The Online Photographer

Thursday Mar. 1 | Audio Version

Transcript

Hey everybody. This is Mike Johnston of the Online Photographer, coming to you from the beautiful Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York, in the USA. And this, believe it or not, is a podcast. Or maybe it's an Ur-podcast, or the zygote of a podcast or something. Or possibly I'm just playing around.

[Here's where the theme music would swell up if I had any idea what I was doing. You'll just have to imagine that. <—I forgot to read this line! Sorry.]

So, last week we were talking about video reviews of cameras, and most of the brilliant TOP Commentariat agreed with me that we prefer written reviews. That makes perfect sense, because I'm a writer and most of the people who read my words are people who read. So we all harrumphed happily together about the shortcomings of video reviews and the superiority of the written word. And I still agree with that.

So, cased closed? Maybe not quite. One commenter said something I thought was very astute, and as the next few days went by it stuck in my mind. His name's Jim. I don't have any other way of identifying him, because he didn't leave his email address. I'm going to read you what he wrote. I've edited this slightly, but here's what Jim had to say:

I second your comments re video vs. written reviews, and that from someone who has created over 100 highly technical videos, mostly lectures, that have over 2.5 million views. I have two 30-something techie kids, and I know other age groups, and I think the deal with video is 'CPA'—continuous partial attention. You cannot read an article and do much else, but you can watch a video with some attention and do other things.

The bane of our existence [Jim added] is the CPA on phone calls when you can hear the clicking of a keyboard in the background.

That last part made me laugh, because my brother Scott and I have a friend who does that. I think he knows who he is.

Well, the key phrase for me was that "CPA," continuous partial attention. And I think Jim's right about that. When you read, you have to sit in front of what you're reading and put your eyes on it. That means you have to give it your full attention, or something resembling your full attention. I can listen to music from my office on the porch when I cook, for instance, but I can't read while I cook. And I can listen to comedians on Comedy Central when I drive, but I can't read a novel when I drive. CPA or continuous partial attention is a real thing, I think, and, it seemed to me, that it's an actual advantage.

So I tried making a video of myself. I set my iPhone on the windowsill and read the post from February 20th from the computer screen while occasionally glancing at the camera lens. There were two problems with what I came up with. The first is that, from inside me, I'm 35 years old! But the camera somehow insists on showing a 61-year-old. Which happens to be my actual age, but that's not how I like to look at myself. If I made videos, I'm not sure I could stand to be reminded of the relentless march of time and my own mortality so remorselessly on such a regular basis. The other problem is stage fright. Stage fright is a funny thing. For instance, my personal experience of it is that I have no problem talking to fifteen students in a classroom, but I was borderline terrified of talking to 200 of the same students in an auditorium. I have no idea why that should be—it makes no logical sense—but that's the way it was. But stage fright doesn't just involve stages. Let me give you an example. Over the years I've invited several commenters to write posts for TOP—original posts—and in a couple of cases I've been surprised at how difficult it was for them. Their comments were casual, and relaxed, and confident, but when they tried to write whole posts their writing got stiff, and formal, and rigid. Something about the idea of writing formally for thousands of people gave them a version of stage fright. I would have a lot of trouble talking to two hundred of you in a room, but I have absolutely no problem writing for two thousand of you. Or twenty thousand. In fact, the more people there are out there reading, the better I like it. I would absolutely love to have a hundred thousand readers a day and I would have no trouble with that at all. The problem is that appearing in a video feels like the former to me, not the latter. It triggers my personal stage fright in a way that writing doesn't.

And then there's the issue of video production. I admire people who are good at video production, and I appreciate their work very much, but I just have no eagerness to learn it.

So anyway, the video experiment was pretty much a bust. It became clear to me quickly that I'm never going to learn how to produce TOP videos, and certainly not star in them, just as it's always been clear to me that I don't want to become a creative videographer. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

So I figured I'd experiment with a podcast version of The Online Photographer. My son Xander listens to podcasts on his way to work, and you could listen to TOP while you drive but you couldn't read TOP while you drive. So the news from here in the Finger Lakes this morning is that I've just unboxed my fancy new USB microphone—it's called a Blue Yeti—that came from B&H Photo yesterday, and I'm trying it out for the first time. This also might be the very first time in my life I've ever deliberately spoken into a microphone for any length of time, and I don't know yet how to make edits in GarageBand, so if this is going to become a regular occurrence, we will all just have to hope that I will get better at it as I go.

In the meantime, I'd like to hear what you think of the idea. The podcast, such as it is, if it ever comes to exist on a regular basis, will just be a spoken edition of what you can read for yourself on the site, so it would not replace most of the regular content. You'd still be able to come to the site and read it as normal. It would just be another way of getting the same information. But you could listen to it while you chop vegetables in the kitchen. And we all know how important it is not to be looking somewhere else while you energetically wield a razor sharp knife in close proximity to your fingertips. I don't know about you, but I'm clumsy, and when I chop vegetables I cut myself relatively easily.

Okay. So here is where you'll have to imagine my catchy sign-off, because I haven't come up with one yet. And...cue the imaginary music again. That's all.

Mike
(Thanks to Jim)

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Len Salem: "Started listening to your podcast and had a shock! I've been following you since forever and always, always, in my head, you've had an English accent—in fact my own speaking voice. I realise that's pretty stupid, since I knew full well you must speak with what I call an American accent, not that I had ever given it any thought. So I wonder—does everybody read the written word in their own voice? Would an English speaking French person, for example, give you a French accent in their head?"

Mike replies: You just gave me a great idea for a prank, but it's too late. I should have read the first few paragraphs in a thick accent, to make people think that's the way I really talk, before letting them in on the joke. Rats! I wish I had thought of that!

...Many people don't like pranks, though. Maybe it's better I didn't.

Glen Rowe: "This is only my second time commenting on a TOP article, but I've been visiting almost daily for over five years. In fact, despite my primary interest in TOP being the photography articles, it was through Ctein's off-topic (OT) articles that I was inspired to become an aficionado of tea, and through your own OT articles that I started to follow professional snooker on YouTube. Thus, TOP has enriched my life in unexpected and much appreciated ways. Thanks for that! Today I am writing to let you know that I think your idea of doing an audio podcast version of each of your TOP articles is excellent, and you did a perfectly satisfactory and sufficient job of your first effort. To my mind, there is no need to make it any more sophisticated than it already is, unless you want to do so for your own interest."

Kenneth Tanaka: "Personally I'm not a fan of podcasts. They're background noise. People just blowing air out their...faces. I understand the attraction of people to produce them; they're easy and require no real thought or meaningful content, as listeners are almost certainly simultaneously doing something else. I do not listen to any podcasts and, sorry, would not listen to yours, either. I greatly prefer a more thoughtful, premeditated written presentation over intestinal gas."

Mike replies: Well, gee, Ken, I wrote out the script first, and then practiced reading it four times before I recorded it, revising the content and smoothing out the words as I went so they'd be easier to say. About the same degree of rewriting I do on any other post. Finally, I went over the text while listening to the recording—twice!—to make sure the two matched up. What's unpremeditated about that?

s. wolters: "Excellent Mike! If I only had read you proposal I probably would have reacted negatively. But you have a very good clear pleasant voice and you formulations are so good, that you could even present them in print.

"Interesting how things work and sometimes don’t. Laurel and Hardy were even better with sound than without. Chaplin was done.

"Some music is only good when playing it loud. Some music is good for background. Some music is for headphones. Only a few musicians are great at all levels. Grant Green is the first one that comes up. I can dream away with his playing or he can help me peeling the potatoes."

Dave Riedel: "A nice alternative and you have a pleasant speaking voice. I would enjoy future editions of the spoken TOP."

Jim Simmons: "I read TOP every day. I won't be listening to any TOP podcasts, as podcasts are outside my media consumption patterns."

Mike replies: You won't have to, Jim. I added an "addendum" post today that gives a little better idea of what I have in mind. I'm really not sure what, if anything, it will be—it's got to evolve naturally—but it won't replace the written posts.

Not THAT Ross Cameron: "Does this mean we have to post comments in kind?  :-)  "

Eric Rose: "Should we respond with audio files of our comments? Just joking."

Mike replies: Ross and Eric, I think Phil heard you:

Phil: "Hi Mike, Great idea. I have some observations and so I...recorded them. Cheers, 'Phil from Vancouver' P.S. Yes, this is very cheeky.  :-)  "

Bahi: "Loved this. You'd do really well on a podcast. Emailing you about doing one has been on my to-do list for years. Get guests on (using Skype). Thumbs up!"

John: "I hate podcasts even more than videos. There are bloggers I avidly read, but never listen to. Sorry, Mike."

M. Howard Edwards: "Mike—I have been reading you for nearly a hundred years. I do not need the podcast despite the melodious allure of your spoken voice."

Jamie Pillers: "I like it, I think. Lets have a few more, just to be sure.  :-)  "

JH: "I'm the 'Jim' who is behind that response. We have been doing tech lectures and seminars for close to 40 years and therefore have a reasonable knowledge of what makes an audience pay attention. I started doing videos for our tech customers over 30 years ago in the early VHS tape era. We've been using the Internet for video for about 15 years and YouTube for more than a decade.

"We have a big advantage over entertainment videos—our watchers are people who want to learn about some technical topic.

"Here are two examples: Fiber Optics 'Live' (90K views) and  How to 'Talk' Fiber Optics (65K views).

"We follow some very strict guidelines to developing one of these videos. We develop them as a seminar with PowerPoint slides and notes on each slide that is the script. We have several people who review it and help finalize it. Then we export PPT slides to JPEGs, import them into Apple iMovie along with any relevant video and overdub the narration on my Mac. All just like we would give a seminar. Then we export as a complete video and upload to YouTube.

"Part of our guidelines is one big issue—no talking heads! Most people hate looking at someone standing there talking, so we combine video and slides to provide relevant visuals. We do have a cartoon character we use in some of our videos—the guy on the title slide, and we've looked at animating him but even that seems lame.

"Do people pay attention to these videos? Well, I often have people come up to me at meetings and stare before interrupting and asking if I'm the guy in the FOA (Fiber Optic Association) videos. And many, many people have asked about our birds! We used to have a bunch of tropical birds in the house and in some of the videos you can hear them chirping happily in the background."

Eolake (partial comment): "Stagefright is indeed weird. I’ve given lectures, and appeared on radio programs with no problems at all, in fact it is tremendous fun. But once I phoned in to a radio program, and I almost seized up."

Neal: "You know what, Mike? Don't learn about editing. Just do podcasts like you did this one. When I read your posts, it feels like a conversation with a friend at a coffee shop. Nothing fancy, nothing formal, just casual chatting. That’s what we do when we chat, isn’t it? We choose a different word or phrase, mid word or phrase, we clear our throats, we just...well, chat. I get this feeling from Robin Wong, and I got it from Gordon Lewis when he wrote his Shutterfinger blog (and his occasional guest post here). I imagine if they did podcasts, they would sound like yours. Conversations with friends. The world could use more of them."

PaddyC: "TL;DR. Mind putting this in a video?"