for a crime he admits committing -- stands. Mr. Polanski, by his own admission, committed very serious acts. I cannot support his inability to be man enough to stand up to the charges and I cannot support this misguided petition in his name.

Facts Matter

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

William Eggleston on SnagFilms

One of my students brought up William Eggleston. And ... here he is.

(You have to be in the right mood for this. In a way, that's true about Eggleston's work as well.)

Friday Film

I mentioned this film in class last night, so ... here it is.

Blind Faith: A Film About Seeing follows the Seeing With Photography Collective, a group of blind photographers working in New York. (You need Flash installed to see the video player above.)

Click the player above, or you can also see the film at: SnagFilms. (If you click "snag this film" you can embed it on any site.)

Rhymes With Class

Well, the first "Seriously Fun Photography" class is all behind me now.

We learned that to control exposure, we need to work with three related elements: Aperture, Shutter Speed, and Sensitivity.

Aperture:
The f/stops to memorize are f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22. If you forget these, make two columns, and at the top of the left one write 1.4 and at the top of the right one write 2.0. Now double each number as you go down the column (rounding off when needed). Changing one stop lets in twice as much light (or half as much, depending on which direction you go. f/2 lets in a lot of light, f/22 lets in very little light. So if you took a picture using f/8 and it seemed a little too dark, you would switch to f/5.6. If you took a picture using f/8 and it seemed a little too bright, you'd switch to f/11.

Shutter Speed:
The common shutter speeds are:

1/1000th of a second
1/500th
1/250th
1/125th
1/60th
1/30th
1/15th
1/8th
1/4th
1/2
1 second.

-- As a rule of thumb, if you are moving and you're subject is moving, you'll want to be shooting at 1/1000th of a second to get a sharp picture.

-- If you are still but the subject is moving along, it would be good to be at 1/250th or faster.

-- If you and the subject are both relatively still, you can probably handhold the camera as slow as 1/60th, but slower than that and you'll get a soft picture because of camera shake caused by pressing the shutter.

-- At speeds that are slower, you'll need a tripod to steady the camera, and probably want to trigger it using the self-timer or a release.

-- Many decent cameras have higher shutter speeds, and these are very useful for action or sports.

Notice that the relationship of these shutter speed settings is also doubling (or halving) the amount of light that hits your sensor.

Sensitivity:
This is the ISO "speed" of a digital sensor or of film. ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 and 3200 are available on many cameras (but not all), and you should take some test shots with yours to find out if the higher ISO settings are usable or not. Figure out the fastest ISO speed you find produces acceptable shots on your camera -- you'll need to switch to it sooner or later. Notice that each ISO speed is twice as sensitive (or half as sensitive) as the next.

Then we decided to start applying our general knowledge about the relationship between apertures and depth of field. While we start to get the idea when we say "f/2 -- shallow depth of field and f/22 - deep depth of field" actually trying this out in with some real world shots is always a good experiment.

So we set up an experiment that can be repeated at home: set your camera on a table or a tripod, and in front of it arrange people or objects in a receding line. Put the first person or thing just 3 feet away from the lens, and have the furthest be at least 12 feet away. Now set the widest aperture you can -- I use a lens that goes to f/1.4 for this -- and focus on the closest person or object. You'll probably find that the people / objects behind that are out of focus. Now run through the whole series of aperture settings you have available (you'll probably want to be in "aperture priority mode" so that the camera sets the corresponding shutter speed for an acceptable exposure. Or you can set that yourself). Try this and compare each shot -- more and more will be in focus until you should be able to get everyone in focus.

Now, keep in mind there's one other factor here -- the focal length you shoot with. Usually the effect of getting a main subject in focus and the background out of focus is much easier to achieve if you use a lens of at least 50mm or set as zoom to 50mm focal length or a more telephoto setting.

Many photographers think that "telephoto lenses have shallow depth of field and wide angle lenses have deep depth of field" -- it turns out that isn't exactly true, but for pragmatic purposes it isn't a bad way to think. If the goal is a sharp subject and a blurry background -- grab a 90mm or set your zoom lens about there.

(For a discussion on why the wide focal lens = deep depth of field idea isn't precisely true, read Do wide-angle lenses give you greater depth of field than long lenses?.)

Another thing that comes up at this point: some lenses allow your camera to reach to f/1.4 or f/2 or f/2.8, but many times the "kit lens" zoom that comes with a DSLR or the zoom lens built into a compact camera will not go to that wide-open an aperture. And to further add to the confusion: many common lenses that go from 18mm to 55mm (or 70mm) let you go to f/3.5 when using the widest focal length (18mm) but only to f/5.6 when you are using the long end of the lens (55mm or 70mm). That's just how those lenses are built.

Now, once we know a technique to control depth of field -- go towards f/2 to get a sharp person, blurry background or toward f/22 to get subject and background both focuses -- we want to think about why we would do it. Well, it's that kind of control that lets us emphasize or deemphasize what a viewer sees in a photograph, so we want to master it so we can control our images. Need to photograph a person against a cluttered, distracting background? Use selective focus. Need to show that a person has kids but keep the emphasis on the person? Use selective focus to make the kids visible but de-emphasized.

So, from a technical standpoint, as we approach any photo situation we'll want to decide on an ISO setting, a shutter speed and an aperture. The three are interrelated and all use a doubling / halving system so it is easy to calculate how to change them when needed.

De Chirico In The Bronx

This term I'm teaching one class in The Bronx instead of two. Which means instead of a trip north, a class, a break, a class, and a trip down to 86th Street, my day is train / class / train.

I like that significantly less, and it messes up my schedule, wipes out what remains of my energy and makes it hard to get everything done. Still, it's not a bad commute -- just long enough I can read a bit on the train.

Above: an iPhone snap from today.

Followed By Bad

So Festival A emails during the summer: "Please send Film X for our consideration."

"Huh," I say. "I didn't think that was a good match for that fest, but they must have some programming idea going if they've asked for it. I'll send it in. Maybe they'll go for it. That's really exciting."

The very next day, Festival B emails: "We'd like to see Film X -- we think it might be a match for a program we're putting together."

"Well, alright," I say. "It does seem like a match there. Never heard of them before, but it looks like it could be a good event. How exciting. Everyone wants Film X."

Dissolve to: Months later. Festival A emails: no thanks.

Cut to: Five minutes later. Festival B emails: no thanks.

That's how it goes. I then look at what films have been chosen:

"Ah, that one is good, and that one. Don't know the rest.... Wait. There's that one short film that's been screening at every fest I've been in recently. It's made by a filmmaker who has completed and sold multiple feature films. It's in -- in the Amateur Production category? What the heck?"

Did the filmmaker enter it in the "Amateur" category? Did the fest look at it and say "this is a great amateur production!" and select it? I guess I'll never know.

Good News

My Seriously Fun Photography class is a go. We meet for our first session Thursday night.

It's walking distance from my apartment, and we keep everything low-stress and high-fun. So I'm looking forward to it. (An advanced class is scheduled to start in six weeks, also, if enough people enroll.)

Above: an iPhone snap from today.

On University Avenue

Above: an iPhone snap from today in The Bronx.

Updating

I'm updating http://tedfisher.com/. I've made many, many Web sites, but I always forget to update my own.

Documentaries in the News

John Cage once told this story:

Artists talk a lot about freedom. So, recalling the expression “free as a bird,” Morton Feldman went to a park one day and spent some time watching our feathered friends. When he came back, he said, “You know? They’re not free: they’re fighting over bits of food.”

There's a sense, as the distribution system for documentaries seems to slowly implode, that there's a glut of content. So, a lot of documentarians are fighting over bits of food.

With the wind blowing in that direction, the Los Angeles Times asks:

Ken Burns: Was a backlash inevitable?

"While Burns is one of the best known and most watched documentarian of recent times, he has also acquired his share of detractors. Though he's generally respected by critics and scholars, a backlash has been building, dismissing him as middlebrow, charging that he's repeating himself, that he's too earnest, too dark or naively patriotic."

Law And Order

Had to go to the Court House today. They happened to be shooting Law and Order at the front of the building. Snapped this iPhone pic as I walked in.

A Golden Age For Shorts?

On my other blog I have a post up about Docunomics looking at how penny-per-view and "long tail" models add up, or don't. It started me thinking, though, about how this might change the way we think about feature films and short films.

Basically, for online distributors, the model is to put a commercial at the beginning of the video. In a short film, that's very simple: you watch a 15 second (sometimes longer!) commercial then see the short film. In a sense, that's the most direct translation of the original free television model, with the added bonus for viewers of choosing what they see and when, and the added bonus for advertisers in that they can precisely target an audience.

In feature-length films, however, it gets a little trickier. Generally, there's an ad at the beginning, then sometimes 4 or 5 ads inserted into breaking points in the film. If someone doesn't watch the later ones, there's no payment for those.

Well, think that through: a feature film, unless made as a no-budget effort with everything deferred, has a huge production budget. For narrative film, that's in the millions, for big-budget documentary that's in the 100,000s, for small-budget documentary -- if you are honestly counting everyone's deferred salary -- in the 10,000s.

Still, to an advertiser, one view is one view. If a 3-minute short gets someone to watch one ad, and the feature length film only gets someone to watch 5 ads, there's an interesting advantage to the short. Someone who made 5 incredibly-popular shorts could in theory match the online advertising revenue of one feature film.

Of course, good features become juggernauts: they get written about in the media, gain fans, get reviews, get nominated for awards. They are marketed, and -- usually, but not always -- cycle through film festivals, DVD sales, broadcast and DVD rental before going online. So the online ad money is icing on the cake.

It's interesting, though, that some advantages appear in this model for short films: many people are comfortable watching a short online, but don't want to spend 90 minutes hunched over a computer or wearing headphones. Someone not specifically looking for a film would certainly be more likely to impulse-watch a short than a feature, as well.

So while traditionally short films have been seen as a "training" area of filmmaking -- lower production cost in time, money and other resources, but less interest in general and usually no DVD sales except in collections (where the revenue is then split many ways) -- an ad view is an ad view, and online that might mean making many shorts could be a viable production model.

These are interesting times, no question.

Dektol, Google, Squabble?

Danny Lyon has a few words about his books The Bikeriders, The Destruction of Lower Manhattan, and Conversations with the Dead showing up online.

Under Google’s new rules, Conversations with the Dead could be scanned and put on line by Google without even contacting me. Many photo book makers are torn between standing up for their rights, and “being left out” by the Ruler of the Internet.

Linear

Today I taught a class in linear editing. That means tape decks, not computers. It's a good step in the learning process: it forces people to organize and think before cutting. It's slow, though, and challenging, and leaves little room for changing your mind or experimenting. At one time, that was video editing.

Latest Book Re-read

I teach both online and in person. In person, I see the frowns when I say "... and finish the Walter Murch book by Wednesday, there will be a quiz."

C'mon, people -- the main part of the book is only 72 pages. It's in big type. It's in a friendly style.

So I've just re-read it, and highly recommend it for anyone interested in the big ideas behind editing -- and some very good practical advice.

The Big Three Oh Oh

My other blog just hit a milestone. In fact, there are several posts there you might like to see: on Documentary Ethics, on HD cameras, and on the Olympia Film Festival.

Hoop Springs Eternal Going To Olympia Film Festival

Just confirmed: our short film "Hoop Springs Eternal" will screen in November at the Olympia Film Festival. More soon.

Robert Frank and Helen Levitt at Film Forum

I hope to be able to go and see An American Journey: In Robert Frank's Footsteps when it shows at Film Forum at the end of the month. Included in the program is a short film by Helen Levitt.

The Title Says It All

These Photographs Were Taken By Dogs

I like the last one.

The Twittering Class

My second venture onto Twitter has, so far, been more enjoyable. I'm not completely convinced of it's value, but I do now think you can use it without too much annoyance.

Sometimes, that's enough of a goal.

Still, I find myself seeing people looking at their phone instead of their friend, or walking-while-texting, or otherwise not seeing what's around them. I think they may be missing the point.

Photo Class at Hunter

My Seriously Fun Photography class starts at Hunter Continuing Education September 17th. If enough people sign up. So tell your friends.

Go to this interface and type "photography" into the search box. (That will also reveal the advanced class I'll be teaching later in the season.)

"SERIOUSLY FUN PHOTOGRAPHY
Build on the basics and master the skills and ideas advanced photographers use in a fun, low-pressure class. Open to anyone able to shoot a photo and import it into a computer (and welcoming advanced students as well), in this class we'll use the digital camera as a fast way to learn the essentials of photography. We'll learn-by-doing, exploring professional techniques while creating a portfolio project (on any topic of your choice) to show your advanced skills. If you've always been interested in photography, but have put off becoming great at it, this is your chance.

6 Session(s) 12 Hour(s) Tuition: $250.00 Meet: Thursday
Date: 09/17/09-10/22/09 Time: 06:00PM-08:00PM
Location: CS, 71 E 94 ST./ Instructor(s): FISHER, TED"

Above: an iPhone snapshot, today on 89th Street.

Blind Faith: A Film About Seeing

Blind Faith: A Film About Seeing follows the Seeing With Photography Collective, a group of blind photographers working in New York. (You need Flash installed to see the video player above.)

Click the player above, or you can also see the film at: SnagFilms. (If you click "snag this film" you can embed it on any site.)

Day for Night

Every once in a while I realize there's a film I should have seen, but somehow missed. Fortunately, our local video store is on the corner, less than 50 yards away. So a very easy, very worthwhile walk means I have Truffaut's film in hand. I'll report back on it after a close viewing.

Report from Rooftop

Enjoyed the screening at Rooftop. "Notebook" played well, causing steady chuckling and a few bigger laughs. The word for the evening: quirky.

Above: free beer at Fontana's after the screening.

Notebook at Rooftops

Tonight, I'll be at the Storms Expected screening.

Screening "Notebook" Saturday Night

Saturday night I will be at Storms Expected showing Notebook on Santas and Elves. Rooftop Films puts together great programs, so I expect it will be a fun time. Also, there's an open bar, and Mrs. New York Portraits tells me that Raderberger is a fine beer, perfect for LES rooftop screenings.

STORMS EXPECTED (short films)
Venue: On the Open Road Rooftop above New Design High School
Address: 350 Grand St. @ Essex (Lower East Side, Manhattan)
Directions: F/J/M/Z to Essex/Delancey
Rain: In the event of rain the show will be held indoors at the same location
8:00PM: Doors open
8:30PM: Live music presented by Sound Fix Records
9:00PM: Films
11:30PM-1:00AM: After-party: Open Bar at Fontana’s (105 Eldridge St. @ Grand) Courtesy of Radeberger Pilsner
Tickets: $9 at the door or online at www.rooftopfilms.com

Be Gentle, Slow Down

I've had to slow down, for a number of reasons. It's important to get things in order and focus on the most important things. It does seem like the law of averages is not currently on my side, but perhaps that will change.

A related note: Am I back on Twitter, which I've previously likened to a cocktail party for people with earplugs? (Picture everyone standing alone, shouting at intervals, and rarely listening to anything except their own insights on how much more important making a brand is than making art.)

Well, yes.

I have a screening coming up this Saturday, two films currently on Snagfilms, and a Continuing Ed class to promote. While I am struggling to catch up with everything -- and, at the same time, very purposefully trying to avoid overwork and the difficulties it causes -- it seems important to make myself easy to find. For whatever that's worth. So follow me there, but keep in mind I'm only following people I know in "real life" or that I have a lot in common with. I can't, at the moment, focus on too many things at once or in the midst of noise. I think I'm supposed to be adding quiet, and I'm not sure how that's done.

Above: an iPhone snap. Very busy street, turned to the side and saw this. Luckily, since it is the iPhone, the door didn't move.

iPhoning It In

Chris Corradino has an iPhone Gallery up, so I thought I would post a quick snap from mine. I find the iPhone is great for buildings, items on the ground, and anything that will wait a very long time.

Seriously Fun Photography September 17th

My Seriously Fun Photography class starts at Hunter Continuing Education starts September 17th. So, register now.

They've changed the Web site, so the way to see the listing and register is to go to this interface and type "photography" into the search box. (That will also reveal the advanced class I'll be teaching later in the season.)

"SERIOUSLY FUN PHOTOGRAPHY
Build on the basics and master the skills and ideas advanced photographers use in a fun, low-pressure class. Open to anyone able to shoot a photo and import it into a computer (and welcoming advanced students as well), in this class we'll use the digital camera as a fast way to learn the essentials of photography. We'll learn-by-doing, exploring professional techniques while creating a portfolio project (on any topic of your choice) to show your advanced skills. If you've always been interested in photography, but have put off becoming great at it, this is your chance.

6 Session(s) 12 Hour(s) Tuition: $250.00 Meet: Thursday
Date: 09/17/09-10/22/09 Time: 06:00PM-08:00PM
Location: CS, 71 E 94 ST./ Instructor(s): FISHER, TED"