Rosacea

Preparations for a wonderful holiday in Italy have delayed this month 's posting. While not of a creative nature, the subject is nevertheless an important one for those who have to deal with it on a daily basis.

Rosacea is a skin condition that is often mistaken for acne vulgaris (the bane of many a young person going through adolescence), but it is different in a number of ways. For starters, it is not about raging hormones, blocked pores and over-production of sebum. Almost the opposite, as it tends to be a condition in older people. It is also limited to the face and eyes, whereas acne can also be a problem on other parts of the body, especially the back.

Although the exact causes of rosacea are not well understood, and a number of explanations can be found on the internet, there seems to be a link between age and genetics. Fair-haired and pale-skinned people into their 50s and beyond are more likely show symptoms. These may include swelling of some parts of the face, redness of facial skin, the appearance of tiny veins on the face, spots resembling acne, growth and swelling of the end of the nose, and redness in the eyes.

Some symptoms (types) will come and go in response to triggers such as stress, weather, temperature, chemicals and even diet, but others such as spider veins and swelling of the nose cannot be reversed without medical treatment. Rosacea sufferers will try to control or minimise their triggers based on a process of trial and error, to prevent uncomfortable and/or embarrassing flare-ups. Some products (e.g., cosmetics) can be used to hide some of the effects of rosacea.

I was diagnosed with rosacea in my mid-40s. I had endured acne since becoming a teenager, and had managed to control it for the most part, but I was never entirely free of it in 30 years. Perhaps it was in my genes that I would develop rosacea; but I think that my long-suffering face had been subject to too many acne creams, gels, lotions, and soaps. Not to mention topical antibiotics, unprotected sun exposure and 18 harsh Canadian winters!

It seems that I get occurrences of most of the the rosacea types, thankfully not too severe. I have since had low-dose treatment with Accutane, and undergone rhinoplasty to improve the state of my nose. I use Metrogel fairly regularly to help control any inflamed areas.

I try to avoid getting any sort of product on my face, as this generally causes irritation and inflammation. I have to be especially careful about shampoos and skin cleansers. (Anything with a fragrance is usually trouble!) In the summer, over-exposure to the sun is a problem, so it is a juggling act to find a gentle sun screen coupled with a gentle cleanser to remove it afterwards. I am still trying to work out which ingredients are most irritating...

When all is said and done, there are many people worse off than myself: I will never look that great -- especially up close -- but it is not a life-threatening condition.

Film or digital?

A few years ago, I assumed that things had run their course and digital photography had become the norm. Indeed, it is an accepted part of everyday life, when most mobile phones now come with a usable digital camera. Film is something that some professionals and some enthusiasts still use, but it has all but disappeared from the high street for everyday use. Nevertheless, a few younger people are discovering the creative possibilities of film, and it seems to be enjoying something of a revival.

I used film regularly between 1970 and 2007. I bought my first digital camera in 2005. Although I was not initially thrilled with the idea that a computer was a useful photographic accessory, it has since become an essential storage device and tool. Could I imagine a time when I might abandon digital photography in favour of film? An interesting question.

Although I enjoyed the discipline of using and processing film, it was not without its frustrations. There were a number of risks and uncertainties, any of which could spoil or even ruin the results. Setting aside the basics of getting a good exposure and capturing the subject, on various occasions I have been let down by poor film loading, camera failure and human error during processing. But it is mighty satisfying when it all comes out well. I always get a buzz from doing something creative with my hands.

In comparison, digital photography is all about technology. Even the most basic digital camera will do nearly everything for you -- all you have to do is point the camera in the appropriate direction and press the button! You can immediately see whether the camera has captured the image you intended, and if you are not happy you may be able to have another go. This also serves as confirmation that the camera is functioning as expected. Furthermore, you are not limited to about 40 exposures before you  need to change media. A memory card can hold hundreds of images, even video. (But battery life can be more of a consideration...)

So, digital photography sounds wonderful. I wish I had had a point-and-shoot digital camera when I was growing up! However, there is one worrying deficiency that no-one seems to talk about. By its very nature, film (with the exception of Polaroid) results in exposed negatives and positives (slides). This is the raw data. From these, prints and scans can be made (with additional processing). But more significantly, a person can look at a negative or slide with the naked eye and know that it is a photographic image.

In contrast, digital photography generates images in the form of digital data files. These require some sort of digital device to read and decode the digital data. The problem is, technology moves forward relentlessly. SD memory cards and JPEG format files are common in 2017, but what will the future be like in 40, 30, or even 20 years? Can we expect to be able to read an SD card in 20 years, and will we still be able to decode a JPEG file?

The point is, the long term survival of our digital memories is at risk. There is still currently no digital archival media available for consumer use that is guaranteed to be good for 40 years. No digital equivalent of the slide or negative. So if we fail to keep migrating our digital data to the latest technology, there is a real risk that it will become unreadable and therefore lost. (Even a digital mass storage device is subject to physical damage.) The best we can do is to make prints of our digital images and store them carefully. Which, sadly, is how it was 50 years ago, so things have not really changed that much!

And to answer the question I posed, despite the archival problem, I find digital photography too convenient to forsake it completely for film. When I get to retirement, I dare say I will be tempted to dust off my old 35 mm cameras to see whether they still work, and to see whether I am still capable of processing film. Here's hoping that I will still be able to buy new film and processing chemicals when the time comes...

Canon EOS digital colour

Last summer I treated myself to my first digital single lens reflex camera (DSLR). (A Canon EOS 100D for those who are interested in such things.) It was somewhat of an impulse purchase, as the plan was to shop for a laptop -- so I think I must have got distracted...

As with my earlier rambling blog postings about (compact) digital camera colour, I was interested to see what the default colour of a DSLR would look straight out of the factory, so to speak. This first image shows the results of "right out of the box", on the Automatic ("A+") setting.

My assessment of this photo is that -- like the output of the compact camera previously -- it is contrasty, over-saturated and too blue. Look at the reflection in the window in the background, and those flowers beyond the wall should be more purple. (But I appreciate that there are those who will prefer it this way. Life would be dull and devoid of variety if we all liked the same thing!)

Predictably, I felt that the colour reproduction could be improved. As the settings on modern EOS DSLRs are a little different from what I was used to in PowerShot compacts, I referred to this article for some suggestions as to what I could change and how it would affect my images. If it isn't already obvious, I am a believer in Straight Out Of Camera (SOOC) -- getting the camera settings as close as I can, so I don't have to waste time in front of the computer fiddling with stuff later!

Having experimented with the Custom Color settings of the Canon PowerShot S95, I was surprised to find that EOS DSLRs only offer settings for Picture Style, Contrast, Sharpness, Saturation, and Skin Tone. (Plus the usual adjustments for Auto White Balance (AWB).) The RGB adjustments of the S95 are absent, but the EOS allows seven steps of adjustment compared to the S95's five.

Following the Digital Photography Review article, it looked as though either the Faithful or Neutral picture style was the one most suitable for me. Contrast and saturation needed to be reduced -- par for the course in all digital cameras, it seems! Therefore, after a little testing in Program mode, I set Neutral picture style, Sharpness to 5, Contrast to -3, Saturation to -1, and left Color Tone as it was. This is denoted by (N,5,-3,-1,0). I was quite pleased with the results when I went on holiday with the camera in September 2016. However, I did think that the contrast was a little higher than I wanted and the colours were still slightly too saturated.

I subsequently read elsewhere that setting Sharpness beyond 3 can cause sharpening artefacts on images, so I reduced this to 3. In late December (UK) 2016, I tried the Faithful picture style: (F,3,-4,-3,0). I decided that it did strange things to reds in particular, especially in winter low light conditions. Canon's documentation seems a little vague, but I think the idea is that this picture style needs to be used under a (controlled) light source of 5200K to reproduce faithful colour.

It seems that many DSLR photographers "shoot raw", and don't worry too much about camera settings -- preferring to spend time with photo-editing software. Fair enough. It is more of an issue for those who use DSLRs to shoot video. This is how I came across the Prolost Flat setting: (N,0,-4,-2,0). Apart from the sharpening, this was near enough what I had decided on, so it was reassuring that someone else is extolling its virtues.

The second image had the camera set to (N,3,-4,-2,0). I am still working on the Auto White Balance settings, but this photo used (A8, G2). (I was surprised that I had to set Amber compensation so high.) It may not "pop", but I feel this is a better representation of what I experienced at the time, and the colour balance and saturation does not jar.

Modelu figures

These are miniature figures -- in the British model railway scales of 4 mm to the foot (1:76.2) and 7 mm to the foot (1:43.5). The larger scale figure is on the right, with two more 4 mm scale examples in bags behind. What is interesting about them is that they are a result of current technology, and that the standing figures should be identical to each other apart from size.

Not so long ago, the quality and accuracy of a model/miniature figure was in large part down to the skill of the sculptor. Normally, a master figure would be painstakingly modelled, and from this would be produced a mould to cast a number of replicas -- traditionally in white metal or pewter. Skill and care is then needed in the casting process in order to avoid defects in the resulting figures, such as excess flash, pitting and heavy mould lines. Even the best cast figure will need some careful attention with a small file to get it ready for painting.

These Modelu (pronounced "Mo-Del-Ee", I understand) figures change the game. For a start they are not cast or injection-moulded. They are in fact 3D-printed in plastic. (Look at the near scale appearance of the brim of the bowler hat.) This means that mould lines and casting defects are a thing of the past. Hurrah! Painting should now require very little preparation. (Although having said that, I notice that the light has caught the tell-tale characteristic of 3D printing in the figure on the right: the contour marks on the chest and the ridging on the bowler hat.)

The other significant difference is that the hand-sculpting process has gone, for better or worse. The casting master is now a real person, so to speak. Laser scanning of someone dressed in character, generates some computer data, which can then be scaled for model use and printed on a 3D printer. This is, of course, a much quicker and less labour-intensive process than hand-sculpting. And it is relatively easy to produce figures in different scales from one set of data. In the traditional casting process, a new master is needed for each scale.

It doesn't take much thought to realise that it should now be possible to create a model figure of oneself! Indeed, if one is so inclined, the service is available...

Digital camera colour revisited

I have returned to the subject of digital camera colour as it troubled me that I wasn't giving a true representation of how I normally use and operate my digital camera(s). Custom White Balance is all well and good, but only useful when one is in no hurry to get that particular shot. I seldom go somewhere with the express purpose of taking photographs, so a camera has to fit in with my activities and not hold things up.

Here are two images taken a few minutes apart to illustrate the (subtle) differences in colour that can be achieved by changing just a few settings (if the camera has these capabilities). The first is made with the camera in full Auto mode; the second by taking more control of the exposure (reduced by 1/3 EV), the colour settings, and the Auto White Balance. Note how generally blue and contrasty the first picture is (windows and barge boards in the background), with a redder door (on the left) and brickwork (on the right). The second photo looks closer to true to life to me. (I say closer, because the grass actually has more yellower patches in reality. I put this down to the way the sensor interpolates pixels...)

My general criticism of digital camera colour is that it is "overcooked" by the manufacturers, as that is what they believe that most consumers prefer. (This may explain why some enthusiasts have returned to film.) Where I have the facility to adjust things on my cameras, I solve this by reducing the colour saturation and contrast to suit. As with sustained loud noise, over-saturated colour becomes tiring after a while -- like a badly-adjusted TV.

I follow Ken Rockwell's advice and usually set my camera to Program mode, which I use for the majority of my photos. This setting allows me to adjust the exposure and ISO if I need to, but most of the time I am happy to let the camera choose most of the parameters for me. This includes White Balance, which is normally set to Auto. (Note that Ken Rockwell is an artist, and likes his colour saturation set to bonkers for his images -- what works in sunny California may not have the same effect in the frequently overcast and more northerly UK!)

The trick then -- if necessary and the camera controls permit it -- is to adjust Auto White Balance (AWB) to give pleasing results in daylight. The correct White Balance (whether white objects are truly white) depends on the colour temperature of the light, and it can change according to the time of day and the weather. Digital cameras often have a number of fixed settings that can be used, but it is more convenient to get the camera to set this automatically. However, I have found that the AWB setting can often result in a slight colour cast, especially on older cameras.

Cameras with enthusiast features usually have a means of adjusting the colour bias in the Auto White Balance.  A blue cast can be corrected by increasing the amber level and a magenta cast can be corrected by increasing the green level. Conversely, amber can be reduced by increasing the blue level and green can be reduced by increasing the magenta level. Blue and amber are two ends of one setting, and magenta and green the other. The two settings can be used in combination.

To adjust the Auto White Balance, I choose a daylit subject and first use Custom White Balance to take a photo with what should be the correct balanced colours. I then change to AWB and take a similar photo. I now compare the two photos using a computer monitor and decide which AWB settings need to be changed, make the adjustment(s), and then repeat the photo-taking process until I cannot distinguish between the Custom and AWB images. I then make a note of the AWB correction, e.g., (A4, G2) for future reference. This can be a slow process, but I feel that the improvement in image colour is worth it.

For the record, in the second photograph my Canon PowerShot S95 was set to Custom Color with Contrast = -1, Saturation = -2, Sharpness = +1 and AWB (A5, G3).

Royal Mail commemorative stamps?

This month's posting shows a collection of Great Britain (GB) Christmas stamps -- both the modern self-adhesive types; and the bigger, older gummed types. (Proper Christmas stamps!) A couple of decades ago, I would have listed stamp collecting as one of my pastimes, but in the mid- to late-1990s I lost interest. I had been a collector of both Canadian and GB postage stamps. I suppose I had other things to fill my free time. I was also getting irritated by the more frequent issues, and the bigger sets of commemorative stamps. It felt as though Royal Mail in particular were exploiting the collectors.

Jump ahead to late 2016, and the postage stamp world looks a different place. Self-adhesive stamps for everyday use have replaced the ones that you had to lick, and any form of postage stamp on mail to the home is a fairly rare event. Except of course for Christmas, when people still trouble themselves to send cards and Season's Greetings. This is the only time of year that I receive stamps other than the usual definitives. Even then, they are mostly definitive-size Christmas stamps, so nothing really to catch the eye.

This got me thinking. Why does Royal Mail still apparently issue dozens of commemorative stamps if no-one, except for collectors, actually sees them? What is the point? (Apart from screwing more money out of collectors, of course, which the collectors themselves realise.) Why do these stamps never seem to be marketed to the general public? In the past, it was a way of drawing attention to notable events and people, or promoting something about (Great) Britain. Have the management decided that this publicity is an unnecessary cost?

It probably doesn't need an MBA to discover that stamp collecting as a hobby is not what it used to be, and the cash cow that it might be now is going to fade away in the next decade or two, as collectors drop off their perches. I get the feeling that little young blood is coming into the hobby -- I suspect that the likes of mobile phones and social media offer a more instant gratification.

While I am criticising Royal Mail, why is it that they cannot cancel a stamp and put a (legible) postmark on an envelope? Surely with modern technology it is easier than ever, but I receive a noticeable proportion of mail with uncancelled stamps. On the day of writing, I had a card delivered and the envelope was in pristine condition with no clue as to where it had come from or when it was posted.  What is the use of that! And yet, Royal Mail have developed devices on stamps to deter their re-use. (I appreciate the concerns about forgeries.) Wouldn't it be better to ensure that the stamps are properly cancelled (and postmarked) in the first place? Like it used to be done in days of yore?

Despite the criticisms, Royal Mail still do a good job of delivering post straight to my front door in all weathers -- and long may it continue. I will try to support the UK's postal system as best as I can, even though I probably only add to the woes at Christmastime...

Best Wishes for 2017 to everyone!

An Andre Fontaine original

This painting hangs in my living room, and invariably invites comments.  It has been a part of my life since the early 1980s, when it was a conversation piece in my parents' dining room in Sillery, Quebec, Canada.  My father was presented with it for conducting the marriage ceremony of the artist, Andre Fontaine, at Chalmers-Wesley United Church in Quebec City.

My father was told that use of a blacklight would bring out another dimension to the painting, but as far as I know this was never tried.

Andre Fontaine was certainly a character as I recall, and if my father was still alive he would surely have had a few entertaining anecdotes to relate.  I thought that an internet search would have turned up more examples of Andre Fontaine's distinctive work, but I found very few, so I am sharing it here.

I am especially intrigued by the texture and the techniques used in the painting.  I guess that an airbrush was used for the fluorescent colours?  Or spray cans?  The painting must now be around 35 years old and has mellowed a little with age (like me!) -- but it still evokes fond memories of good company and happy times.