Life is a Wild Ride

Disasters Don't Pay: An Unusual Service Policy

Idaho Airships, Inc. has long operated under a policy that doesn't make much sense from a traditional commercial point of view: We don't profit on your disasters.

I just received a call from a "low volume" but regular customer who took delivery of 4 large format prints, one of which was damaged in their mounting process. A replacement is rolling off the large format printer right now. He seemed to appreciate our policy.

Last year, a different customer-a decidedly "high volume" customer, lost a delivery of a variety of aerial portfolios. They were replaced at no fee, including the shipping. That customer contacted me again this week to meet over what is now an "annual portfolio" spanning Idaho and into neighboring states.

Of course, everything must remain within the bounds of reason...if we deliver 25 large format prints and a customer negligently damages them, we'll negotiate a term on the replacement-most likely near our materials cost. If a framing shop, not the customer, damages product, the framing shop would be asked to purchase replacements-but for the most part, we go out of our way to make the purchase decision with Idaho Airships, Inc. an easy one...and one that is repeated.

L

A Camera Manufacturer's Right to Choose: The Partial Birth Abortion of the Pentax 645 Digital...

The Pentax 645 dominated aerial photography for years. It was an SLR, relatively small and light for a medium format camera, would cram almost 30 exposures into a 220 roll, offered 2fps and a 1/1000 shutter speed. Then there were the lenses...those glorious Pentax Super Multi-Coating (SMC) optics that couldn't even spell "flare."

The only drawbacks to the P645 system, in my opinion, were the ungainly configuration with the 70mm back (which required an eyepiece extension and destroyed ergonomics), the weight of the 120 prime, and until the latter years, the lack of any zooms.

When I went digital in 2004, I stored all of my P645 lenses (35, 2x45, 2x55, 2x75, 120, 2x150, 200, 80-160) in heated anticipation of a P645 digital, already rumored to be in development. I know that I was not the only one.

Last week (early May, 2007) Pentax was reported to have scrapped its digital 645 development-this, after displaying a mockup of a nearly 4oMP unit on display at PMA 2007!

So...what's next? Bayer Array configurations in the 35mm format are already near their maximum spatial resolutions (it's actually the ability of the format lenses that is limiting in this issue-we'll go through the numbers in a subsequent post). Phase One and Hasselblad have priced themselves out of contention (aerialists need two bodies, minimum, and aren't willing to spend $40K each on units that will be competitively obsolete in 2-3 years). I have actually kicked a P645 out of a helicopter...that memory, and other flirtations with disaster in the field discourage dropping $40K on each body. Driving around certain parts of Phoenix, Sacramento, and Los Angeles in well-marked company vehicles also makes for some concern...

With the 5D and 1DsMII (and their Nikon counterparts) so good, it might be time to fall back on film (gasp!) more regularly for certain applications. I shot with film (Hasselblad 500CM, PlanarPrism, 80mm CF Planar  T) only once last year-we had a University customer that wanted their entire campus in a single image (6 square miles) and wanted to be able to read the yard markers on the football field. This had previously been done on a Pentax 67 but the scan wasn't that great, and the yard markers were barely legible. We tried a 5D, and it was awfully close to the 67. The Hassy and a good drum scan embarrassed them both.

As part of my mourning ritual I searched around the 'net for drum scans (I also sold my big scanner when I switched to digital) and was shocked to see that there are service bureaus offering 100-200MB 16bit Tango (a true drum scanner) scans for $35-$60!

Still, a 200MB (~3000spi, 8.5 micron samples) 16bit scan will not provide detail equivalent to that of a 240MB 16bit digital (6.8 micron pixels, Phase One P45+), even with the roughly equivalent spatial sampling. The reasons far exceed any abbreviated explanation, but start with film grain being binary and continue through scanning issues such as Nyquist.

Of course, the film-based workflow is severely disadvantaged.

A moment of silence, please.

Blending Modes 2: You Too Can Paint Contrast!

This is the third in a series answering Dallis' question (April 25, 2007) on how I accomplished the blending in the Marcon image (see my post of April 26, 2007).

If you've been following this series closely, you may feel that I've been a bit evasive-I didn't just come out and answer the question.  There's a very good reason why-Blending Modes are far too deep to encapsulate in a blog posting...or 5. If you want to command Blending Modes, you'll need to use what I'm providing and study independently, tailoring your research to your specific goals.

I've explained a bit about Layers, which are the vehicles you use to apply Blending Modes (for the most part), and I've explained a bit about Layers strategies. In this post, I'll do the same for selected Blending Modes, and it will be up to the reader to extend their own research.

The real value in these postings isn't the technical background on Blending Modes-you could dig that up on your own, and probably should anyway if only to verify what I present. What you will find here that you probably won't find elsewhere, at least easily, is the strategies to use these tools. I haven't cornered the Blending Modes strategies market, and would be very grateful for your input if you uncover a technique that advances us all.

Navigate Window>Layers to display your Layers Palette. Open an image, select (by clicking) the Background Layer, and press Ctl-J to create a new Layer. Your Blending Modes are accessed by the drop-down menu in the upper left corner of your Layers Palette (under the "Layers" tab) or by double-clicking on the Layer (away from the Layer name).

For our present purposes, let's divide Blending Modes into three primary groups (just ignore anything that's not on our present list), which are predicated on the "neutral color" of the constituent Blending Modes. The "neutral color" of a Blending Mode is the color that has no effect within that Blending Mode:

1. "Darkening Group," for which the neutral color is white. We'll confine ourselves to Multiply for the time being in this group.
2. "Lightening Group," for which the neutral color is black. Our interest in this group is with the Screen mode.
3. "Contrast Group," for which the neutral color is gray (128/128/128 RGB). Our interest in this group is with the Soft Light and Hard Light modes.

When applying Blending Modes using Layers, consider the lower Layer the "Base" Layer and the upper Layer as the "Blending" Layer. The Blending Mode is applied to the Blending Layer by selecting it, then selecting the desired Blend Mode.

Blending Modes calculate a resulting image on a Channel-by-Channel basis, with a few exceptions that are not relevant at this point. I will assume that you're working in RGB...please.

Blending modes calculate results using values of 0-1 to represent luminosity. Binary 0 (on the scale of 0-255), or black (no luminosity) is calculated as 0 by Blending Modes. Binary 255, or white, is calculated as 1.

Our first Blending Mode exercise will be to experiment with Multiply, a "Darkening" mode. If you take two pixels, the Blend Layer pixel being darker than the Base Layer pixel, and multiply their values, you will always end up with a darker result. Try calculating a variety of value pairs (always mindful that 0-255 must be converted to 0-1). If the Blend Layer is white (value = 1) the resulting color will be unchanged from the original Base Layer...and this tends to corroborate the claim that white is a neutral color for this Blending Mode.

Next let's experiment with Screen from our Lightening Group (not our "lightning" group, thank you-that's for our meteorology postings). Screen multiplies the complement (1 minus the value) of the Blending and Base Layers, then subtracts the result from 1.  This may appear to be convoluted, but let's reason it out. If you subtract a Blend R(ed) value of .3 from 1, you get .7 (Note to statisticians: Your results may vary). Subtracting a Base R value of .8 from 1, you get .2. Multiplying .7 x .2 gives you .14, and subtracting .14 from 1 gives you .86, decidedly a higher value than the original Base of .8.

You know I'm having a heck of a time avoiding public school jokes here, don't you?

The point is, Screen lightens the Base Layer...unless the Blend Layer is Black (value = 0). Honest! Try it with a couple of value pairs. Doing so really forces you to engage the machinery of the Blending Mode so that you will better understand it.

For Soft Light, you might wish to review PS Help (F1) for the math on Darken and Lighten Blending Modes (not the groups, the actual Blending Modes). It's brutally simple. If the Blend is >50% gray, Soft Light Lightens (the Blending Mode), and if the Blend is >50% gray, Soft Light Darkens (the Blending Mode). If the Blend is 50% gray, you get no effect. Guess what the neutral color is for Soft Light? Ha!

Now, here's a research question for you, and I'm going to offer a prize to the first individual to provide comprehensive, correct answers: In PS Blending Mode calculations, what value, from 0-1, is correct for 50% gray? Why?

The prize?  An unopened roll of Scott Brand Shop Towels, for tough jobs. They're strong (works like cloth), they absorb oil and grease, and they're multi-purpose (for garage & shop). It says so right on the packaging. It sounds to me like they're something you might forward on to Sheryl Crow or Rosie O'Donnell (I won't link to Ms. O'Donnell...you'd have to know the story).

Here's a teaser on Soft Light: If you look at the description of how it works and where, you might get the idea that darkening darks and lightening lights is effectively painting contrast. Bingo! If you're an aerial photographer and have been frustrated by haze...stay tuned.

Finally, Hard Light goes a step beyond Soft Light (never would have guessed that...) by employing Multiply or Screen instead of Darken or Lighten. This obviously will mean more contrast, and you need to be cautious: Soft Light will not clip, but Hard Light will.

The strategy segment of this post is limited to the following two points:

• In the Marcon image, I used the two Layers shown in the demo graphic, but Layer Masked the sky and highlights from the light image (top Layer) so that those elements were used from the dark image (bottom Layer). Please investigate Layer Masking in PS Help (F1) if you need to.
• Using Blending Modes (specifically, those outlined above), I adjusted exposure and contrast (working in 16 bits per RGB Channel), and effected other manipulations in each Layer independently. Yes, I used some other Blending Modes as well, but they'll have to wait for their own post. I'll give you a bit of time to digest this post, and move on to the actual applications.

L

More on ActionScript 3: Why Upgrade?

I've had a couple of weeks to explore ActionScript 3 (AS3), and I've encountered nothing to discourage me from encouraging you to make the upgrade. Here are some points to consider:

• AS3 offers Integer (int) and Unsigned Integer (uint) Data Types in addition to the classic Number Data Type. They're still Primitive Data Types (passed by value, not by reference), and offer some significant advantages of efficiency. Both int and uint circumvent Floating Point calculations, and both are only 32-bit entities. If you aggressively use Math Class Methods (e.g. atan2, cos, sin) to prescribe movement, you can probably sense the possibilities...
• Functions are now Objects! This answers my concerns about the loss of Behaviors and Components to some extent (AS3 cannot be attached to Objects, period). Thus, there is a top level Function Class with its own Properties and Methods, and Functions (as Objects) can be passed as Parameters to other Functions! This is a shrewd modular strategy-when a Function is passed as a Parameter, it is passed by reference. Adobe describes the situation this way: "Function properties can serve as quasi-static properties..."
• There are some fundamental changes in the uses and scoping of Variables in AS3, too.  The var Keyword is always used in declaration, and a Variable declared outside of a Class Definition or Function is Global (a Local Variable is declared inside a Function). If you act middle-aged and define a Global and Local Variable of the same name, the Local Variable will displace the Global Variable while it (the Local Variable ) is in scope.
• Event Handling has changed significantly-so much so, that it will need to be covered in its own post. For the purposes of convincing you to make the upgrade, I'll state that it's much more intuitive to learn, streamlined to produce and debug, and naturally conformed to the OOP strategies of AS3.

I am more convinced than ever that interactive animation is the future of imaging, and it's not simply the communicative abilities of the medium or the zeitgeist of avant-garde cartooning and gaming. It's also the power of the production tools at our disposal that are rapidly advancing the efficient creation and sophistication of our work.

L

Back in the News!

Idaho Airships, Inc. has enjoyed some great press coverage locally from the Idaho Statesman (as reported in the Montana Associated Technology Roundtables),  The Idaho Business Review, and now as a featured success story for the Small Business Administration. I'm not sure how long the SBA link will be good as we appear to be a temporary front page item on the site.

Life really is a wild ride, isn't it?

L

Layers: It's a Thin Line Between Love and Hate

This is the second in a series answering Dallis' question (April 25, 2007) on how I accomplished the blending in the Marcon image (see my post of April 26, 2007).

There's simply no reason for me to produce a basic "Layers" tutorial-there are so many excellent resources already available.  However, the element of development that is lacking in a vast majority of them is how to apply Layers (and Blending Modes) to aerial and technical images-I'll focus my efforts on explaining those issues.

First of all, one of the best sources of information on any Photoshop ("PS") mechanical issue is PS Help (F1). If you are methodical in your studying it is possible to absorb all you really need to know about the mechanics of Layers in a few sessions in PS Help.

PS Help is orderly and concise, but it doesn't really develop strategy. Don't hesitate to ignore items that have little or no apparent relevance to your particular area of interest (for example, if you are an aerial photographer, you probably don't need to understand Clipping Paths...at least, in the beginning). As you develop competencies with Layers you'll end up discovering what you really do need to know...and what you don't. PS was developed for a very broad range of users, from technical shooters to graphic artists, and I'm personally unfamiliar with any practitioner who has a comprehensive knowledge in all aspects of PS.

There are numerous excellent online tutorials and tutorial libraries. lynda.com is one of the best known and largest-they do operate on a subscription basis. I've reviewed several of their Flash tutorials and found a small number of errors, but those errors were confined to deep technical/esoteric matters. Still, it does give one pause as to who is producing and fact checking their products. photoshopcafe and the National Association of Photoshop Professionals are other superior online resources.

DVD-based tutorials are available. I'm very impressed with Total Training's series. They're relatively expensive, but you've surely heard the old adage that if you think learning is expensive, try ignorance. Total Training seems to be in some dear association with Adobe, which can't hurt if you're ultimately planning on earning your Adobe Certified Expert credentials.

Photoshop seminars and training sessions are popular, but they are rigid in form (they teach their curriculum, not necessarily what you might need in your concentration). This can be tremendously frustrating and wasteful of time-personally, I prefer to study on my own for the sake of various efficiencies.

It is the coverage of functions and capabilities irrelevant to my practice  that is my fundamental objection to structured learning. As an aerial photographer, I have no use for a great majority of the design features and filters PS offers, and which structured courses tend to emphasize.

So, while my tactic in this case seems to be to deflect explaining Levels, my intentions are honorable, and I'll fill in the holes left by the tutorials I presume you'd be engaging.

Here are a few fundamental strategies you should absorb for the present:

• Use Layers to set up the application of Blending Modes. Layers really don't do much other than order/sequence visibility and effects by themselves-it's the use of Adjustment Layers, Layer Masks and Blending Modes that produce your therapies for an image. Think of Layers as a basic tool-more of a vehicle-for your manipulations.
• Order Layers deliberately. If you have Layers with different Blending Modes and you change their order, you will likely (there are always exceptions) find that the nature of the resulting composite image changes. Effects are applied sequentially from the top down, including within Layer Sets.
• Study and employ Layer Sets. Understand and know how to disable the Pass Through mode for Layer Sets. Layer Sets are  absolutely critical in advanced image editing. Note that arranging Layer Sets differently will alter their resulting aggregate effect, just as rearranging individual Layers will.
• Use Layers to make a "safety"duplicate before you make any changes to an image Layer (a Layer that is an image or contains a portion of an image). Ideally, you'll not alter your base image (Background) except for the occasional Transformation or distortion correction, which must be applied before other edits are applied since the other edits will be spatially dependent upon that underlying image. Cloning and Healing Tool applications may usually be applied at any step in the preparation process, even after flattening the image for output. My own preference is to do any cloning or healing before other preparations.
• Layers are resource-hungry. Balance this fact with your need to use supernumerary Layers for safety backups and such. Saving layered images in the .psd (Photoshop) rather than the .tif format can drastically reduce file size, particularly if you are using vector-defined Fill Layers or Transparencies. Turning off Layers Thumbnails can minimize resource demands, but probably not by much.
• Individual Layers can be manipulated with the Threshold command. Threshold is an extremely powerful tool for advanced selections, but unless you're already familiar with it, tuck it away for our Blending Modes discussion.
• Adjustment Layers are absolutely crucial. Do not apply Levels or Curves to an image Layer-apply Adjustment Layer/s.  You can Drag & Drop Adjustment Layers from one image to another freely.
• Opacity of a Layer affects both the Layer and Layer Style (and of course, the Blending Mode result). Fill doesn't affect the Layer Style. Both are accessible at the top of the Layers Pallette, but also in the Layer Style/Blending Options Dialogue Box by double-clicking on the Layer.
• As the number of Layers in an image increases, it becomes very important to administer them effectively. Name Layers descriptively. Use color coding (in Layer Properties) for various types of Layers if you find it helpful (e.g. if you've disabled Layer Thumbnails). Merge Layers or Flatten an image only when you know that you know that you know that you won't need to recover individual Layers.

L

Technical Knowledge: Why Get So Wrapped Around the Axle?

If you've ever been frustrated by someone who tends to "get technical," you've probably dismissed much if not all of any knowledge that exceeds yours as unnecessary. After all, your images look fine...to you. No complaints.

Here's a hard fact of life: You only know what you know. If you were to sit down with one of your prints and a true expert started criticizing it, you'd suddenly find yourself sensitized to issues you didn't even know existed a few minutes prior. In a very short space of time your known universe will have expanded significantly, and you will have encountered the realization that your preexisting knowledge wasn't nearly as comprehensive or sufficient as you had thought.

I'm speaking from experience, and can testify that it's the satisfaction of conquering ego and formerly intimidating issues that has generated my voracious appetite for learning. I know of many people who are more advanced than I am, and their appetites for learning don't seem to have abated. I admire them for that, but I'm intimidated that it may be an eternal process.

Some may argue that you don't have to know how an engine works to drive. That is true, but argumentative and shallow. A professional driver most certainly should know how his engine works in order to maximize its performance and reliability. Arguments against knowing something tangibly and directly effectual are generally pretty lazy...and I don't feel particularly obligated to apologize for saying so.

I'd like to share with you a short description about a fundamental of digital imaging. This isn't something deep inside the science, something esoteric that you'd never be asked to engage directly or never employ directly-it's gamma. You probably know gamma as a setting for your Mac ("1.8") or your PC ("2.2"), but I'm willing to bet that you couldn't explain it.

Gamma is the rate of change in the luminosity of a pixel relative to the change in that pixel's input value. At a gamma of 1, a perfectly black pixel will be perfectly black and a fully energized pixel will be perfectly white, with all intermediate steps produced in equal increments.  This is the way that most common digital camera sensors capture images, and it is termed a "linear" format.

However, human visual perception is not linear, and digital captures must be adjusted to appear natural to us. This adjustment is nonlinear, and as such has a variable rate of change throughout the range of the continuum from black to white. Think of your Curves Dialogue Box in Photoshop. When you pull the Curve in the middle, one portion of the resulting Curve will have a steeper slope and one will have a more gradual slope than before the adjustment (it's also no longer a "linear" line, it's a "nonlinear" curve!). Have you ever considered that before? Do you know how that affects saturation? Please reread the second paragraph of this post if you're feeling haughty, because there's more...

At a gamma of 1.8, the rate of change in pixels as the input is adjusted is adjusted itself, but not as much as gamma 2.2. At gamma 1.8 pixel luminance graduations in the dark portions of the continuum have less difference than with a gamma of 1, but there is still some potential for posterization. Yet, a gamma of 1.8 is most perceptually hospitable to humans. This round goes to Apple.

At a gamma of 2.2, the rate of change is lessened so that graduations in the dark portions of the continuum have even less difference than they do at gamma 1.8. The differences are palpable. This round goes to PC.

Gamma adjustments are made during RAW conversion, during color management processes when displaying your image on your monitor/s, during print preparation...and yes, when you apply Curves (or Levels, for that matter). You use gamma adjustments of varous sorts during virtually every step of the image production process, and the effects are fundamental and profound.

How fundamental? Do you "expose to the right" to ensure that your capture has as much tonal virtue as possible? If so, you are using a simple, but very effective manipulation of gamma. Congratulations!

So, if I were to ask you to explain why the sky is blue when the color temperature outside is 3,000K, or why 18% gray is considered neutral/average, what might you say? Don't you think this stuff is intrigueing? I sure do. Forgive me.

Knowledge can effect your income (your income could be considered your "Report Card" from a commercial point of view). Aside from competing more effectively because your sales dialogue is more constructive and persuasive, knowledge can save you a great deal of money. Suppose I were to make the statement that a Canon 1DsMII provides no more resolution than a Canon 5D in an overwhelming majority of imaging applications, or that your "1440 dpi" printer can actually only print a photograph at 180 dpi, would you believe me?

If not, stay tuned...

Note: If there are any readers who can explain the math behind gamma (using it as an exponent), please do. This too is a bit distant from my focus of expertise, and I'll appreciatively defer to any real experts on the matter.

L

Blending Modes. Waring Never Had It So Good.

From Dallis Fontenot of Plano, Texas, on 4/25/07:

Hey Leo!  I would love to know how you did the blending on the Marcon image!

Dallis Fontenot
Engineered Structures, Inc.
Plano, Texas

Here's the image Dallis is referring to:

Click on the graphic to see it enlarged.

On this shoot I employed a technique called "Bracketing"-making a series of underexposed, correctly exposed, and overexposed images over time. The intent is to capture details unavialable in a single exposure. For example, an underexposed image will provide details in the lights and sky, and the overexposed image will provide details in the shadows, both of which might be severely compromised if available at all in the correctly exposed frame. Shooting over time (in this case, about half an hour, but it can range into the hours) provides a selection of lighting effects produced by everything from the sun to the architectural lighting...even my own additions to the luminance of the subject ("Painting with Light," which will need to be its own post).

The camera was tripod mounted, of course, and a Canon 24mm L TSE lens was used. Perspective correction is best accomplished on the camera unless the persepective issues are very small-that too has been a subject in PAPAChat recently but will have to wait for its own post.

The fundamental tools used to mate the various exposures are:

• Layers
• Blending Modes

I've been struggling with which topics to breach first in this series, and both Layers and Blending Modes are among my choices. Dallis has presented an opportunity to introduce both in a single application, but because of their depth, multiple posts will be necessary to explore either in usable detail.

The basic strategy is to use a couple (I've used as many as 5, but try to keep things down to 2 or 3) exposures as separate Layers (Window>Layers) in a single document ("image"). The order of stacking will depend on the Blending Modes and Layer Sets you employ, so let's set ordering aside for the moment except to note that Layers at the top of the Layer Stack are in fact...at the top.

You add an image to another image as a Layer by simply selecting all of the first image (Ctl-A), then copying it to your "Clipboard" (Ctl-C), navigating back to the destination image by clicking on it, and pasting the Clipboard contents (Ctl-V). Of course, in this type of application the images must share exactly the same pixel dimensions and should bear the same .icm/.icc profile (yet another topic for another post-Color Management). It's best to set up your layered working files as 16 bit .tif files straight out of RAW conversion.

As long as your camera was perfectly static during the shoot (requiring a good tripod) and you didn't vary your aperture much if at all (lens performance varies significantly with aperture variance), the images should "register" or align perfectly with a minimum of Seidel and Chromatic issues (don't make the assumption that you don't really need to understand Geometric Optics in order to produce better images!).

Save your image frequently. Since I work in 16 bits I save my images as either .tif or .psd, both formats that are very friendly to Layers, Alpha Channels, Layer Transparencies, 16 bits per Channel, and other characteristics that are common in advanced image preparation techniques.

Assuming the above steps were successful, we have a multilayered image in which we will be able to rearrange the order of the Layers, Mask out portions of Layers we don't want to be used by our Blending Modes, apply Adjustment Layers and Fill Layers, and even dive deep into Photoshop if we need to employ Channel Operations ("ChOps") for extreme selection, color, or contrast manipulations.

Before we explore Layers any further, please take the time to review the  basic Photoshop Help (F1) on both topics. Don't worry about Blending Modes for the moment-they're deep, and we'll not only be applying them in Layers but with Brushes!

L

Questions Here!

If you have questions, or topics relating to Photoshop or Flash that you'd like to discuss, and which are not related to any existing postings, please leave them here.

I'll try to use them as topics for a new post.

L

 

Professionalism. The Secret Ingredient.

My graduate work focused on business administration and law. Those cardinal disciplines, at least academically, involve ethics. Ethics is a "soft" topic in that it is relatively formless (compared, for example, to chemistry) and extremely contentious.  I'd really love to use the word "invertebrate" here, but I just can't put myself up to it.

Statutes, in spite of their objectivity and the ambiguities of language, are only an ethical framework because compliance is generally recognized to be a social plus-punitive actions are inconvenient and tailored to discourage recidivism, so they stink by most accounts.

Bona fide religious principles lack the intimidation of sanctioned legal enforcement, but certainly are fundamental to most ethical postures.

So, where am I going with this? Is professionalism simply a matter of subscribing to some ethics, mores...or must it include compliant behavior? Is professionalism a matter of pure function-social competencies such as dressing properly and using submissive or even obsequious language? Does professionalism require technical competencies?

In the military, professional relationships and behaviors are strictly prescribed. Sanctions may be severe and immediate (not even requiring court action, ref. Article 15 of the UCMJ). The business world has its own severe and immediate sanction-that is, the refusal of business, but there is no truly formal, comprehensive establishment of "professional" behavior.

We're left with a rather inchoate classification that can mean many different things to many different people, all of whom express approval primarily by trading dollars (yeh, I'm an unapologetic Capitalist). Lots of dollars falling into your case doesn't necessarily mean that you're "professional," but a paucity certainly can mean that you're not.

This is far too broad a topic to completely examine in a single blog posting. Please allow me to share with you some of my ideals for professionalism, then comment on what you believe my logical phallacies might be.

1. Professionalism  includes specialized competencies and knowledge, and must include the ability to effectively communicate about those abilities and knowledge. This fits perfectly with the definition of a merchant, which is a fundamental  legal philosopy dealing with the commercial provisions of goods and/or services.
2. Professionalism includes socially acceptable behavior and presentation. Not speaking perjoratively about your competition, showing respectful deference when appropriate, and contributing selflessly to a common goal are good examples of behavior that will reliably be considered "professional."
3. Professionalism includes the effective fulfillment of the needs of others. Punctuality. On-time delivery. Orderliness. These not only facilitate eveyone else's efforts, they are implied, if not express, in contractual relationships.

There is a laundry list of things that are not "professional" by most reasonable criticisms-enumerating them is pointless. It is important to realize that the elements of professionalism are not topical-they are an inherent part of a personality. A professional facade is not a professional essence at all-it is counterfeit and doomed to collapse under duress.

"Professionalism" is then a moving, morphing target but not without indentity or mass. We can probably all agree on a great majority of the elements of professionalism without even sharing a majority of common cores of experience.

My personal ethics and professionalism are driven by what I consider to be the best business manual ever written-the Biblical book of Proverbs. I look forward to the day when the Book of Proverbs, and its context, are no longer a "Secret Ingredient."

L