experience – Walt-O-Matic

Holiday Inn, Holiday Over

As with most things, it’s the little details that matter, and for my most recent vacation, everything about staying at Holiday Inn got on my last nerve, so much so that we checked out a day early on a pre-paid room and were glad to do so. This blog is simply a note to myself, reminding me to avoid that chain when booking hotels in the future.

Overdraft and Bad WiFi

So I won’t forget the why: in my opinion, the first sign something wasn’t right was literally a sign indicating they would put a hold on accounts that may result in overdraft fees that wouldn’t then be their fault; nice welcome. There was no in-room refrigerator so we couldn’t store food or drinks over night. There were no tissues. The toilet always took three attempts to flush. The toilet paper was on the opposite wall of the toilet, better than an arm’s reach away (brilliant). The tub felt like the was grit on the bottom of it. The toilet was crammed between the sink and the tub, just enough to bang one’s elbows. Same with the soap dishes in the tub, at elbow height. It was a horrible room design, where just slightly too much space was squeezed out. For instance, if you sat in a chair, you hit your head on the lamp. There was no exhaust fan in the bathroom. The wireless was horribly slow and kept requiring an annoying re-authentication process at random. Our room keys spontaneously and simultaneously stopped working, and when we went to the front desk to get them fixes, we were blamed for having them near a cell phone, that we know for a fact that wasn’t the case. I could go on, but I just wanted enough keywords so I could later find that place I didn’t ever want to stay at again.

Admittedly, some of this could have been the room, that hotel, its staff, or that chain. I feel little inclination to explore the matter further, I’m annoyed that much that I’m just done. I don’t expect perfection, but I also don’t want to loath returning to have to deal with the next surprise; certainly not on vacation.

But further related insult, though now not too surprising in retrospect, came when we were walking around Broadway at the Beach and noticed a number of signs at ticket areas that said Medieval Times Dinner & Tournamentâ€Ž, 2 adults for $20. It was a deal that sounded too good to be true, and was. There was no branding or other information on the sign, but when one went to purchase the tickets, you couldn’t; what you got was a rep whipping out an appointment calendar for a timeshare tour. If you would go take their off-site multi-hour tour and listen to a sales pitch, they’d “give” you the tickets for “free.” But if you wanted to buy what they advertised, they’d never sell them to you. It was very bait and switch. Turns out, it was… Holiday Inn. When asked how come it didn’t say Holiday Inn or indicate there was a sales pitch, we were flat out told that people wouldn’t come in if they had put up the truth. This just solidified my vision of the corporate image.

Your own experiences may vary, but having stayed at other places in the same price range, I’m avoiding this chain.

Walt gives Holiday Inn one thumb down.

Seeing in Black and White

I just had an interesting thing happen: I saw in black and white. That’s what my brian actually saw with the unaided eye. Here’s the cool part, I tell you how I reproduced it. It was like nothing I’d experienced before. It was beautiful.

A few moments ago, I just had a very interesting and unique experience. I saw in black’n’white. I’d never had this happen before in my life. First I’ll describe the experience, then how I did it, which, curiously enough was repeatable.

“It was clearly not imagination… It was a greyscale world that I physically saw, like a black and white movie, but a zillion times sharper, far more dynamic range, and in 3D.”

With the totally unaided eye, my brain saw my surroundings, in broad daylight, in black and white. The only exception was that objects which were normally bright red had an ever slight red hue to them, but it was only brilliant red objects that did this.

The effect lasted about 7-10 seconds in duration before the color faded back in, almost as if the saturation was being brought up from near nothing to normal.

To convey the effect, this is much like the image I saw:

When I moved my eyes to look at other parts of the scene, the effect diminished, but if I kept focusing on one spot, like a child’s staring contest, the effect would hold longer. This was very much the inverse of the behavior of an after-image, where if you stay still it fades, but if you rapidly blink, it returns.

The black and white effect composed of the entire field of view. And as it gently faded back to normal, it affected more of the center of the field of view first:

It only took 2-3 seconds for normal color to return. There was no pain or any form of discomfort before, during, or after. I’m in very good health.

It was as if the signals from the cones were being ignored by the brain, but the signals from the rods were fine. I remember that the detail was astounding, and that the tone of the grass was very similar to the sky, though I’ve been unable to represent that as closely as I’d like in my photographic simulation.

I’m certain you’ve personally woken up in the morning and upon your eyes adjusting to the light have seen the image fade in, not focus, but as your brian assembles bits of the information into meaningful images, like it’s adapting to light after not being exposed to it for a long while.

Here’s how I did it.

I’m going to err on the side of giving too much information, some that might not be relevant, primarily because I don’t know what actually caused it. However, I was able to recreated it, on demand, several minutes later by experimentation; the effect lasted even longer. It was wondrous.

Being inside for the better part of the morning, I figured I’d go outside an lay in the sun for a few minutes. So, I lay down on my back on our driveway which has a slight incline. It was about thirty minutes past noon, and the sun was slightly overhead just off center to my right, enough that it was still bright enough that just closing my eyes was uncomfortable, so I criss-crossed my arms over them to put them in shadow, though I could still tell it was very bright out with my eyes closed. The weather was 89°F, I was in direct light, and there were few clouds in the sky.

I rested this way for about 10 minutes, and I did so just to the point where my eyes were fully relaxed and no longer concerned about the brightness of the light though my eyelids. Also, I wasn’t quite drifting off, but relaxed as you might be just taking in warmth of a nice day at the beach.

What led to the discovery was that I heard a car drive by and so I sat up quickly, opening my eyes. Two things stood out. One, this gave me a slight head-rush, though I’d describe it weak at best. Two, my eyes had not adjusted to the light fully. And, although while bright, it wasn’t uncomfortable, there was no blinding whitewash, no pain, and no caused for squinting required — I was looking away from direct light.

That’s when I noticed the scene seemed extremely washed out and monochromatic; it looked like a black and white photograph.

Thinking my mind or eyes were playing tricks on me, I moved my eyes, but the effect lasted longer than a second, though faded as I looked at more “new” material in my field of attention.

The reds came rushing back in first, with greens right after. It wasn’t one color than another, it was overlapped. I became visually more aware of reds, as that happened, greens started replacing the grey tones as well, and by the time greens were normal, the other colors like purples and blues from the nearby flowers in our garden were already present.

This part will be hard to describe because there’s no English equivalent for it, but it wasn’t like I was seeing in black and white, but rather the absence of color.

I know that sounds identical from a logic standpoint, but the perception was an absence of something, not the presence of something. Intellectually, I knew there had to be color, I just wasn’t seeing it.

It was a greyscale world that I physically saw, like a black and white movie, but a zillion times sharper, far more dynamic range, and in 3D.

It was clearly not imagination, nor dream, it was very real and perceptible.

That’s what made me want to try and repeat it.

Though this time around, if I could get it to work, I’d plan a more scientific excursion. So I selected an area of our yard with brilliant colors, our flower garden, which would be my baseline.

First, I waited about 5 minutes and looked at the area, taking in all the things I should be expecting to see. The area was already in normal color after the effect had faded long ago, but I wanted to be sure.

So, I laid back down with the intention of trying to get the head rush. I shielded my eyes in shadow, and waited for them to relax and get comfortable, and then waiting a moment, quickly sat up and stared at the area I knew had colorful flowers, a bright red car, and tons of green grass. I made sure I would focus only in one area, trying to stare out to infinity, much as you’d do for those 3D posters, though I was more trying to keep my eyes in a relaxed state because I wanted them in focus.

The preparation this time around took merely a minute or two. The head-rush was again weak from sitting up quickly. I turned in the direction I had planned and opened my eyes.

It’d worked.

The effect returned just as before, but lasted this time about 20 seconds and the effect was just as strong until I couldn’t help myself and look at the astounding detail in scene around me, which caused the effect to fade.

Since I had more time to study the scene, this is when I actually noticed the reds within the black’n’white image in my head. The B/W effect seemed more pronounced when I didn’t move my eyes, relaxing them.

When I turned to look at other things, color would seep in, and if I held my eyes relaxed in the same spot, the color would fade back out partly, much the same way as you can make objects in your blind spot vanish by holding your vision still long enough. That same kind of fading away was what I saw, but with color.

I suspect the effect is caused less by the head rush and more by the eyes being exposed and conditioned to bright light (even with the eyes closed, or maybe the red light through the eyelids saturates the cones like a red filter, though I did not see a green after image). When the eyes are opened, there’s a whole rush of visual information, and I suspect the brain is compensating for the overload by taking in shapes, detail, and tone and then overlaying color after the signal settles. I wasn’t aware that visual processing of color was an independent process.

This led me to two very interesting side thoughts.

One, I’ve always wondered if while under hypnosis people really saw things but said they didn’t, or whether their honestly perceived it. I now know it’s possible to perceive things differently than the visual input as actually providing.

Two, the black and white image was astonishingly detailed in greyscale, much like an Ansel Adams image. Being able to produce this effect on demand to view how a scene might be photographed in black and white is a fantastic tool to have in one’s photographic arsenal.

I hope science doesn’t declare this is bad for you, because I’m going to do it again!

[UPDATE: I can’t get it to happen inside, seems bright sunlight is required.]

Model Compensation

This blog addresses solutions that are fair, as well as touching on factors that go into deciding amounts, why that’s the case, and what models can do to their profiles to avoid being skipped over aside from not making common photographic mistakes.

It’s understandable that models would prefer paid shoots, but it’s also important to recognize that the photographer does as well.

For a model, the photo session ends with the last shutter click, but for the photographer that’s when the real work begins. This reveals why photographers can be so expensive. Add risk, like missing an important wedding moment, at the pricing tier jumps again to astronomical levels.

In all cases, I believe a model should be fairly compensated. The debate will boil down to what that compensation is and that expectation should always be spelled out up front before anything progresses.

There are many factors that go into what value compensation should be set at. There are three big ones.

Expertise, in particular, plays a large part because an experienced model arrives on time (and sober), knows how to interact with the camera and the photographer with minimal direction, assumes appropriate poses naturally that fit the context of the scene, pauses at the right times as to minimize the number of discards, and she can make facial expressions look genuine. The higher compensation comes from making the photographer’s job easier and producing higher quality product in a shorter timeframe.

The model’s looks also play into the equation, primarily because that sets the demand for the model and in turn that affects availability. Basic economic models of supply and demand clearly state the higher the demand, the more things cost. Hence a model that isn’t in as much demand will likely be unable to command rates that one is. This is why models should to TFP deals to build their portfolios in order to raise their demand, even if just from gaining additional experience.

And the other primary factor which affects cost is how much skin the model is willing to show and what she’s willing to do in front of the camera. Unlike looks, this is one area where all models have total control. It can also be one of the bigger money makers.

The photographer has to determine a rate that factors these accordingly, and many other things (availability, short-term notice, …) as well into the compensation rate.

Just because both models are willing to stand in front of the camera for equal time does not mean they are providing equal value to the photographer. [It is also true that multiple photographers do not provide equal representation value to a model, which is why one looks at a photographer’s portfolio before accepting a trade-based assignment. Skill, equipment, and post-processing abilities are the parameters the photographer has to measure up to.]

Here’s a reasonable compensation paradigm that is actually fair to both parties equally:

If a model is hired by the photographer, the compensation is cash. (Pose for me.)
If there is a trade of services, her compensation is the photos and his the model’s time.
If the photographer is hired by the model, the compensation is cash. (Make me a portfolio.)

This makes sense from other business methodologies: if you were hired to do a task, such as frame a painting, you get paid, you don’t get a copy of the painting, free frames, or free framing services. An expert framer, incidentally, would be paid more too, and the resulting craftsmanship would be obvious. Quality, not time, is what’s sought.

The task a photographer is hiring for is to have someone take specific direction so they can produce a precise product. To get cash and photos would be double compensation and thereby a double hit on the photographer; most likely that would be the last time the photographer ever cast or recommended the model.

That said, there is nothing wrong with the model requesting some pictures in leu of some portion of the cash. Sometimes the photographer can do this, but quite often if the photographer has been hired on behalf of client, it’s stipulated in the contract that he can not. Hence the cash, which usually comes from a budget that the photographer may, or may not, have control over.

If a model wants photos and tear sheets, that should be negotiated up front, not after the shoot. Again, the photographer may have contractual bindings.

Some models will be fortunate enough to find photographers who will give away photos in addition to cash. Models, if you get cash, don’t expect this, but be grateful if it happens to you — the photographer has figured out a win-win situation that you both can benefit from. Don’t be mistaken, this action is somewhat self serving to the photographer, as he’s looking for extra visibility and word of mouth advertising from you to widen his client base.

Paying gigs are more likely for models when the client needs a specific look. If there’s just a generic need, photographers are going to draw more from TFP/CD deals. Knowing this, the more variety a model can pull off in her portfolio, the easier she just made it for the photographer to just to cut a check than to keep searching.

There does seem to be a subset of models that have a higher impression of their own market value than the market will actually tolerate. New models don’t seem to have this problem much, experienced models have a very good sense of worth (and a portfolio to prove it), but it’s most common among the narrow my-portfolio-is-cell-phone-pictures / I-want-a-job-pay-me modeling-wannabes. These models are usually difficult to work with and are problematic after the shoot, having shifting expectations of the deliverable. Photographers will actively try to avoid them and anyone that fits that stereotype.

Models: if your portfolio reeks of indicators that you fall into this pile (whether you really do or not), be aware that you’re hurting your chances to get a casting call, profile comments, TFP/CD deals, and valuable experience. If you want higher compensation, simply do what those did who are earning it. Their profiles are right there in the open on many modeling sites. Your chances of getting directed casting calls will increase.