DVPhoto

Today, I am in a black and white mood.

Of course I forgot to bring the Kiev 4 along with me, and so only the Canon 350D is immediately available. Now you can always take photos with your colour bayer array sensor digital SLR, but you immediately lose many of the benefits of B&W photography. Reduced dynamic range as well as less sharpness due to bayer arrays and anti-aliasing filters. If only there was some sort of full frame B&W sensor with a full 10 stops (or more) dynamic range.

Alas, there is no such thing (apart from one attempt from Kodak in the past); and the immediate future doesn’t hold much promise either, due to a complete lack of demand. The lack of demand is of course due to the fact that not many people want a camera that does only B&W, especially when it is extremely easy to convert your colour digital photos to B&W anyway (despite the drawbacks).

So I wish once again, for a modular digital system. Not something like Leica’s digital R system, where they separated digital camera, from a glorified lens holder. No I wish for a system where as much as possible is reused in the camera itself, with little more than a cartridge encased sensor being the easily replaceable part. I obviously a system like this is far off, and probably further than it needs to be, since camera companies benefit from the constant rebuying of bodies every time a new sensor is developed.

Now imagine a future where you buy one camera body. The range/cost is defined by the memory bandwidth, shutter speed, autofocus, etc. The sensor is not included, or comes with a basic 1.6x crop sensor, say 12 megapixels and usable ISO up to 3200. Now I decide to splash out and get a full frame B&W sensor for my camera, it is 12 megapixels as well, but with ISO all the way up to 25600. At the lower ISO’s it has a dynamic range of 12 stops, and it’s images are amazingly sharp. Add to this a 2x crop sensor, say 10 megapixels, perfect for nature and outdoor sport; a full frame high resolution colour sensor perfect for extra large prints of landscapes; a lower resolution full frame colour sensor could provide amazing colour rendition and dynamic range.

Suddenly you have system that allows you to carry one camera with you, yet gives you the flexibility to use a sensor that is most suited to the job at hand. Done properly, I would hope you could get the equivalent of 4 digital SLR’s for the price of 2, and throw in the chance of 3rd party sensors (want a Foveon sensor in that Canon body?).

I’m sure there are many technical issues I don’t know about, and these hurdles may never be passed, but one can dream.

AssignmentZero have an interview with Chase Jarvis on microstock & crowdsourcing, and his ideas on how it affects the photographic industry as a whole.

In a world where most pro photographers seem to be accusing microstock photographers of being traitors, Chase’s attitude is refreshing.

From the article:

This industry is changing so much that you should never say never. There are people who once said, ‘Oh, I’ll never put my images in royalty-free,’ and now they are. Those people who were saying, ‘Never microstock!’ are going to eat their words in the near future.

I’m waiting for that tipping point and then I’ll probably step into the market.

Many commentators have suggested that anything more than a thumbnail cannot be considered fair use. Mikes response was an image made up mostly of a freak copyright message.

Earlier this week Mike from TOP wrote a brief rant about copyright; or more accurately, a rant about essentially unknown photographers actively making it known they don’t want anyone using their work without prior approval, without giving people any way to contact them in the first place.

What seemed to me to be a reasonable request has turned into what Mike called a Copyright Brouhaha, and now a third post, Keep Your Freakin’ Hands Off My Picture, is causing even more arguments in the comments section.

While the articles are worth the read, the comments are where the meat is. There are two sides; the one, seemingly made up of some professional photographers and lawyers, claims that what Mike is doing (especially in his Random Excellence posts) is, if not legally wrong, at the very least morally questionable. The other side is made up of the rest of us, and seems to belief that posting images of other photographers to showcase their work (including linking back to their sites if possible) should easily fall within the provisions of fair use and is most certainly a good thing.

Now I can understand where the Pro photographers and lawyers are coming from. The pro photographer is out there to make money, as much of it as they can. A lawyer’s job is to twist the law to his clients benefit, if a law has some leeway in its interpretation, then all the better. Obviously when asked whether something is fair use, the default answer is “probably not”, since avoiding possible litigation is considered more important than the original intent of the law.

To my mind, the idea of fair use is there to allow others to comment on, learn from, and praise existing works. All of these are impractical unless you have the entire image to look at, and while you definitely do not need a full size image, a thumbnail will definitely not do.

While I do not dispute that the lawyers are correct when they say Mike could find himself in court for his current use of copyrighted images, I do think this shows that copyright law, and especially the concept of fair use, is currently broken.

Photocritic have a very interesting post titled “What do you do when they nick your photos?”

It’s a reality we all have to deal with when posting our photos online. Obviously the vast majority of us aren’t quite so popular/good that it becomes a huge problem. Yet even as a average photographer, you probably have a few great photos; imagine how you’d feel if someone else made a profit off those at your expense. Or worse; when you complained, you were the one who got censored?

Apart from the obvious “never put your photos online”, how do you stop someone using your images for their own gain. For me the most obvious is don’t give others access to the large resolution photos. Sure they can still steal your 600 pixel wide photos, but they won’t be able to use them for much. Other options include putting a water mark on the image, but the more effective the watermark (i.e. how much of the image it covers), the more it destroys the photos beauty.

Some people might think that proposed new laws might do the trick; but I think these laws miss the point and are more targeted at trying to put kids and their parents into jail. A teenager using your photo as a wall paper for his desktop is not the problem. Companies stealing your photos for profit is the problem, and the laws currently cover that just fine, though they could perhaps benefit from some changes making it easier for an individual to pursue a large company.

I personally use a Creative Commons license for most of my images. I also try to make sure no one can download full resolution versions. And I dread the day I find someone selling my work without my permission. I dread it because it will take effort and money to make them pay, but I sure as hell will do everything in my power to bring them to justice.

I’ve been reading quite a lot of blog posts lately about such things as, Who Qualifies As A Photographer?, and Philosophy of Photography: Photograph versus a Snapshot. These are questions that I’m sure have been asked since shortly after a second person made themselves a light tight box and started making images. However, during times of upheaval in the photographic world, I think these questions are naturally asked more often; and the times we find ourselves in now, with not only the digital revolution happening, but online communities making it easier than ever before for even the lowliest of photographers to be seen, must surely qualify as being in upheaval. It is because of this that we are hearing more often than ever before, the question: Are Digital Cameras destroying photography? I have to say no, they are not.

Now I posted a quote a while back in a post to do with the micro-stock market, and it went:

…created an army of photographers who run rampant over the globe, photographing objects of all sorts, sizes and shapes, under almost every condition, without ever pausing to ask themselves, is this or that artistic? …They spy a view, it seems to please, the camera is focused, the shot taken! There is no pause, why should there be? For art may err but nature cannot miss, says the poet, and they listen to the dictum. To them, composition, light, shade, form and texture are so many catch phrases…^,

It was only slight apt in that post, now it is perfect. Of course it was about dry plate photography, the new process that was rapidly replacing wet plate colloidal photography at the time. Roll film replaced it soon after as the new “too easy” format, and years later 35mm (and a number of other smaller formats at the time) replaced roll film as the film of choice for the amateur. Every step of the way, users of the previous formats looked on in disdain at the newer formats and their users. If it wasn’t “destroying photography”, that was only because it “wasn’t actual photography”. Every step of the way, taking a photo became just a little bit easier, a whole lot cheaper, and even more accessible to the average person. A fact that irks the established photographers who feel they had to learn things the hard way while these newcomers don’t even try to learn at all. It is of course understandable; seeing people doing something you love with so little actual knowledge hurts, in any field of study.

I don’t think that this actually hurts photography. Sure the percentage of people out there, snapping away happily, never knowing what aperture or f-stop means, has grown exponentially in the last few years; but I think that the number of truly good photographers is growing rapidly as well. Photography is more than just knowing the technical details of your camera and how it works, a lot of it requires an eye that can see the image before it is taken; something that isn’t easy to learn. I believe there are many people out there these days taking amazing photos, who would have never even tried 10 years back. They have the eye, the artistic ability; they just don’t have the ability (or desire) to learn all the technical details.

I’m a technical person, while I had learnt on old camera’s a child, I’d spent a long enough time away from photography to have forgotten pretty much everything. When I got back into photography I immediately went digital. Since I am technical by nature, I immediately set out to learn every technical detail of taking a photo; f-stops, aperture, ISO, shutter speed, etc. Within a very short period of time I knew exactly what I needed to do, to gain a certain effect; and yet, in my opinion, most of my photos still lack something. My ability to see a shot, envision it as a print up on the wall, was and is still limited. I’ll learn and develop (I hope), over time, and I’ll have fun doing it; if I had started photography 50 years ago, it would be the same, if slightly slower. However for the technically inept (no matter how good an eye they might have had), learning photography, until recently, must have been a truly daunting task. Now they can continue to take photos and learn, slowly, over time. At least now they have a chance to produce something beautiful.

Well what with all the noise about ethics in photojournalism going around lately, Sports Shooter has decided to start a column about photojournalism ethics. The first column is aptly titled: Gray Matters: What is real?

Go read it, look like it could be an interesting feature.

If you hadn’t heard about Allan Detrich, and his editing of a photo to do with the Bluffton Baseball tragedy, then you obviously haven’t been reading your photography news for the last few days.

This isn’t the first time this sort of thing has been found, and it certainly won’t be the last, photo shopping becoming something of a second nature to many of us. Not being a photo journalist, I can clone and heal to my hearts content, the final image’s look being the only concern. The life of the photo journalist isn’t so easy however; unlike their literary counterparts (who seem to be able to get away with a hell of a lot of massaging of the truth), the photo journalist is still held to a very high ideal. It makes sense in a way, people usually realise that what they read should be taken with a grain of salt; however the general perception is still that a “photo doesn’t lie”.

The fact that these photo journalists that are caught get fired, may seem to be a bit harsh. The edits have almost always been minor cosmetic changes, and it would be easy to say that there was no harm in them. Still, if you allowed some editing of photos, the huge grey area that would result would rapidly push photo journalism into an arena about as factually true as the opinions column on the last page of a cheap tabloid.

…the more they stay the same.

…created an army of photographers who run rampant over the globe, photographing objects of all sorts, sizes and shapes, under almost every condition, without ever pausing to ask themselves, is this or that artistic? …They spy a view, it seems to please, the camera is focused, the shot taken! There is no pause, why should there be? For art may err but nature cannot miss, says the poet, and they listen to the dictum. To them, composition, light, shade, form and texture are so many catch phrases…

So said E. E. Cohen in 1893. What was he complaining about? Dry plate photography, the new process that was rapidly replacing wet plate colloidal photography. In fact throughout the history of photography all new technologies and ideas were met with resistance from the currently established photographers of the day. It makes sense, since they have spent many years becoming an expert in their field, and when the new paradigm comes along their expertise is suddenly diminished in usefulness; they have to learn things anew. It happened then, wet plate vs dry plate, and now digital vs film; and even tradition stock vs micro stock.

Yes, micro stock, that newcomer to the block who has caused more anger and resentment amongst the old stock photographers than any other change. No other subject has generated more apocalyptic blog posts in the photographic community, with constant reports of falling revenues and worse. Mentioning you sell at a micro stock site is likely to get you a mountain of abuse hurled in your direction; the smaller macro stock agencies often not allowing anyone to join if they have been involved in micro stock.

Is this a good idea? They think it is, the general justification being the protection of their customers, just in case that micro stock supplier decided to provide the same image to both a micro stock site, and them. Sounds like a valid reason, doesn’t it?

Except Getty has bought out iStockphoto.com; and what the anti micro stock people won’t tell you, or perhaps don’t even know about, is that iStock exclusive photographers of diamond level (and possibly lower) now have the option to send their best photos to Getty’s Photodisc RF collection. Now this isn’t exactly the big time yet, still no RM managed stuff for the iStock photographers, but it is a first step; and it is clear that Getty intends to move the best photographers up into the much more expensive traditional stock business.

Now if you are new RM agency, you have two choices. Get people of all levels and ability, or restrict yourself to the good experienced stock photographers. Since you are selling your images at a much higher price, I seriously doubt you want to be getting amateurs in, so that really rules out the first option. Yet with the second option, it is going to be increasingly common to find the up and coming stock photographers to already be in micro stock. So if you bar them from joining your stock agency, they will go somewhere else.

The world of stock photography is changing, and no amount of complaining will change that. Like almost everything else in this modern world, quality goes out the door and is replaced by quantity, availability and cost effectiveness. People still manage to make a living of making quality, but there are less of them; the masses purchase what is cheap and available. So stop complaining about micro stock, and realise to make money in it, you will need to produce a ton of above average shots. To be able to make a living in the traditional stock business however, you will need to produce amazing work that stands out amongst the crowd.

There is something about hobbies that makes so many people in this world insist on taking up polarised positions. Product A is better than product B, no questions, no exceptions! I’m sure internet forums increase this ten fold. The resulting multi page long arguments, filled with baseless assumptions and ridiculous conclusions, being repeated so often that it makes you want to bash your head against your monitor until the pain stops one way or another.

Now a year or so back, I began my hobby of photography with the purchase of a digital SLR. I am very happy with my choice, and while I’m sure there are a thousand arguments for choosing a different route, I wouldn’t choose differently if given another chance. It was and is a great learning tool, with rapid feedback and very good quality images. Yet I somehow don’t feel this need to proclaim my choice to be the most superior choice available to all.

It seems that as film rapidly retreats from the market, becoming harder and harder to get; the film connoisseurs feel an increasing need make even more ridiculous claims about why film is best. The other day I was reading a post where someone claimed that 35mm film was equivalent to at least 22 mega pixels. I don’t know what film he used, because I don’t think a 19×13 inch enlargement (that is +-22mp at 300 dpi in digital terms) of 35mm film looks even remotely as detailed as one from a 12mp digital camera. Grain is not detail!

However, while grain may not be detail; the look of film, especially B&W films, is something that can be truly appreciated; even when shooting 35mm. The resolution of large format cannot be beaten by any easily affordable digital solution with the exception of stitching digital images; something that while able to producing stunning large images, is still severely limited.

Yet all of this is meaningless. I love photography, all of it. The film ribbon on the side bar of this blog is there to say that film is not dead, there will always be some of us who want to use it. Right now my tiny budget has limited me to a DSLR and an old Kiev 4 35mm rangefinder. I want to build my own large format camera, get a better DSLR, perhaps find an old Kiev 60 on ebay; Maybe even one day own a Leica M3. I am not a digital photographer, or a film photographer; I am just a photographer.