LensWork Technology Blog

Kindle Fire

   

Amazon announces the new Kindle Fire.

Looks like a LensWork Digital Editions device to me!

Amazon's web page went live this morning at 8am my time and they had my pre-order at 8:01. Supposedly shipping on Nov 15th. We will definitely work to make sure LensWork Portable Edition and LensWork Android Edition work on this exciting new device.

   

Which Dickens?

As a fan of Charles Dickens, I would not classify myself as a collector of his books. Nonetheless, I do own several different complete sets of his work. And this always presents me with a choice whenever I begin to reread, say, Oliver Twist. Do I read the Oxford India Paper edition? Or, the Easton Press edition? Or the Riverside Press edition? Well, usually I pick one, start in, and keep a steady rudder on the volume of choice from beginning to end.

But we now live in the age of the non-book book. A new — and for me both unexpected and startling — path has entered my reading experience. I recently purchased an e-book from Amazon.com and downloaded it to my iPad using the Kindle app. Nothing particularly special about that. I read a couple of chapters into the book and then put it down.

Days later, I picked up my Kindle reader thinking I'd continue in the new book. Oops. The book wasn't on my Kindle because I had downloaded it to the iPad. No problem, I just re-synced the Kindle and the new book appeared. When I opened it, it gave me the option to go to the "furthest page read," knowing how far I had progressed on my iPad. Sure, why not? Bingo, I was right where I left off — but on a completely different device than the one on which I'd started. Another week later, I picked up the iPad to read some more and reversed the process, bringing the iPad Kindle app version up to date with the furthest page read on my Kindle reader. Back and forth, forth and back. I never did this in the world of paper books, although I suppose I could have simply moved my paper bookmark from one edition to the next. In truth, I never did.

You see, a "book" to my mind — at least to my kneejerk mind — is a thing that is, well, a thing. It doesn't morph after I'm two chapters in to a different set of molecules, typefaces, or page dimensions. Clearly, my mind has some adjusting to do because a "book" is fast losing its identity as a set of molecules. Instead, it's a set of words and pictures, ideas and concepts, and nary a molecule to be found. Come to think of it, that's what a book has always been … sort of.

This illustrates, I think, an ongoing challenge in linguistics. For as long as civilization has been around, we have invented words that describe both the molecules of a thing and the content of a thing. For example: a record is a platter of plastic and the song it contains; a film is both a long strap of plastic that runs through a projector and the moving story it shows us; a photograph is a piece of chemically enhanced paper and the image it contains. But the content part of the record can now be a downloadable MP3 file, the story part of the film can be a streaming video or a "DVD," and the image part of photograph can be accessed via all kinds of electronic presentation devices whose only reality is an ethereal image on some infinitely morphable screen. This presents us with a bit of sticky confusion because by using the terms record, film, or photograph it becomes incumbent upon us to differentiate — both mentally and verbally — which aspect of the term we intend, the molecules or the content. This not merely a semantics game, but a fast-changing challenge to language and clear communications. It's also the source of endless debate when one group insists on the molecular definition and another is willing to accept the content-only use of the term. Confusion abounds because of our habits of thought that combine the two aspects of a term into a mental image that refuses to separate the molecules from the content. It is one of the chief koans of our time.

Well, I think I'll stop and go read a book for a while. Don't ask.

My Color eReader

Steve Davis was right to have recommended the book The Hot Shoe Diaries by Joe McNally — a funny, easy-to-read tromp through the practical use of artificial lighting. I'm learning a lot and almost painlessly. But this post is not about McNally's lessons; it's about his book.

My first option for any new book is now to purchase and read it on my Kindle 3. Sure, I love the portability of the Kindle, but one of the best benefits I've found and really enjoy is the lack of molecules to manage. According to my book database (yes, I have one), my current library consists of about 6,000 titles. My bookshelves are overflowing and the thought of adding another physical book that someday I will have to move, dispose of, recycle, or sell just depresses me. So, I now default to the Kindle whenever possible. It's become a habit and a new way of thinking.

But, a book about photography on the Kindle suffers from the Kindle's limited display. Why would I choose to learn about McNally's flash techniques by viewing his examples in the crummy grayscale screen on the Kindle? "Damn," I thought, "I'll have to buy his physical book so I can see the photos in full color." This was, fortunately, quickly followed by the thought that it was too bad I didn't have a full color eReader.

But wait! I do! It's called an iPad. Thirty seconds later I was reading McNally's book complete with all of his exquisite examples in full color, using the Kindle app on my iPad.

I hate to admit what a stupid revelation this was for me. After all, I'm the guy publishing LensWork for iPad. I'm the guy who's published ten PDF monographs of his personal photographic work. And it took me a few minutes to grasp that I could get McNally's photography tutorial on the iPad? How dumb is that? Such is the power of habitual thought.

Of those 6,000 physical books I own, about 1,200 of them are photography books and another 800 are books on non-photographic arts like Japanese ukiyo-e prints, museum collections, or painting. All of these, of course, benefit from beautiful reproductions in color. All of them would be silly on the Kindle, but not on the iPad. I wonder how long it will be before the big time publishers of art and photography books realize the iPad is a publishing platform for their graphics intensive books? I'd love to have Janson's History of Art on the iPad where I could search for a string of text, bookmark items at will, write marginal notes guilt free, and lookup unfamiliar words with a click. Wow, that would be a useful edition. And just maybe they could publish all 1,184 pages of beautiful color reproduction for less that $165 list price.

Almost seduced

I received suggestions from several friends that I might be interested in looking at the new iPod Touch 4G for my upcoming travels. Because I trust their judgments, I decided to give it serious consideration. It surely is a sexy little thing, and the engineering behind it is impressive as it typically is with Apple stuff.

   

With the holiday weekend to loaf and spend time looking, I threw myself into a full research project. I looked a several dozen YouTube videos. I read every review I could find. I reviewed APPs on the Apple store. I drew up comparison tables and charted pluses and minuses until I was frayed with analysis. I finally went to Best Buy to look for myself. Yup, very impressive and even sexier in real life than I imagined from the pictures and videos on the Internet.

But, I'm not buying one and I'm blogging my thoughts about it just in case others might find my analysis of use.

Cutting to the chase, I find it simply too much of a compromise in every aspect — at least for the things I would use it for. Admittedly, that's a bit unfair because several of the things it excels at I would never use. I don't play computer games. I don't watch many videos or Hulu-type stuff. These are things the iPod Touch does very well, but are of no use to me whatsoever.

What about the things it does do that I would use? That's was the focus of my analysis — how would it do what would need it to do?

• I listen to music. But, I already have a Sansa Fuze that has longer battery life, interchangeable micro SD cards for expandable storage, and all the functionality I want and need. For listening to music, the iPod would at best be a lateral move and maybe even a step down from my current device.

     

   

• I record audio dictation, field notes, and audio for media presentation. Although the iPod Touch does audio recording with several different APPs, my Olympus DM520 has advantages the iPod simply does not. The Olympus has variable mic sensitivity, a low cut filter, will record WAV, MP3 or WMA in every possible resolution I could ever want. It organizes files into project folders. It's built-in mic is stereo. Most importantly, it has interchangeable micro SD cards so I can simply swap out in the field if I need more storage space. It also uses standard AAA batteries that last longer than the iPod and I can also swap them in the field if I need to.

  

  • And then there's my Zoom H2 which is even a step-up from the Olympus. It boasts 4-channel surround sound with 4 mics. Really spectacular mics. Adjustable limiter. Manual level controls. Switchable mic gain. Either this or the Olympus would significantly out-perform an iPod Touch.
• I love listening to audio books. The Olympus does that, too, including Audible audiobooks with bookmarking. Sure, the iPod does Audible "e" format books, but I'm satisfied with the sound quality I get from my Olympus now.
  • The iPod has bluetooth capabilities built-in that I would use with regularity. I love the freedom of my bluetooth headphones and/or bluetooth phone receiver. I've used both for audio books and find it a real joy to be cord-free while I wander around untethered listening to an audiobook. However, I recently found a bluetooth transmitter dongle that plugs into the 3.5mm jack of any audio device and pairs with my bluetooth headphones. I've been using it for about a month and it works great. Four hours of battery life on a charge and can be used with any device as long as it has a standard 3.5mm headphone jack. I've used it with my Olympus, my Sansa Fuze, even with our TV. If I owned an iPod Touch, I'd use its built-in bluetooth, but this device does the job even if it's not quite as convenient.

       

    

• I read ebooks. I'm currently using a Kindle 3 and love it. But, the iPod Touch does a fine job of presenting eBooks, too. It's so-called "Retina display" is truly stunning. Even so, it's physically smaller than the Kindle and my aging eyes prefer the slightly larger Kindle readability. I wish the Kindle were better in dark environs, a competition that the iPod Touch would win hands down. On the other hand, in bright light their positions reverse. I read more in the light than I do in the dark, so I guess the Kindle has the edge.
• Out in the world I Skype, do email, and etc., but for all of this I would use my netbook instead.

I started this weekend burning with lust for a new iPod Touch. I've cooled to the point of decision against it. I does a lot of things and all of them pretty doggone well. There is no doubt that it is a sweet bit of technology that deserves the gazillion fans it has. I found not once instance, however, where it's capabilities were better than a dedicated device engineered to excel at only one thing. No matter what I looked at, although the iPod does each function well, I found another devices simply did it better. In some regards, that's a very high compliment to the iPod — it requires three dedicated devices to out-perform it.

The iPod Touch's greatest strength — at least for my needs — is that is packages so many functions into a single, impressive device. If I were motivated to compromise in each application I need, the single device would certainly be persuasive. As it is, for my needs, I'd rather have, carry, and manage three specialty devices that do their single task better than the multi-talented iPod.

What to take?

I'm headed off to inner-Mongolia for a photo event and some shooting in late December. Last year when I went to China, I took my ASUS netbook and was thoroughly thrilled with it. Reflexively, I added it to my travel list for this upcoming trip, too.

And then I got to thinking. What did I actually do with the netbook and what if instead I were to take the iPad this year? Could I get by with the iPad and cut down on weight even more?

Well, what an interesting train of thought this has turned out to be.

What I actually used the netbook for last year:

• Email and voice email
• Internet stuff
• Skype (video) back home
• Upload camera cards to clear them out for use the next day, which meant . . .
• Lightroom
  • Reviewed images of the day
  • Organized my files into folders
  • Added key words

What I did not use the netbook for last year:

• Ebooks (used the Sony Reader instead)
• Music (used the Sansa Fuze instead)
• Take to breakfast with me so I could read eBooks (used the Sony Reader instead)
• Use it to show anyone LensWork or LensWork Extended (I never had it with me)

Can I do the things on the iPad that I actually did last year with the netbook? Well, . . .

• Email, yes
• Access the Internet, yes
• Voice email, yes
• Skype, yes, but audio only
• Show samples of LensWork and LensWork Extended, yes

In addition, I'll be able to:

• Upload and review images from the day's shooting
• Email review images back home
• Use the iPad as my eReader du jour
• Audiobooks
• Music

Although battery life doesn't compare to my MP3 player or the Kindle, it is comparable to the netbook; the iPad has a more portable form factor than the netbook; it's lighter weight than the netbook. In fact, even adding the Apple blue tooth keyboard, the total is still lighter weight than the netbook.

So that just leaves the primary reason I took the netbook: uploading the images off my camera cards each night in preparation for the next day's shooting. This trip I'll take my Nexto M1 image tank for that purpose. I'll have more to say about this device in later post.

So here's the total weight analysis:

Last year:

• ASUS Netbook
• Carrying case
• AC adapter
• Bluetooth mouse and batteries
• External backup hard drive
• Sony eReader, cover/case

  Total weight: 6.39 pounds

Proposed for this year:

• iPad
• Carrying case
• AC charger plug with USB connection and USB charger cord
• Camera Connection Kit
• Bluetooth keyboard and batteries
• Nexto M1 image tank and USB cable (will charge with the iPad AC plug)

  Total weight: 3.64 pounds

  (Only 2.94 pounds if I leave the keyboard behind and just use the on-screen keyboard.)

So, as surprised as I am, I think the netbook and the Kindle stay home this year. Wow, who'd have thought?

Which has led me to a bunch of research in iPad APPs I'll need . . . which I'll tell you about in my next post.

Beautiful eBooks

As a publisher, I can understand the frustration people have with the unattractive formatting of most eBooks. Yes, there are: inflexible typefaces, awkward end-of-line breaks in justified text, nonexistent hyphenation, misplaced graphics, cumbersome table of contents and index implementations, confusion about "locations" rather than pages, simplistic designs that limit the creative use of graphics and other design elements — a complete list would be quite lengthy.

There is an easy solution to all of this: the PDF. "But," you say, "PDFs look horrible on my Kindle/Sony/Nook! How am I supposed to read that tiny type? PDFs suck!" The refrain grates on me because it places the blame on the PDF format rather than on the true culprit — lazy publishers.

There is nothing wrong with PDFs as a wonderful publishing platform for eReaders. I know, I've done it. The problem is not one of format (PDF), but rather one of size, i.e., the wrong size originating document that creates the PDF. When people complain about PDFs on their eReader, almost without exception they are trying to read a letter-sized or A4 sized PDF on a screen that is not. Of course the type is too small!

The solution to solve all the problems in my first paragraph is to simply create the PDF for the 6" screen size of the typical eReader. I've found that an InDesign document size of 3.47" wide by 4.82" tall is just right for my Kindle 3 and Sony PRS-600. By designing a book to that physical dimension, I can create a PDF that fits these eReaders perfectly with type that appears the size one would expect. My InDesign original solves every problem:

• I can use any typeface I want in my design. Because the typeface is embedded in the PDF, it looks as it should in the eReader.
• I have all of InDesign's typographic controls at my disposal including hyphenation and no-break controls
• I can insert graphics anywhere I want and they look as good as e-ink can make them
• I know my graphics will appear on the page in the correct locations, including text wraps and even layered graphics
• I can easily create a table of contents and index
• Footnotes, end notes, page headers, page numbers — no problem. Even master page elements can be used.
• The resulting book is page-based, not "location" based
• Anything I can design in InDesign shows up in the final layout, including photos, graphs, graphics, special font treatments, etc. Even drop shadows render well.

What is missing in a properly designed-for-eReaders PDF?

• Font sizes cannot be changed on the fly (by the way, nor can they in a physical paper book)
• Leading (space between lines) cannot be changed on the fly (ditto, nor can it in a physical paper book)
• File sizes for PDFs are much larger than for the equivalent ePub or prc/mobi versions. Fewer books can be loaded into the same memory space. For example, I can only fit 1,000 books on my Kindle 3 rather than 3,000. Is this a crisis?

That's about it.

So why aren't all eBooks simply done as PDFs formatted for eReaders?

• Perhaps publishers are just too lazy to redesign their print layouts for eReader-sized PDFs.
• There would need to be various "sizes" for various readers — e.g., Kindle DX versus Sony Pocket. Marketing laziness.
• People want to be able to change the font size to better fit their vision or fatigue. I think this is a big issue and one lots of consumers would be loathe to sacrifice — although we do so every time we purchase a paper book.

So, we can either put up with lousy eBook formats but have their advantages, or we can have beautiful eBooks with the less flexible, memory intensive PDF format. Apparently having cake and eating it are not yet simultaneous options.

By the way, if you want to see one for yourself, I've uploaded a rendition of Our Mutual Friend. I created this using Warnock Pro typeface, 13 point basic size on a 14.7-point leading grid —a size comfortable for reading with my aging eyes. It uses a bit of styling for chapter titles and a master page header for every page. I started with the Gutenberg text and replaced all the single quotes (British) to double quotes (American). I also converted to typographer's curly quotes and apostrophes. This was just a proof-of-concept experiment, but you can see the potential. All that's needed is a publisher who's willing to put in the time and effort! I flirted with the idea myself, but it's better left to someone with more time than I can devote to it. Too bad this couldn't be a group effort like Librivox or even MobileRead. We could have beautifully formatted eBooks rather than the visually jarring efforts we've seen so frequently so far.

Download Dickens - Our Mutual Friend (EWS)

Download Ebookswithstyle template, ver 2.1
This is the InDesign template I used for thus eBook

iPad Hands-on

A friend came over last Wednesday with his iPad so we could see it in the flesh and play around with it. My first experience hands-on. Wow.

We loaded up an issue of LensWork and some monographs from LensWork Extended just to see what they'd look like. I suppose the best way I can explain the experience is that I'm ordering one. Double wow.

I suppose I had a somewhat unique experience viewing content on an iPad. As a publisher of fine art photography all these years, it was more than interesting to see my own publications presented with this new technology. Simply said, if I didn't know better, I'd swear they made the iPad specifically for LensWork. By coincidence, the size of LensWork on the iPad is very close to the size as LensWork itself. I didn't expect that.

The screen rendition is spectacular, and just lovely to view. Because the sizes are so close, I could easily read the text without having to magnify the screen image. Sweet.

As for LensWork Extended, the aspect ratio of the iPad is the same as the aspect ratio of our PDFs, so in horizontal mode they exactly fill the screen. Like they were made for it.

I've been slow out of the gate with the iPad, but such whacks to the skull are enough to alert me to the need for us to develop a version of our publications for this technology. Coincidentally, we've been working to launch a downloadable version of LensWork for Adobe Reader use on PCs or Macs which is going public as I write this. As it worked out, we only needed to re-encode these PDFs back to Acrobat 6 format for them to also work on the iPad using GoodReader. Since these are just the magazine in PDF form (no media, no heavy linking, etc.), this was easy enough to do. Voilá, we have our first iPad products — by accident, but we have them nonetheless.

We're still brainstorming about LensWork Extended. Not quite sure how to handle the media, but I'll work on it. I'm now motivated to do so!

By the way, I also thought ebooks looked great on the iPad, too. Movies look great. Web surfing is very good. If I have any criticism it's that the iPad is just a bit heavy — probably the battery. For reading a long spell, a dedicated reader (Kindle) will be more comfortable to hold. I'll find out when my new Kindle arrives in a couple of weeks.

But for LensWork and LensWorkExtended, simply stunning. Breathtaking, even. Consider me a convert.

A Division in the Technology

iPad or eReader? Aren't these the same thing in two different implementations? Isn't an eReader just a very limited form of the iPad? Or, is the iPad a really deluxe eReader with lots of extra features?

Confusion reigns. Let me add my thoughts to the confusion ― and who knows, maybe shed a tiny light on the questions from the perspective of a user with experience.

First, I don't see these two technologies as competing for the same customer use. Sure, they overlap, but so do functions on my watch and my cell phone. So do my MP3 player and my netbook. So do my car and my bicycle. This does not mean I would abandon one or the other.

eReaders are ideal for the long-form text. Think books. They are small and lightweight, ideal for holding in one's hand for hours of reading. They have batteries that last for weeks on a charge. Small, ideal form factor for the casual reading of text. eInk "digital paper" is very easy on the eyes. Changeable font sizes are a Godsend for aging eyes late in the day.

eReaders do not have color displays. They are not the tool to choose for images. The will play audio files, but I would never consider them a "media player." They will handle newspapers and magazine type content okay, but not with the aplomb of paper. I occasionally take notes on my Sony PRS-600, but groan the entire process. It's meant for reading, sort of one main thing with a bunch of junior add-ons.  

On the other hand, devices like netbooks and the iPad do much more. One of the things they do is allow you to read a book. But for my money, they are heavy, clunky, hard to hold, a strain on the eyes after a while, and would never be my first choice as a technology device for reading a novel. I love what they do, but see them having a different primary function than my eReader.

 

So, as a publisher, I have an emerging strategy. I could see us publishing books like Letting Go of the Camera or On Being a Photographer for the eReader market. In fact, I know we will. LensWork on an eReader makes no sense to me at all. It belongs on an iPad where images make sense. We're looking at that now. Because of the ease of implementation, we'll probably have books for eReaders before we have something for the iPad, but we're still looking at things and doing a lot of testing, so no dates yet. I can tell you it is a lot of fun!

Kindle 3

Have we reached the tipping point in eReaders? Who knows, but with the newly announced Kindle 3 it looks like we may just be there.

I've had my eye on this technology for some time now. I supposed I'm one of the so-called "early adopters" having jumped on the Sony Reader and become a fan of the entire paradigm of ebooks. As a publisher, I have more curiosity than most, I suppose.

The problem has, of course, been price. The entry level prices of over $250 for a hardware device means that few will be enticed. Following the pattern of all technology devices however, the early adopters pave the way for price reductions and the eventual arrival of the "tipping point" where masses of people jump on board. Think cell phones, for example.

Well, a couple of days ago, Amazon.com announced the new Kindle reader and it was quickly dubbed Kindle 3 in all the chat rooms. What's the big deal. Simply that at $139 it's now a product that will appeal to lots more folks. Lots more.

 

 

As I say, I'm a fan of the whole concept of ebooks. Probably 80% of the books I now read are on my Sony Reader. I love it. Nonetheless, I ordered a Kindle 3. Again, as a publisher I need to keep up on the evolving technology so I can (sort of) justify owning two. But, for those of you who have waited for a reasonable price, I think it just arrived.

iPad Blues

There were several comments in my post about PDFs and Flash media about the iPad in particular. Evidently, it won't be supporting Flash. Is this a problem?

I don't intend to antagonize you Apple fans out there, but I don't "get" the iPad. Before you descend upon me with a vengeance, let me explain.

There are an incredible number of electronic devices that tempt us these days. Each has a primary purpose and often a secondary purpose, perhaps even a number of them. For example, my Timex watch has as its primary purpose time functions — a clock, an alarm, a timer. But, it also will store 100 phone numbers should I choose to keep them there. I don't, but I could. Storing phone numbers is a secondary purpose that has nothing to do with its primary purpose even though it's a neat add-on. For some folks, this secondary purpose may be an important enough add-on feature to have influenced their watch purchase. It wasn't for me, so that feature is unused.

The Nintendo Wii, the X-Box, and the Sony PlayStation all are primarily game playing devices. They have other, secondary functions too, like playing DVD movies on your TV, playing music CDs, or connecting to the Internet. Neat, but not a driving reason to own one. If I want to play a DVD movie, I'm more likely to use my DVD player. If I want to surf the Internet, I'm more likely to go to my computer. The secondary purpose of a device is not valueless, but it's not a driving reason to buy it.

My AM/FM portable radio has an auto-on feature that is touted as a wake-up alarm. I've never used it.

The Kindle and the Sony Reader have the primary purpose of book and news reading. As a secondary purpose they also will play a slide show of photos and play MP3 files. Okay, but I wouldn't buy them as a slide show device nor as a replacement for an iPod.

Many MP3 players — primarily music players — can also show JPEG images or even videos. I doubt they are sold for these secondary purposes.

My cell phone is, surprisingly, primarily a phone. Barely, but that's the reason I purchased it — to call people and talk with them. Beyond that primary purpose, I can also play games, keep an appointment calendar, surf the web, record voice notes, use it as a count-down timer, take still pictures and movies, and play MP3 and podcast audios. That it can do all of these things does not mean, however, that I'm willing to give up my PlayStation, Day-timer, computer web browser, Olympus pocket recorder, kitchen timer, camera, video camera, or my Sansa Fuze MP3 player.

In all these examples, there is a primary purpose that drives the reason for the device to exist. All the other stuff is secondary — nice, convenient to have I suppose, but there are always better devices for these secondary purposes — devices whose primary purpose is dedicated to that function and that do it better than the secondary use on some other device. The idea of a universal hardware device is seductive, but in practice falls short. Look at your own pile of electronics. I'll bet you have lots of redundancy and unused secondary features just like I do.

Which brings me back to the iPad. For the life of me, I cannot figure out what the primary purpose of an iPad is. It seems like a technology searching for a reason to exist. It's a bundle of secondary purposes for which there doesn't seem to be a primary purpose. It's cool; it's neat; it looks to be a fun device, but to what primary purpose?

• It's a computer, sort of, but it won't multitask and has a funky keyboard. It won't replace my desktop, my laptop, nor my netbook.
• It's a movie player, sort of, but where do I stick the DVD in and why wouldn't I just take a portable DVD player on the plane for a fraction of the cost of an iPad?
• It's an Internet device, sort of, but if it won't play Flash files, won't I still need a browser on a computer for universal content delivery?
• It's an e-book reader, sort of, but it doesn't seem to have the advantages of dedicated e-readers that use e-ink when it comes to eye-strain and battery life.
• It's too bulky to replace my MP3 player.
• It's not a camera, not a phone, not a Skype device, not an audio recorder.
• I guess it will play games, sort of, but won't a Sony PSP do a better job of this?

Like I say, I can't quite figure out its primary purpose — other than to be a really neat hardware device from Apple that has all the "wow-factor" Apple is famous for. Without a primary purpose, however, I don't understand how it fits into the market and what it will make obsolete. With the iPhone and the iPod, Apple has primary purpose devices that provide outstanding performance and ground-breaking technology. I just don't see that in the iPad — but I'll probably be proven wrong in time.