Today in the news, it was announced that Twitter was going to employ Apple's director of equality (or some such title). Apparently somewhere in the region of 80% of Twitter staff are male and around 60% are white. That just sounds pretty normal to me to be honest. That's about the makeup of most tech businesses. Indeed, I worked for one shower here in Columbia SC where the boss said he wouldn't employ women at all because they would get in the way of his porn viewing. That's right - he liked to view porn while his staff worked. Needless to say, there were other problems with that business hence it was one of the few jobs I quit before getting another role.
The thing that amuses me most about the equal opportunities is that they"re so limited. Equal opportunities are restricted to black, white, male or female. They don't extend to any of the other varieties of humankind. It's OK to be prejudiced against religious beliefs, lifestyles, tattooes, looks, clothing, sexuality, sexual orientation and gender expression. It seems to me that equality is only as good as the law and the law is not very equal.
Thinking further on equlity, the problem goes right back to people's attitudes. Until we all have the attitude of equality within us, nobody will ever be equal. For example, take photography. Wedding photography used to be the preserve of men and male photographers. They were the only people that generally wanted to master the technical aspects of what was then quite a technical role. Women generally let the men do the technical stuff though my mother loved taking photos.. That was inequality in society. That inequality has reduced with women taking on more technical roles despite some falling back on the roal of helpless waifs.
Now, wedding photography and particularly boudoir photography is dominated by women. The thought is that since the camera can handle the technical aspects of photography without much intervention, the photographer can concentrate on the artistic aspects - that does rather appeal more to women than to men. Certainly I'm saying women prefer the artistic aspects to the techical and men the technical to the artistic - in general. This, however is the result more of upbringing than anything else.
The fact that women are increasingly dominating the photography market as suppliers also says more about the makeup of society where women generally have traditional roles based on genetics. Due to women largely being stay-at-home mothers or part-time workers in low-paid jobs while they look after children, women increasingly look toward photography as a casual earner.
(editor - at this point the "Blog It" app from the android app store deleted the next 5 paragraphs without user intervention)
The domination of women in photography is almost 100% when it comes to boudoir photography. There's no logical reason for that because both men and women are equally capable of acts of sexual violence on either men or women. Indeed, there have been cases in the media recently of female schoolteachers having babies fathered by their male students where the schoolteacher initiated the "romance". Facts don't seem to come into it very much. 95% of men would never commit an act of sexual violence toward a man or woman. It's not just that 95% are simply non violent and non dominating but the thought of losing ones business, ones reputation and spending several years as somebody elses sex slave in a prison probably has something to do with it. Here we have a major thing - fear is a major dictator of personal choices and reactions. Fear dominates people's lives more than they will admit.
Fear of the strange and unusual is one reason why or perhaps the dominant reason why the different flavors of humanity face prejudice. We have already established that black and white are equally capable. Differences are largely based on upbringing. For example, in an area where there are few jobs there is little inclination to study to get better jobs because the jobs don't exist.
Because transexuals, homosexuals, transvestites, transgender, bisexual, asexual etc are minorities, people who're broght up with religious and traditional family backgrounds generally have little to no experience of such people. The new and unusual comes with fear. To people without experience, fear breeds predjudice. There are states such as New York that are actively trying to wipe out prejudice.
Going back to Twitter and tech companies, until they have a requirement for true minorities to be employed or rather a legal requirement to employ such minorities, the workplace transsexual, trasvestite, homosexual, transgender, bisexual etc will always remain an unemployed minority.
Going even further, back to boudoir photography, how would a woman react to having a transvestite or transsexual photographing her or even a fully disclosed lesbian? I think it's safe to bet that most women are biassed or afraid enough that such a possibility would be met with outright refusal.
Going toward men's clubs - would a men's club accept a known homosexual or would they be afraid that they'd get attacked in the bathroom? Men and women kiss in public and that's seen as normal. Two women seen kissing in public is unusual. Two men kissing in public is seen as abhorent. How about a transvestite or transsexual and a partner of the same or different genders seen kissing in public? Yet - this is an act between two people and nothing that does anything more than visually impact the people that actively watch.
I have very much a feeling that while tech companies such as Twitter are now employing equal opportunities directors, their remit is just going to be the same boring old black & white, male & female. Thus far the number of publically known transsexuals is minimal - possibly only half a dozen of which Caitlyn Jenner is the most widely known at the moment. Interestingly, she has not had any form of sexual reassignment surgery so while she is seen as female, she still possesses male genitalia. Does this perhaps blur the line between transsexual and transvestite? I have yet to see any business that employs a transvestite other than show business. There are many successful transvestites in show business - Dame Edna Everidge/Barry Humphries is just one example. Generally such people are restricted to being side-show freaks. I have yet to be served in a store by a man with a beard wearing a dress and hoseiery. I have yet to be served in a store by a man dressed even remotely convincingly as a woman or even unconvincingly for that matter.
Returning again to photography and wedding photography, how many photographers are there that are transgender or transvestite? How many are homosexuals? It definitely seems to have become the preserve of heterosexual women just like boudoir photography.
Looking to the future, it took centuries for black and white to become equal. Various conservative groups such as the KKK have tried hard to set back equality for fear that it might change their lives in some negative way. Homosexuality became fought against but that was harder because nobody could prove it negatively affected anybody so it was left to some religious oddballs to find some dubious sounding reasons in the bible to challenge equality. It took several thousand years for women to achieve equality. The challenge there was the perceived role as child brearer and rearer that was seen as not allowing anything else.
After several thousand years of conflict, religious equality is here yet there are groups of zealots diametrically opposed to such equality. ISIS, for example and the Taliban. The Taliban uses photography and photographs yet despises photography and photographs, particularly of people. There's not so much equality but equality in many places yet some groups demand domination.
It looks like being several years yet before we do reach full equality. I have no problem with people's preferences. Where I and others have issues is when people try to sell their preferences to me and make it seem as though we are the odd ones for not trying their lifestle. For example, I would no longer be a homosexual than a Jehova's Witness or a criminal. I will stand up for their right to be Jehova's Witesses or homosexuals (though as the Good Lord says - criminals are Devil spawn). Once we do have equality, there will be acceptace of all lifestyles.
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Sunday, December 27, 2015
Lithium battery replacements. How to tell good from bad
Over the years I've use a lot of lithium batteries. Quite honestly, I abhor them. I think the world would be a lot better place without lithium batteries and without nickel cadmium batteries too. Nickle Metal Hydride are the otherwise bright spark in an otherwise dismal battery world.
As far as laptop batteries, we don't have a choice any more - everybody has gone over entirely to lithium batteries. In my case, I have a 10 year old Mac laptop. It worked until the battery died. I did what everybody does and went on ebay to buy a cheap lithium battery. Instead of spending $80, I spent $20. Perhaps that shouldn't be spent but more wasted - it worked fine the first few times then started giving the same problems the old original did before it stopped totally. I have yet to save enough to replace that battery with the genuine article. I won't be buying another fake.
With camera batteries, I bought a fake from B&H to power my Canon XT and it worked and is still working, 10 years later. I bought a fake from B&H to power my 30D and it worked once then when I went to charge it again, a year later (I don't take my DSLRs out of storage very often), it was totally dead and wouldn't take a charge.
This pretty much echoes my entire experience of knock-off products. If it's a knock off and costs more than 1% of the price of the real thing, it's way too expensive. I've never had a genuine article fail on me - it's always the cheap knock off that fails. I don't expect a long life for my RCA tablet, for example but equally I expected more than 14 months from my Nexus 7. The reason I went for the cheaper knock-off this time is that since the real thing only lasts barely a year, if I go through two RCA tablets in a year I'm still financially way ahead!
Tablets and batteries are not the same thing, however. The technology of lithium batteries is just plain scary. Lithium combines with water to produce hydrogen. Normally, water is used to extinguish fires. With a lithium battery fire, water doesn't extinguish it, it feeds the fire. And people keep their phones in their pants pocket and their shirt pocket where it's constantly bathed in a very humid atmosphere. It's equally scary to see people drinking while holding cups near their computers. They're a spill and a spark away from a conflagration that canot be extinguished with normal fire-fighting equipment.
So, do you really, truly trust budget and knock-off batteries where god alone knows what corners have been cut. Could the battery have been made by a devious al-Quaida or ISIS operative? My best advice is to toss your fake batteries in your next-door neighbors trash (don't want to set your own trash on fire).
As far as laptop batteries, we don't have a choice any more - everybody has gone over entirely to lithium batteries. In my case, I have a 10 year old Mac laptop. It worked until the battery died. I did what everybody does and went on ebay to buy a cheap lithium battery. Instead of spending $80, I spent $20. Perhaps that shouldn't be spent but more wasted - it worked fine the first few times then started giving the same problems the old original did before it stopped totally. I have yet to save enough to replace that battery with the genuine article. I won't be buying another fake.
With camera batteries, I bought a fake from B&H to power my Canon XT and it worked and is still working, 10 years later. I bought a fake from B&H to power my 30D and it worked once then when I went to charge it again, a year later (I don't take my DSLRs out of storage very often), it was totally dead and wouldn't take a charge.
This pretty much echoes my entire experience of knock-off products. If it's a knock off and costs more than 1% of the price of the real thing, it's way too expensive. I've never had a genuine article fail on me - it's always the cheap knock off that fails. I don't expect a long life for my RCA tablet, for example but equally I expected more than 14 months from my Nexus 7. The reason I went for the cheaper knock-off this time is that since the real thing only lasts barely a year, if I go through two RCA tablets in a year I'm still financially way ahead!
Tablets and batteries are not the same thing, however. The technology of lithium batteries is just plain scary. Lithium combines with water to produce hydrogen. Normally, water is used to extinguish fires. With a lithium battery fire, water doesn't extinguish it, it feeds the fire. And people keep their phones in their pants pocket and their shirt pocket where it's constantly bathed in a very humid atmosphere. It's equally scary to see people drinking while holding cups near their computers. They're a spill and a spark away from a conflagration that canot be extinguished with normal fire-fighting equipment.
So, do you really, truly trust budget and knock-off batteries where god alone knows what corners have been cut. Could the battery have been made by a devious al-Quaida or ISIS operative? My best advice is to toss your fake batteries in your next-door neighbors trash (don't want to set your own trash on fire).
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
How to become the best photographer in ten easy steps
It is every photographers dream to be the best, to be universally admired and to earn money from photography. How is this achieved? How can you, the humble amateur achieve such heights of excellence and greatness? Simple - follow the following ten steps...
1. Tear up and forget any notion that you will ever feel better than anybody else for there will always be somebody whose photographs you will see as better and which other people will like more.
2. Realise that unless you have low standards you will always feel that your photographs could be better, could be improved etc.
3. Realise that wherever you look somebody will have something nasty to say about you or your photographs.
4. Acknowledge all of the above and that other people"s opinions are just pure baloney.
5. Just head out and take photographs.
6. Experiment, take risks, try things. If the photo sucks, you can keep it, delete it or whatever.
7. Remember that the photos you take are special because they are a reflection of you, of your personality, of your style.
8. Remember you don't have to copy anybody else's style, subjects or ideas.
9. Remember you have you own unique vision, style and interpretation.
10. Accept you are the best photographer already in your world.
1. Tear up and forget any notion that you will ever feel better than anybody else for there will always be somebody whose photographs you will see as better and which other people will like more.
2. Realise that unless you have low standards you will always feel that your photographs could be better, could be improved etc.
3. Realise that wherever you look somebody will have something nasty to say about you or your photographs.
4. Acknowledge all of the above and that other people"s opinions are just pure baloney.
5. Just head out and take photographs.
6. Experiment, take risks, try things. If the photo sucks, you can keep it, delete it or whatever.
7. Remember that the photos you take are special because they are a reflection of you, of your personality, of your style.
8. Remember you don't have to copy anybody else's style, subjects or ideas.
9. Remember you have you own unique vision, style and interpretation.
10. Accept you are the best photographer already in your world.
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Review of a cheapass tablet
My Nexus 7 did the dirty on me the other day. It started constantly freezing so I did a factory reset and found the restore partition had been deleted by whoever refurbished it for walmart. I'd bought it in October of last year and it's now December of this year. Just out of warranty lol. Anyway, it died.
In the meantime I ordered the 16GB RCA 7" tablet with a keyboard. The tablet outperforms my Nexus on just about every level save three. Some of the apps I used to use won't work on my RCA but that's fine. The only two I can think of or have discovered so far that don't work are the "what to wear" app (which was good for a laugh) and Blogeroid but I've replaced those two with better apps. I've also not bothered installing the games I had because I'd stopped playing them anyway.
The screen is the biggest difference. It's lower resolution, has a narrower viewing angle and isn't quite as vibrant. Ideally I`d like to replace the Nexus but for $55 you really can't complain. Especially since it comes with a keyboad.
The keyboard is a hard clamshell thing that works really well. Unlike my previous keyboards, this works really well. The sole issue is that it maintains the tablet-keyboard at about 50 degrees. It"s not the ideal angle to view the screen.
Battery life is excellent however the charging port is another one of those lousy micro USB things. The older style pin connectors were far superior in longevity.
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Death of a Nexus 7
A few days ago, the Nexus 7 I bought secondhand from Walmart as a refurbished tablet began to act up. For no explicable reason the screen would shut off and refuse to come back on. That necessitated powering it off then on again.
Today the situation became intolerable with the tablet just freezing after it had been powered up. Reading around, there was a recovery mode/factory reset function available. Recovery mode brought up a list of failure messages where the tablet was apparently looking for files on a partition that didn't exist. My best guess is that in the refurbishment process, somebody had reflashed the unit but had flashed it as a single partition. This is not really surprising as there are a lot of semi-skilled illiterates with A+ "qualifications" that really couldn't tell the difference between a computer and a bowl of beef stroganoff!
The upshot of today's shenanigans was that the tablet after being given a factory reset now just comes up with the word "google" on the screen and that's it. It progresses no further. Clearly this is the end of the road for this tablet - or is it? This could well feature in my next video on the rifle range - just like my old Virgin phone did!
Clearly $100 for a tablet that lasted barely 14 months is not good value. I had forgotten my golden rule which is that like shoes, you never buy used electronics. I have ordered a new tablet - a cheaper brand. This time it's an RCA tablet for $45 from Walmart. That shluld be here on Monday. Unlike my previous RCA tablet which was incredibly limited by having a miserly 8gb of memory, this one has 16.
Overall, I find tablets to be a very useful addition to my technology arsenal. Given that they're so disposeable, it's really good news that everything is automatically backed up to the cloud - despite the uncomfortably close relationship between sinister government bodies and Google. I'm hoping that my interest in photography, travel and busses does not land me on the government naughty list!
My other adventures with technology today have been equally frustrating. First, on my way home, my GPS refused to kick in until I'd been driving for 20 minutes. Then, when it did, it told me I was driving across the Pacific at 423mph whereas at the time I was stationary at a stop light in the backwoods of South Carolina. I wasn't sure whether the TomTom was playing banjo music or somebody lurking in a tumbledown cabin beside the road! The next frustration was an old frustration - I tried updating my blog on my macbook but the screen kept shutting down. That's probably a battery issue. Getting tired of flicking the brighter and dimmer buttons just to get brief flashes of light on the screen, I turned to my phone. Remembering I'd purchased a bluetooth keyboard for it, I started using the keyboard. After half an hour of getting multiple keystrokes appearing when the keys had been pressed just once, I remembered why I didn't use that keyboard. I did what I should have done months ago and tossed the blasted thing in the trash can.
So, technology - bah! None of it seems to be working today. That pretty much tells me not to blow any more money on newer cameras!
The upshot of today's shenanigans was that the tablet after being given a factory reset now just comes up with the word "google" on the screen and that's it. It progresses no further. Clearly this is the end of the road for this tablet - or is it? This could well feature in my next video on the rifle range - just like my old Virgin phone did!
Clearly $100 for a tablet that lasted barely 14 months is not good value. I had forgotten my golden rule which is that like shoes, you never buy used electronics. I have ordered a new tablet - a cheaper brand. This time it's an RCA tablet for $45 from Walmart. That shluld be here on Monday. Unlike my previous RCA tablet which was incredibly limited by having a miserly 8gb of memory, this one has 16.
Overall, I find tablets to be a very useful addition to my technology arsenal. Given that they're so disposeable, it's really good news that everything is automatically backed up to the cloud - despite the uncomfortably close relationship between sinister government bodies and Google. I'm hoping that my interest in photography, travel and busses does not land me on the government naughty list!
My other adventures with technology today have been equally frustrating. First, on my way home, my GPS refused to kick in until I'd been driving for 20 minutes. Then, when it did, it told me I was driving across the Pacific at 423mph whereas at the time I was stationary at a stop light in the backwoods of South Carolina. I wasn't sure whether the TomTom was playing banjo music or somebody lurking in a tumbledown cabin beside the road! The next frustration was an old frustration - I tried updating my blog on my macbook but the screen kept shutting down. That's probably a battery issue. Getting tired of flicking the brighter and dimmer buttons just to get brief flashes of light on the screen, I turned to my phone. Remembering I'd purchased a bluetooth keyboard for it, I started using the keyboard. After half an hour of getting multiple keystrokes appearing when the keys had been pressed just once, I remembered why I didn't use that keyboard. I did what I should have done months ago and tossed the blasted thing in the trash can.
So, technology - bah! None of it seems to be working today. That pretty much tells me not to blow any more money on newer cameras!
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
An entertaining tale
I'm still very interested in taking photographs of the night sky. Looking around though, my options are somewhat limited financially - as are everybody else's options given that there's still a horrible recession going on.
The options I looked at were:
1. Getting a Nikon 1 J1 to take the photos. I almost had one too. There was one on eBay but it went for $83 which was above my maximum bid of $75. I already thought $75 was too high and had secretly hoped not to win the auction.
2. Getting a Rokinon 16mm f2 lens as primes are generally better than zooms. The photo above was taken with a Tamron 17-35 F2.8 zoom. It's good aside from the soft corners.
3. Getting a Zenitar 16mm. This was a fast f2.8 lens but apparently is very soft at apertures wider than f8. It's not surprising because Russian quality control is non existent.
4. Getting a micro four thirds camera with the kit zoom. Apparently the kit zoom is excellent and though it's not f2.8 the available ISO would permit the photo. This would cost about the same as the Rokinon lens.
5. Getting a new Canon camera that would have higher ISO, allowing the same level of image to be taken with my current F4 lens.
I used to have a Tamron 17-35 F2.8 but sold it due to it being too soft at F2.8. Certainly the photo looks impressive but the corners kill it for me.
The only gripe I have about my current camera gear is that I can't do night sky photos - which I'd love to do. I like the focal lengths I have. I am very used to the cameras and since one was a gift from my mother on an important occasion in my life, I'm attached to it. I'm not that keen on the bulk of the camera setup but there's little I can do about that. Canon like making big bulky Fischer-Price style cameras.
Whichever way I go, it looks like it'll take a while what with car tax and insurance both due in January. I'd been looking for a secondhand Rokinon but they seem unavailable.
posted from Bloggeroid
Friday, December 11, 2015
Domain names and photo hosting
Today, just for laughs, I looked at the dpreview "discussion" webpages. There's not so much discussion going on as puerile ranting, chest beating and nugatory, gratuitous posting. Mostly the issues raised on dpreview are along the lines of "waah. I just read this (from an unconfirmed or incomplete source) and think its the end of the world" or "how/what/where do I do/buy/get this" where the answer is usually easily available via online searches or better by putting down the damn tablet and heading to the library. Remember libraries? They have books and books have information in them. Better than that even, books don't need batteries so you can keep reading without having to plug them in. Of course, I'm talking about dpreview posters that usually will be found hunched over an elderly computer, surrounded by a sea of burger wrappers, empty coke cans in a foul smelling unventilated room with curtains closed so long that they're sticking to the wall.
Anyway, I digress. One of the posters asked an interesting question, namely what to do for photo hosting and domain names. For some bizarre reason they considered a domain name as a $35 purchase. Really - $35! Are they off their rockers? I've seen domains going for $3.99 and even free. Only a real schmuck would pay more than the minimum for the kind of skanky con trick that domain names represent.
"Hold up", I hear you say. "What do you mean by calling domain names thusly?" Well, in today's world, domain names are irrelevant. Do a web search in a few days for "$%4545454%$" and you'll get right back to this blog entry. Now, imagine - assuming you are not a dpreview "contributor" ergo compus mentus - you can come up with a memorable catch phrase for your photo pages. Something as memorable as "Arbeit Macht Frei" or "Wein, Weib und Gessang" would work. Poof! Your need for a domain name has vanished as too has any associated cost.
What about photo hosting? Who in their right mind actually pays to host photos? Actually the cretin that made the posting on dpreview seemed to believe that right-click protection would stop people downloading their photos and wanted it included. It's really rather sad that anybody should be stupid enough to believe anything online cannot be easily copied or easily have copy protection removed. Ebooks are a classic example - they're just zipped html folders. But back to the point - why pay to host photos? Free sites such as Picasa, Flickr, Instagram etc exist. The important thing to realise is that as soon as an image is available online, somebody will copy it and use it. I've seen it done. I've seen really grotty sub VGA images downloaded, printed and used as table decorations at functions.
So, domain names and paid hosting? Don't make me laugh! I've not paid for domain names nor for hosting for years. I don't have to worry about bills nor renewals. Of course an interesting sub issue is that having a paid domain and website does not mean anybody is ever going to visit it! I had a photo website for several years and no matter what I did would attract more than a pitiful number of visitors. I gave up on trying to sell snow to the Eskimos and stopped throwing money away on domain names and websites. Like as not nobody will visit your website so don't throw money at it.
Anyway, I digress. One of the posters asked an interesting question, namely what to do for photo hosting and domain names. For some bizarre reason they considered a domain name as a $35 purchase. Really - $35! Are they off their rockers? I've seen domains going for $3.99 and even free. Only a real schmuck would pay more than the minimum for the kind of skanky con trick that domain names represent.
"Hold up", I hear you say. "What do you mean by calling domain names thusly?" Well, in today's world, domain names are irrelevant. Do a web search in a few days for "$%4545454%$" and you'll get right back to this blog entry. Now, imagine - assuming you are not a dpreview "contributor" ergo compus mentus - you can come up with a memorable catch phrase for your photo pages. Something as memorable as "Arbeit Macht Frei" or "Wein, Weib und Gessang" would work. Poof! Your need for a domain name has vanished as too has any associated cost.
What about photo hosting? Who in their right mind actually pays to host photos? Actually the cretin that made the posting on dpreview seemed to believe that right-click protection would stop people downloading their photos and wanted it included. It's really rather sad that anybody should be stupid enough to believe anything online cannot be easily copied or easily have copy protection removed. Ebooks are a classic example - they're just zipped html folders. But back to the point - why pay to host photos? Free sites such as Picasa, Flickr, Instagram etc exist. The important thing to realise is that as soon as an image is available online, somebody will copy it and use it. I've seen it done. I've seen really grotty sub VGA images downloaded, printed and used as table decorations at functions.
So, domain names and paid hosting? Don't make me laugh! I've not paid for domain names nor for hosting for years. I don't have to worry about bills nor renewals. Of course an interesting sub issue is that having a paid domain and website does not mean anybody is ever going to visit it! I had a photo website for several years and no matter what I did would attract more than a pitiful number of visitors. I gave up on trying to sell snow to the Eskimos and stopped throwing money away on domain names and websites. Like as not nobody will visit your website so don't throw money at it.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Craigslist fun...
With all the bogus garbage on Craigslist, I thought I'd join in. The local Craigslist has a sea of adverts by photographers and for photographers ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous.
These are the adverts for photographers...
Not too many in that page. There were more further down and many more in other areas. There was no shortage of photographers advertising though...
In my opinion, its all baloney. I doubt that anybody ever gets hired from responding to a Craigslist advert and I doubt that anybody ever hires anybody that responds to a Craigslist advert.
With that in mind, I put up a spoof advert....
Within hours one person wrote back saying "This is a joke right? You have got to be kidding..." But nobody else ever responded. Clearly I need to work on it to make it sound more plausible.
Indeed, the trigger for that spoof was remembering when I advertised photography online. The contact form on my website was filled with unsolicited resumes. Then some joker entered into a long and clearly bogus correspondence about needing a photographer to photograph his dead uncle in a casket in a funeral home.
If more replies come, they'll be posted. Somehow, I doubt anybody takes Craigslist seriously.
Meanwhile, there was an advert for a "sister wife" on Craigslist. Clearly a bogus advert so, using the dating side as a control sample, I posted my own bogus advert...
Nobody in their right mind would respond to an advert like that, or would they? I waited on tenterhooks expecting a sea of outraged responses. There was only one response aside from several bots trying to get me to reveal my real email address.
The outraged response really wasn't that outraged to be honest. They said " What kind of Mormon does gross stuff like that! Are you and you're wives even attractive enough to make a woman get her tubed tied! Sounds like you want a slave not a companion"
Again, I'll post further responses but since the list of adverts grows at a phenomenal rate - all with very weird stuff, there probably won't be more responses. I think the advert will quickly be subsumed by the mass of other advertisers.
So... Craigslist adverts - genuine or not? Probably none are!
These are the adverts for photographers...
Not too many in that page. There were more further down and many more in other areas. There was no shortage of photographers advertising though...
In my opinion, its all baloney. I doubt that anybody ever gets hired from responding to a Craigslist advert and I doubt that anybody ever hires anybody that responds to a Craigslist advert.
With that in mind, I put up a spoof advert....
Within hours one person wrote back saying "This is a joke right? You have got to be kidding..." But nobody else ever responded. Clearly I need to work on it to make it sound more plausible.
Indeed, the trigger for that spoof was remembering when I advertised photography online. The contact form on my website was filled with unsolicited resumes. Then some joker entered into a long and clearly bogus correspondence about needing a photographer to photograph his dead uncle in a casket in a funeral home.
If more replies come, they'll be posted. Somehow, I doubt anybody takes Craigslist seriously.
Meanwhile, there was an advert for a "sister wife" on Craigslist. Clearly a bogus advert so, using the dating side as a control sample, I posted my own bogus advert...
Nobody in their right mind would respond to an advert like that, or would they? I waited on tenterhooks expecting a sea of outraged responses. There was only one response aside from several bots trying to get me to reveal my real email address.
The outraged response really wasn't that outraged to be honest. They said " What kind of Mormon does gross stuff like that! Are you and you're wives even attractive enough to make a woman get her tubed tied! Sounds like you want a slave not a companion"
Again, I'll post further responses but since the list of adverts grows at a phenomenal rate - all with very weird stuff, there probably won't be more responses. I think the advert will quickly be subsumed by the mass of other advertisers.
So... Craigslist adverts - genuine or not? Probably none are!
Monday, November 30, 2015
Cyber Monday Scams
This camera (a Nikon J1) was on sale with a lens before Black Friday & Cyber Monday for $127.
On Black Friday the lens and camera had been mysteriously unbundled. The price demanded was somewhat higher. Today, being Cyber Monday, the scam continues. The camera on its own is now $126.
Add the cheapest matching lens at $104. The total is now $220!
Now add in the 20% cyber Monday discount which actually worked today though it didn't a couple of hours ago and the price is $180.
Basically, its a total scam. It looks like you're saving money but in fact you're spending more. In this instance, $53 more.
Cyber Monday, Black Friday - all scams to lure the unwary. Be very sure that no retailer is ever going to be generous.
On Black Friday the lens and camera had been mysteriously unbundled. The price demanded was somewhat higher. Today, being Cyber Monday, the scam continues. The camera on its own is now $126.
Add the cheapest matching lens at $104. The total is now $220!
Now add in the 20% cyber Monday discount which actually worked today though it didn't a couple of hours ago and the price is $180.
Basically, its a total scam. It looks like you're saving money but in fact you're spending more. In this instance, $53 more.
Cyber Monday, Black Friday - all scams to lure the unwary. Be very sure that no retailer is ever going to be generous.
Sunday, November 29, 2015
Commercial video
Looking at digital cameras these days, the vast majority are extremely well specified and capable devices. Gone are the days when separate still and video cameras were required.
https://youtu.be/ozYV-pUBFu4
Cinemas tend to use 4K video which many new cameras can produce and store to SD cards. Television can easily be simply a VGA video as television broadcasts are fairly low specification.
Pretty much anybody with VGA or greater can produce excellent video. Indeed the video above was taken quite easily with my cellphone. The subject isn't exciting nor is it meant to be. The quality of the video is excellent.
Years ago, Letter to Brezhnev was a budget film. These days, with digital video and digital distribution, just about anybody can set up as a professional movie studio. All that's needed is a camera capable of 4k video if it's intended for cinema or just about any camera for television production.
With so many wonderful editing suites being available cheap or free for computers, I'm rather surprised more people aren't taking advantage of their video production capabilities and producing their own feature films. Heavens they can even publish them free on YouTube like I have with my occasional Photography 101 series!
Where does this leave the big business of motion pictures? Quite honestly, in the same place it has always been - protected by a closed shop, protected by restrictive contracts and mafia like deals.
Where does this leave the amateur? In the same place that still photographers are - unable to sell their images. People are dead keen on tooling up but with no real aim. It's like the prepper that will prepare for the zombie invasion, the invasion from Mars and the invasion by hostile powers that will never come.
https://youtu.be/ozYV-pUBFu4
Cinemas tend to use 4K video which many new cameras can produce and store to SD cards. Television can easily be simply a VGA video as television broadcasts are fairly low specification.
Pretty much anybody with VGA or greater can produce excellent video. Indeed the video above was taken quite easily with my cellphone. The subject isn't exciting nor is it meant to be. The quality of the video is excellent.
Years ago, Letter to Brezhnev was a budget film. These days, with digital video and digital distribution, just about anybody can set up as a professional movie studio. All that's needed is a camera capable of 4k video if it's intended for cinema or just about any camera for television production.
With so many wonderful editing suites being available cheap or free for computers, I'm rather surprised more people aren't taking advantage of their video production capabilities and producing their own feature films. Heavens they can even publish them free on YouTube like I have with my occasional Photography 101 series!
Where does this leave the big business of motion pictures? Quite honestly, in the same place it has always been - protected by a closed shop, protected by restrictive contracts and mafia like deals.
Where does this leave the amateur? In the same place that still photographers are - unable to sell their images. People are dead keen on tooling up but with no real aim. It's like the prepper that will prepare for the zombie invasion, the invasion from Mars and the invasion by hostile powers that will never come.
Saturday, November 28, 2015
Photos, pictures, snaps, images, digital assets?
Reading Ken Rockwell's blog the other day, he was bemoaning the increasing lack of interest in image quality from the public. I can't find the precise entry or I'd have quoted it but from memory he was commenting how disposable photography has become.
It is self evident that if everybody can do something that it becomes less interesting. As an example, writing, where years ago those that could not read or write would visit a scribe. With the advent of universal literacy, the scribe died out. Interestingly the same is now happening in photography. The ease of use of digital cameras as well as their proliferation has meant anybody with sufficient cash to buy a camera and a lens can call themselves a professional photographer. The result is that photography has become a very casual profession where anybody with a camera that wants to, can advertise photography. Sure, they might get photography work very rarely but that's fine as a semi part time job. Indeed, as the IRS allows people to make a small amount of money before declaring it, it works out just fine as a hobby that makes a shade of money.
Photography as a profession is as dead as a doornail. Photography itself has become as common as French fries. Just like writing, everybody can take photos. With the ease of taking photos, their meaning has been lost.
When every photograph had a cost. When a 36 exposure roll of film cost $8 and printing cost $12, film was used much more economically. Each roll cost $20 all told or around 80 cents a photo. Having to pay for each roll at a time made people more economical and fewer people took up photography. Compare that with today where a memory card costs little and holds many images.
With photography now having an insignificant cost, people are able to take photographs of anything without fear of wasting money. Look anywhere online and the photographs are laughable. Who in their right minds would take a photo of their dinner?
Photography has become worthless. Every time somebody takes a pointless photograph is a nail in the coffin of photography.
Already we are seeing the effects of digital imaging in that people see photographs everywhere. Photographs became wallpaper. Add to that the fact people now have the internet and thus daily access to images and photographs totally lose any meaning. It does not surprise me that peoples interest in photography has waned.
Those with longer memories will recall I advertised photography for several years and had just three bookings over those years. The last booking was a bunch of no goods that paid with a bogus check. After that I had no more bookings and ended up closing the business. Clearly digital imaging and the availability of images has killed photography.
Looking further and this links into Samsung's announcement (which might or might not be genuine since the wording is identical to their published decision to pull out of laptops in Europe) where smartphones have killed camera sales. I have to say that my smartphone takes darned good photos. They're not as technically excellent as a DSLR would produce but they're very acceptable.
I'm pretty sure that photography due to the proliferation of photos has lost its value for everybody. I'm equally sure that it's becoming so hard to sell whizz bang cameras that there's a great deal of overcapacity in the market.
I predict fewer people being interested in more than cellphone cameras and fewer people trying to make money from photography. Indeed, I predict the total death of photography as income.
It is self evident that if everybody can do something that it becomes less interesting. As an example, writing, where years ago those that could not read or write would visit a scribe. With the advent of universal literacy, the scribe died out. Interestingly the same is now happening in photography. The ease of use of digital cameras as well as their proliferation has meant anybody with sufficient cash to buy a camera and a lens can call themselves a professional photographer. The result is that photography has become a very casual profession where anybody with a camera that wants to, can advertise photography. Sure, they might get photography work very rarely but that's fine as a semi part time job. Indeed, as the IRS allows people to make a small amount of money before declaring it, it works out just fine as a hobby that makes a shade of money.
Photography as a profession is as dead as a doornail. Photography itself has become as common as French fries. Just like writing, everybody can take photos. With the ease of taking photos, their meaning has been lost.
When every photograph had a cost. When a 36 exposure roll of film cost $8 and printing cost $12, film was used much more economically. Each roll cost $20 all told or around 80 cents a photo. Having to pay for each roll at a time made people more economical and fewer people took up photography. Compare that with today where a memory card costs little and holds many images.
With photography now having an insignificant cost, people are able to take photographs of anything without fear of wasting money. Look anywhere online and the photographs are laughable. Who in their right minds would take a photo of their dinner?
Photography has become worthless. Every time somebody takes a pointless photograph is a nail in the coffin of photography.
Already we are seeing the effects of digital imaging in that people see photographs everywhere. Photographs became wallpaper. Add to that the fact people now have the internet and thus daily access to images and photographs totally lose any meaning. It does not surprise me that peoples interest in photography has waned.
Those with longer memories will recall I advertised photography for several years and had just three bookings over those years. The last booking was a bunch of no goods that paid with a bogus check. After that I had no more bookings and ended up closing the business. Clearly digital imaging and the availability of images has killed photography.
Looking further and this links into Samsung's announcement (which might or might not be genuine since the wording is identical to their published decision to pull out of laptops in Europe) where smartphones have killed camera sales. I have to say that my smartphone takes darned good photos. They're not as technically excellent as a DSLR would produce but they're very acceptable.
I'm pretty sure that photography due to the proliferation of photos has lost its value for everybody. I'm equally sure that it's becoming so hard to sell whizz bang cameras that there's a great deal of overcapacity in the market.
I predict fewer people being interested in more than cellphone cameras and fewer people trying to make money from photography. Indeed, I predict the total death of photography as income.
Black Friday scams
Even Amazon was at it yesterday. A 4 year old camera that has been discontinued for 3 being advertised way above normal prices. This thing normally knocks about for $100-$150 yet Amazon thinks they're so special that they can charge double!
Needless to say, I had a look on the KEH website where it said clearly that using the blackfriday coupon code I'd get 30% off used lenses and 20% off used cameras. So I picked two - a Nikon 1 J1 for $121 and a 10mm Nikon lens for $100.
Now that should add up to $96.80 for the camera and $70 for the lens for a grand total of $166.80 approx.
And yet we have a grand total of $197.60. That's $30 higher than is advertised. Clearly false advertising! Oh, they'll claim it was an error - everybody does that when they're caught out. Even the criminal caught with blood spatter all over them and a smoking gun in their hand will claim the gun was put in their hand by the victim and went off by accident.
The annoying thing about Black Friday is that the whole thing is a total scam yet the public is too much of a sucker to figure it out. All the stuff on sale bar perhaps a few sweeteners that somebody else (never you) will get (if they ever existed anyway) is old stock. Black Friday is just a way of shifting end of line stock to make room for the new lines. Watch the prices - what you think you saved a ton on will be selling for the same or less by Christmas - if it's even still carried.
Be like me - say no to scams and fighting crowds and for parking spaces. I just stay home.
Friday, November 27, 2015
Samsung quits the camera business. #photography
Samsung announced they're quitting the camera business in both the UK and Germany. This does not really surprise me as Samsung was not a traditional camera manufacturer. This is their statement regarding the UK.
“We quickly adapt to market needs and demands. In the UK, we have seen a gradual and sustained decline in demand for standalone digital cameras and camcorders and related accessories. For this reason, we have taken the decision to phase out the sales and marketing of these products. This is a local decision, based on local market conditions.”
Their market analysis is spot on. Smartphones have eliminated compact digital cameras just as digital cameras eliminated film cameras. Similarly, digital SLRs are suffering. The vast majority don't need the sophistication or the excess.
I myself am finding it hard using a smartphone, to find time to use a DSLR. The camera with me (the smartphone) is worth far more than the camera I don't have with me. Yes, there is a compromise in image quality and versatility but that's more than made up for by the convenience.
Its not possible to compare what's happening now to any other period in camera history. Just about everybody owns at least one camera and possibly more than just one. In the past, somebody with a camera was a rarity and SLRs produced far better images. Now the difference between a DSLR, a digital compact, an interchangeable lens compact and a cellphone is much harder to see.
The only time that there is a visible difference between the images produced is when they're used outside the normal range of images. That will be low light and action photos. Having said that, its still pretty close!
Certainly some of the signs are unreadable but it's pretty darned good. That, by the way, was taken with a Nexus 4 cellphone.
Predictions and crystal balls? Well, I think Panasonic and Olympus might get out as might Fujifilm. That'll leave Pentax, Nikon, Sony, Canon and Leica. Even so, the market will be oversupplied.
“We quickly adapt to market needs and demands. In the UK, we have seen a gradual and sustained decline in demand for standalone digital cameras and camcorders and related accessories. For this reason, we have taken the decision to phase out the sales and marketing of these products. This is a local decision, based on local market conditions.”
Their market analysis is spot on. Smartphones have eliminated compact digital cameras just as digital cameras eliminated film cameras. Similarly, digital SLRs are suffering. The vast majority don't need the sophistication or the excess.
I myself am finding it hard using a smartphone, to find time to use a DSLR. The camera with me (the smartphone) is worth far more than the camera I don't have with me. Yes, there is a compromise in image quality and versatility but that's more than made up for by the convenience.
Its not possible to compare what's happening now to any other period in camera history. Just about everybody owns at least one camera and possibly more than just one. In the past, somebody with a camera was a rarity and SLRs produced far better images. Now the difference between a DSLR, a digital compact, an interchangeable lens compact and a cellphone is much harder to see.
The only time that there is a visible difference between the images produced is when they're used outside the normal range of images. That will be low light and action photos. Having said that, its still pretty close!
Certainly some of the signs are unreadable but it's pretty darned good. That, by the way, was taken with a Nexus 4 cellphone.
Predictions and crystal balls? Well, I think Panasonic and Olympus might get out as might Fujifilm. That'll leave Pentax, Nikon, Sony, Canon and Leica. Even so, the market will be oversupplied.
Thursday, November 26, 2015
Tempting - not really!
I just looked at the Black Friday prices of the secondhand camera gear I was interested in. Surprise, surprise - generous discounts but everything that's normally bundled was unbundled. It gives the illusion of a saving but the actuality is that if you bought all the things that were usually bundled, you'd end up paying more while feeling you're actually paying less. Not a bad scam for the retailer!
Meanwhile, I looked on eBay. I can pick up a Nikon 1 v1 for a bit over $100 with a lens. It's an old camera - 4 years old. It's not worth more even in unused condition. Some jokers on eBay look like they've found a room full of them in good condition and are currently trying to claim they're worth five times what they are!
I am interested in a Nikon 1 series camera and the 10mm f2.8 lens. Now the price of the lens at $100 with 30% off is good. The $125 with 20% off for the camera isn't great as the total is still way over the $75-$100 that the combination is actually worth.
The way these things are churned out like rice crispies, they're not worthy of high prices.
Meanwhile, I looked on eBay. I can pick up a Nikon 1 v1 for a bit over $100 with a lens. It's an old camera - 4 years old. It's not worth more even in unused condition. Some jokers on eBay look like they've found a room full of them in good condition and are currently trying to claim they're worth five times what they are!
I am interested in a Nikon 1 series camera and the 10mm f2.8 lens. Now the price of the lens at $100 with 30% off is good. The $125 with 20% off for the camera isn't great as the total is still way over the $75-$100 that the combination is actually worth.
The way these things are churned out like rice crispies, they're not worthy of high prices.
posted from Bloggeroid
Monday, November 23, 2015
Vela 1 flash - a scam?
On September 28th I told you that I suspected the alleged Vela 1 high speed flash was a scam. It had a shipping date of sometime in October as I recall. Today looking at their website I see the telltale "sold out" label.
Basically, it seems to me that they've either come up with an idea that sounds likely to work and milked it for donations via crowdfunding. From there, there are really two realistic options.
1. A few sample models were made for paid customers then when they'd been supplied, an out of stock notice put up. The basic flash cost next to nothing to develop. Like as not, about a week to code the software then an afternoon to design the circuitry. Arduino circuits are very common so are the LEDs used. The $75,000 raised was low enough to be plausible but high enough to give the guy 2 years free living!
2. Nothing has been supplied. The guy just took the crowdfunding money and put up a "sold out" notice to put up a pretence of there actually being such a unit. In a few months I expect the site will vanish as will the site owner.
It is faintly possible that the project is genuine but at $800+ per unit, its way too expensive for something clearly made so cheaply. I can't see any high speed photographers - most of whom are sufficiently versed in electronics to build their own flashes - wanting to pay $800 for a flash when they can build their own for $150 or just convert a secondhand $25 vivitar 283.
Looking for the flash online proves it simply is not available. No effort has been put into getting it listed with any stores either physical or online. If it's a real unit then it looks very fake.
Basically, it seems to me that they've either come up with an idea that sounds likely to work and milked it for donations via crowdfunding. From there, there are really two realistic options.
1. A few sample models were made for paid customers then when they'd been supplied, an out of stock notice put up. The basic flash cost next to nothing to develop. Like as not, about a week to code the software then an afternoon to design the circuitry. Arduino circuits are very common so are the LEDs used. The $75,000 raised was low enough to be plausible but high enough to give the guy 2 years free living!
2. Nothing has been supplied. The guy just took the crowdfunding money and put up a "sold out" notice to put up a pretence of there actually being such a unit. In a few months I expect the site will vanish as will the site owner.
It is faintly possible that the project is genuine but at $800+ per unit, its way too expensive for something clearly made so cheaply. I can't see any high speed photographers - most of whom are sufficiently versed in electronics to build their own flashes - wanting to pay $800 for a flash when they can build their own for $150 or just convert a secondhand $25 vivitar 283.
Looking for the flash online proves it simply is not available. No effort has been put into getting it listed with any stores either physical or online. If it's a real unit then it looks very fake.
Sunday, November 22, 2015
Woohoo.... A few dollars less and...
When a Nikon 1 J1 with 10-30 or preferably a plain 10mm lens is under $100 secondhand, I might leap on one!
The MSRP of this was $649 when it came out in September of 2011. You can almost hear modern cameras depreciating! In fact, they depreciate so rapidly that I really cannot understand, knowing this, why people buy new, I'll never understand - especially when just about any digital camera made in the last 10 years is more than up to the task for most things.
My interest in smaller, lighter cameras is purely for convenience. I don't need ultimate image quality. It's not as though some mystical figure will appear, decide they want to buy one of my photos then turn their nose up because its not 50 megapixels. I'm not laboring under the delusion that photography is about anything more than a photograph and am well aware peoples interest in photos is pretty negligible these days. I see the photo blogger Ken Rockwell said Since photos are disposable today, people take them much less seriously, and ultimately will ignore them entirely. Stop to smile for a photo? People are too busy updating their Facebook page to stop for more than a half a moment to put any effort into smiling
With other people's lack of interest in photography, I have only myself to please. It's like a fellow in my camera club who made the observation that whatever camera he used didn't matter because it was only ever printed to 10x8 or viewed on a screen. Similarly, he said he had only himself to please.
Whether the Nikon 1 will replace my DSLR is a total unknown. I'd like to have an equally capable but smaller, lighter and less nickable system. The technical specifications are very impressive!
In terms of image quality, I'm not yet sure how it stacks up alongside my 30D. The lenses though seem quite excellent for range. There's a 10-30 which is pretty much a bland 28-85. That's the kind of lens that leaves me feeling a bit underwhelmed. There's a 30-110 that complements it, giving effectively 85-300mm. Personally, I find 300 to be a shade on the short side but it works.
The more interesting lens is a 10mm f2.8 that seems ideally suited to landscape and starfield photography. There are others but they're of little appeal. The 10-30 set midway would be excellent for high speed photography, should I get back into that. Indeed, the smaller sensor would vastly improve depth of field, giving me at 1 meter and f8, 1.25 feet of sharp subject. Way more than the measly 4 inches on my Canon system.
Of course, a J1 with a Vela 1 (if it ever changes status from vaporware) would be the perfect high speed photography setup. The big bonus - everything is so cheap, it doesn't matter if it gets destroyed doing high speed photography.
I might get a J1 in the new year, if it drops below $100 and then if it compares favorably to my Canon kit, I might sell the big stuff. I know the kind of photography I do and the kind I like to do. It's not a huge loss if it's just a bum buy either. From what I've seen, the images have a dreamy quality that I quite like.
Saturday, November 21, 2015
Coprophagia and photography
I won't explain what coprophagia is because as an intelligent reader, you can either work it out from the Greek roots or seek the meaning from your favorite search engine. Needless to say, perusing the internet today, I chanced upon a Craigslist advert for this kind of "activity" partner. Clearly from what I see (and hear) of Craigslist, it seems to be a dodgy proposition. Does anybody remember the Craigslist killer?
(screenshot edited for decency)
Anyway, on Craigslist there is a photography section with equipment for sale. Looking at the prices, they're excessively high. The way to maximise sale income of old gear is to see how much its selling for, secondhand at a retail store, see how much a retail store will offer you then advertise it midway between the two. Just like the other section, I cannot imagine many people get interested people contacting them. Indeed, the last few times I tried selling stuff on Craigslist I had some propositions dodgy enough that I ignored them.
One of the dodgy Craigslist propositions I had was when I tried to sell a camera flash. In the advert I stated specifically that the meeting and deal would be done outside Lexington county courthouse. The fellow thought I was dumb or desperate enough to drive 75 miles to a desolate little hamlet to do the deal. He sounded very eager but not eager enough to come to a safe public area!
Further on Craigslist there is a discussion area where people like to curse at each other, bicker and fight. I never see actual photography discussion underway! Then there's the photographic services section which is equally awful. I recall advertising photography at various prices down to free and getting no takers whatsoever. It didn't matter whether I used my own images or (in my control sample) somebody else's images. I see a lot of people doing the same thing. I've even seen people advertising photography on the sides of their vehicles. I see them advertise for a while then give up.
The big problem - aside from photography being greatly over hyped as a money earner - is that the market is over saturated. Think about it - when did you last pose for a photographer? For myself, the last times I posed were a highschool class photo in 1983 and subsequently for ID photos. The ID photos were all done with low resolution cameras. If I paid more than $7 per photo "session" I'd be amazed. People get married very rarely yet every photographer believes they have a chance at getting a wedding to photograph. It's so weird - as soon as people consider themselves a photographer, they cease being able to analyse the market critically.
Then there are the jobs. Look at all the "jobs" advertised on Craigslist. Not one is genuine. 90% are Gmail email addresses yet a real business would have their own E-mail domain. Going further, I've yet to see a genuine online job advert. In 20 years of using the internet I have yet to see that happen.
The problem is not limited to Craigslist. It is symptomatic of a general malaise affecting the whole internet and its denizens. So little online has any veracity behind it. So few people using the internet have good intentions. Look at the number of hate websites masquerading as information, the number of scam websites etc. Indeed one commentator described the internet as having gone from a little wild west to the bad side of town. I tend to agree.
My personal opinion is that the internet is going to be very much if a double edged sword that has been ill considered by all governments around the world. We are slowly learning that the Chinese with registration of all internet users and strict content filtering might have been correct.
While the internet was designed to pass knowledge, it has become a tool for misinformation, slander, libel, terrorism, propaganda and crime. The reason there are fewer footpads around is because its easier to suck people in with scam emails than to cosh people's noggins. Academically, the internet is poor value. Socially, it is of extremely dubious value with its soporific effect causing serious addiction problems. Look around your workplace for proof of that - all the blue screens with Facebook! We could never launch man to the moon again - people are far too distracted by smartphones in their workplaces!
On second thoughts, perhaps the internet does mean users are internet coprophagists. There surely is plenty available!
(screenshot edited for decency)Anyway, on Craigslist there is a photography section with equipment for sale. Looking at the prices, they're excessively high. The way to maximise sale income of old gear is to see how much its selling for, secondhand at a retail store, see how much a retail store will offer you then advertise it midway between the two. Just like the other section, I cannot imagine many people get interested people contacting them. Indeed, the last few times I tried selling stuff on Craigslist I had some propositions dodgy enough that I ignored them.
One of the dodgy Craigslist propositions I had was when I tried to sell a camera flash. In the advert I stated specifically that the meeting and deal would be done outside Lexington county courthouse. The fellow thought I was dumb or desperate enough to drive 75 miles to a desolate little hamlet to do the deal. He sounded very eager but not eager enough to come to a safe public area!
Further on Craigslist there is a discussion area where people like to curse at each other, bicker and fight. I never see actual photography discussion underway! Then there's the photographic services section which is equally awful. I recall advertising photography at various prices down to free and getting no takers whatsoever. It didn't matter whether I used my own images or (in my control sample) somebody else's images. I see a lot of people doing the same thing. I've even seen people advertising photography on the sides of their vehicles. I see them advertise for a while then give up.
The big problem - aside from photography being greatly over hyped as a money earner - is that the market is over saturated. Think about it - when did you last pose for a photographer? For myself, the last times I posed were a highschool class photo in 1983 and subsequently for ID photos. The ID photos were all done with low resolution cameras. If I paid more than $7 per photo "session" I'd be amazed. People get married very rarely yet every photographer believes they have a chance at getting a wedding to photograph. It's so weird - as soon as people consider themselves a photographer, they cease being able to analyse the market critically.
Then there are the jobs. Look at all the "jobs" advertised on Craigslist. Not one is genuine. 90% are Gmail email addresses yet a real business would have their own E-mail domain. Going further, I've yet to see a genuine online job advert. In 20 years of using the internet I have yet to see that happen.
The problem is not limited to Craigslist. It is symptomatic of a general malaise affecting the whole internet and its denizens. So little online has any veracity behind it. So few people using the internet have good intentions. Look at the number of hate websites masquerading as information, the number of scam websites etc. Indeed one commentator described the internet as having gone from a little wild west to the bad side of town. I tend to agree.
My personal opinion is that the internet is going to be very much if a double edged sword that has been ill considered by all governments around the world. We are slowly learning that the Chinese with registration of all internet users and strict content filtering might have been correct.
While the internet was designed to pass knowledge, it has become a tool for misinformation, slander, libel, terrorism, propaganda and crime. The reason there are fewer footpads around is because its easier to suck people in with scam emails than to cosh people's noggins. Academically, the internet is poor value. Socially, it is of extremely dubious value with its soporific effect causing serious addiction problems. Look around your workplace for proof of that - all the blue screens with Facebook! We could never launch man to the moon again - people are far too distracted by smartphones in their workplaces!
On second thoughts, perhaps the internet does mean users are internet coprophagists. There surely is plenty available!
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Destroying the world
Reading around, it seems photographers are destroying places of beauty. Indeed such people should not be called photographers for photographers merely record what is there and do nothing else. Sadly there is a new breed of photographer out there - the vandal photographer.
It seems that since cameras have become so good that competition now is to produce the most unusual photograph. This leads to people making videos of themselves eating four course dinners complete with crockery, wine glasses etc while driving at 70mph down the road. That and people setting up cam in pristine areas then lighting campfires where no campfire should ever be just to get a photograph.
All this bad behaviour is driven by an urge to get "+1" or "like" or comments on their photos and videos when put online onto whatever website. There's an addiction out there and it's all about attention. It's as though the world has suddenly acquired ADD.
The internet has destroyed photography as much as digital cameras have. Now that there's no technical challenge left to making a great photograph and now that the photos can be shared instantly with the millions that use the internet, there's no challenge in publishing a photo. This has reduced the inherent value of a photo from being something of artistic value to being little more than wallpaper.
Are these worn out shoes, art? Are they worth photographing? Is anybody going to want to look at them? Is anybody going to want to bug them? The answer to all those questions is NO. It serves to illustrate what mass production and mass consumption of photography has done. It has become as pointless as the photo above.
These days, since photographs are over shared, the goal is instead of producing photos for others to comment on, to produce photographs for yourself. The satisfaction is in knowing your photographs are better without feeling the need to confirm that by showing them to others. Have we really as a species become so weak that as are dependent upon the approval of others?
Sure. I can do pretty pictures and seek the approval of others. I can do that. I don't do that though. Truth be told, many people would click +1 or "like" on just about anything. Those affirmations mean nothing. I might just as well put the photo below up and call it "art".
Yes. It's a turd! That's pretty much what modern photography has become, thanks to digitization and the internet. Look on your favorite social media sites and you'll see worse images than a turd.
It just seems to me that this thing we call the internet is causing so many of the world's problems. It's definitely the drug of the new millennium. People spend from the time they get home from work hunched over their tablet or computer until they go to bed. They spend as much time as possible at work, playing with Facebook and the like on their phones. Look around any workplace and the telltale blue screens are visible. Indeed, such is the addiction and the withdrawal if the phone is not present that many have mini panic attacks when they're not permitted to play with their toys.
Look online and see in photographs every perversion known to man plus a few new ones. Advertisers use photographs for a good reason - a photograph conveys a feeling, a vision and turns that into desire. Look at women's clothing - women see the image and like what they see and go to buy the clothes whether they need them or not. They want to feel they're in the picture. Men's magazines do the same thing - display stuff that men might like and they buy it, particularly if the photograph makes it seem that rugged men would own it. Just as women want to feel desirable, men want to feel rugged.
Indeed, going further, its quite likely that the increasing availability of images and websites of various alternative lives is driving an explosion of alternative lives. The vast majority of people are not free thinking and can be persuaded to do whatever is desired without much difficulty hence the frequent comparisons to sheep and lemmings.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the number of genuine homosexuals (of either gender) and transsexuals (of any gender) would be a lot lower without images and the internet. While I accept that there is a genuine percentage of both, there's likely a lot of lemmings that have been swayed into it by what they have seen online.
Indeed, the whole concept of gender is nonsense. Physical gender exists but the rest is all made up. Where does it say that a man cannot wear lipstick, eye liner and a pink tutu? Indeed I remember some boys from my highschool that wore mascara and dyed their hair. Where does it say a woman cannot wear jeans and a pair of combat boots? Indeed, I know women that do.
I'm not saying that we're going to see the next US President in a frock but with continual exposure to images of alternative lifestyles, I'm sure the lemmings will swing that way. My prediction is that if western society doesn't fall in the same way the Roman Empire did, we will in 20 years or so, having been exposed to images on the internet see men and women wearing the same clothes.
It seems that since cameras have become so good that competition now is to produce the most unusual photograph. This leads to people making videos of themselves eating four course dinners complete with crockery, wine glasses etc while driving at 70mph down the road. That and people setting up cam in pristine areas then lighting campfires where no campfire should ever be just to get a photograph.
All this bad behaviour is driven by an urge to get "+1" or "like" or comments on their photos and videos when put online onto whatever website. There's an addiction out there and it's all about attention. It's as though the world has suddenly acquired ADD.
The internet has destroyed photography as much as digital cameras have. Now that there's no technical challenge left to making a great photograph and now that the photos can be shared instantly with the millions that use the internet, there's no challenge in publishing a photo. This has reduced the inherent value of a photo from being something of artistic value to being little more than wallpaper.
Are these worn out shoes, art? Are they worth photographing? Is anybody going to want to look at them? Is anybody going to want to bug them? The answer to all those questions is NO. It serves to illustrate what mass production and mass consumption of photography has done. It has become as pointless as the photo above.
These days, since photographs are over shared, the goal is instead of producing photos for others to comment on, to produce photographs for yourself. The satisfaction is in knowing your photographs are better without feeling the need to confirm that by showing them to others. Have we really as a species become so weak that as are dependent upon the approval of others?
Sure. I can do pretty pictures and seek the approval of others. I can do that. I don't do that though. Truth be told, many people would click +1 or "like" on just about anything. Those affirmations mean nothing. I might just as well put the photo below up and call it "art".
Yes. It's a turd! That's pretty much what modern photography has become, thanks to digitization and the internet. Look on your favorite social media sites and you'll see worse images than a turd.
It just seems to me that this thing we call the internet is causing so many of the world's problems. It's definitely the drug of the new millennium. People spend from the time they get home from work hunched over their tablet or computer until they go to bed. They spend as much time as possible at work, playing with Facebook and the like on their phones. Look around any workplace and the telltale blue screens are visible. Indeed, such is the addiction and the withdrawal if the phone is not present that many have mini panic attacks when they're not permitted to play with their toys.
Look online and see in photographs every perversion known to man plus a few new ones. Advertisers use photographs for a good reason - a photograph conveys a feeling, a vision and turns that into desire. Look at women's clothing - women see the image and like what they see and go to buy the clothes whether they need them or not. They want to feel they're in the picture. Men's magazines do the same thing - display stuff that men might like and they buy it, particularly if the photograph makes it seem that rugged men would own it. Just as women want to feel desirable, men want to feel rugged.
Indeed, going further, its quite likely that the increasing availability of images and websites of various alternative lives is driving an explosion of alternative lives. The vast majority of people are not free thinking and can be persuaded to do whatever is desired without much difficulty hence the frequent comparisons to sheep and lemmings.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the number of genuine homosexuals (of either gender) and transsexuals (of any gender) would be a lot lower without images and the internet. While I accept that there is a genuine percentage of both, there's likely a lot of lemmings that have been swayed into it by what they have seen online.
Indeed, the whole concept of gender is nonsense. Physical gender exists but the rest is all made up. Where does it say that a man cannot wear lipstick, eye liner and a pink tutu? Indeed I remember some boys from my highschool that wore mascara and dyed their hair. Where does it say a woman cannot wear jeans and a pair of combat boots? Indeed, I know women that do.
I'm not saying that we're going to see the next US President in a frock but with continual exposure to images of alternative lifestyles, I'm sure the lemmings will swing that way. My prediction is that if western society doesn't fall in the same way the Roman Empire did, we will in 20 years or so, having been exposed to images on the internet see men and women wearing the same clothes.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Paris
In 2003 I was last in Paris. It wasn't actually intentional, however. I'd taken a job with an English language school in Lumbier in Spain that I'd seen advertised. That ended up being the last time I ever taught English as a foreign language. Just as all the other engliush schools I'd taught in, the wages were mysteriously only half what was agreed and travel expenses were never refunded. After three consecutive jobs like that, I abandoned EFL as a joke job and wrote off the £1,000 course fees, chalking it up to experience.
When I was in Paris, I arrived via the train from Pamplona then crossed Paris on their Metro. The area around the Gard du Nord looked very Arabian. Mine was the only European face in the area. Indeed, it felt as though I was walking through the Kazbar!
From there I went to the Eiffel tower but as it was still very early, the tower was closed but the stallholders were busily setting up their stalls. None were of French origin. Indeed, it felt again that I was in the Kazbar.
The next stop was a McDonalds where a snooty individual served me with coffee and a croissant. Again, mine was the sole European face visible. Indeed it was the Eurostar desk before I saw my first honest to goodness French face then it turned out he was Greek!
The bombings and mass murder in Paris the other day do not surprise me in the slightest. It would be only an imbecile that would believe that amidst the mass influx from Arabia, a hard core 5th column is not present.
The West is making some very fundamental and serious miscalculations. Dealing with the Arab world in trade is fine. Allowing a mass influx that won't adopt Western customs is a breeding ground for trouble. Indeed, the Rivers of Blood speech comes to mind. We have allowed the Arabs to come here and set up little caliphates. We're we to go there, we would have to adopt their ways yet they do not adopt ours. It's as though they come to extend their territory.
Western interference in Arab affairs do not go down well. What the West is trying to do is to ensure the safety of the oil supplies since much of the world's oil comes from Arabia. The west supports whichever regime gives the best trade deal. Every now and then, Arabia revolts and causes trouble. Britain never really won a war in Afghanistan yet Britain is back in Afghanistan. Now we're all picking sides in Syria then being amazed when Syrian fifth columnists arrive in the west to carry on the war on our doorstep.
General Nott had the best, most effective response to an uprising in Afghanistan. He marched into Kabul, burned the bazaar to the ground and left. Had the west still retained any guts, the west could have ended thus current Arabian uprising years ago. The problem is that too many do gooders call off effective responses before they're finished. It's like taking a course of antibiotics then quitting half way through then wondering why the sickness carries on any why it is now antibiotic resistent.
There seem to me to be several ways forward.
1. Keep on as we are, catching one or two bad guys while the rest skip through to do their evil.
2. Round up all the Arabians and their sympathizers and deport them permanently to Arabia.
3. Stop buying oil from Arabia, cease trading with Arabia and cease flights to/from Arabia and let them kill each other, not us.
4. Make life intolerable for our own people by employing such restrictive security measures that people are going to say "hmm... Maybe the Arabs have a point"
5. Pretend the Arabs will be our nice cuddly buddies if we pull out militarily and reap the consequences.
6. Recognise that we are fighting a real cancer and deal with it aggressively. Perhaps dropping a nuclear bomb on Mecca during the Haj and dealing equally effectively with local terror cells will be the best response. Judge Dredd style justice.
Whatever happens now, I can see people becoming very suspicious of photographers and anybody in bulky clothing or carrying heavy bags. There's no rationale behind it but that's the way its going to be. In the kind of atmosphere of suspicion in the cities, the only winner will be the Arab, forcing us to change our lifestyles because of them.
When I was in Paris, I arrived via the train from Pamplona then crossed Paris on their Metro. The area around the Gard du Nord looked very Arabian. Mine was the only European face in the area. Indeed, it felt as though I was walking through the Kazbar!
From there I went to the Eiffel tower but as it was still very early, the tower was closed but the stallholders were busily setting up their stalls. None were of French origin. Indeed, it felt again that I was in the Kazbar.
The next stop was a McDonalds where a snooty individual served me with coffee and a croissant. Again, mine was the sole European face visible. Indeed it was the Eurostar desk before I saw my first honest to goodness French face then it turned out he was Greek!
The bombings and mass murder in Paris the other day do not surprise me in the slightest. It would be only an imbecile that would believe that amidst the mass influx from Arabia, a hard core 5th column is not present.
The West is making some very fundamental and serious miscalculations. Dealing with the Arab world in trade is fine. Allowing a mass influx that won't adopt Western customs is a breeding ground for trouble. Indeed, the Rivers of Blood speech comes to mind. We have allowed the Arabs to come here and set up little caliphates. We're we to go there, we would have to adopt their ways yet they do not adopt ours. It's as though they come to extend their territory.
Western interference in Arab affairs do not go down well. What the West is trying to do is to ensure the safety of the oil supplies since much of the world's oil comes from Arabia. The west supports whichever regime gives the best trade deal. Every now and then, Arabia revolts and causes trouble. Britain never really won a war in Afghanistan yet Britain is back in Afghanistan. Now we're all picking sides in Syria then being amazed when Syrian fifth columnists arrive in the west to carry on the war on our doorstep.
General Nott had the best, most effective response to an uprising in Afghanistan. He marched into Kabul, burned the bazaar to the ground and left. Had the west still retained any guts, the west could have ended thus current Arabian uprising years ago. The problem is that too many do gooders call off effective responses before they're finished. It's like taking a course of antibiotics then quitting half way through then wondering why the sickness carries on any why it is now antibiotic resistent.
There seem to me to be several ways forward.
1. Keep on as we are, catching one or two bad guys while the rest skip through to do their evil.
2. Round up all the Arabians and their sympathizers and deport them permanently to Arabia.
3. Stop buying oil from Arabia, cease trading with Arabia and cease flights to/from Arabia and let them kill each other, not us.
4. Make life intolerable for our own people by employing such restrictive security measures that people are going to say "hmm... Maybe the Arabs have a point"
5. Pretend the Arabs will be our nice cuddly buddies if we pull out militarily and reap the consequences.
6. Recognise that we are fighting a real cancer and deal with it aggressively. Perhaps dropping a nuclear bomb on Mecca during the Haj and dealing equally effectively with local terror cells will be the best response. Judge Dredd style justice.
Whatever happens now, I can see people becoming very suspicious of photographers and anybody in bulky clothing or carrying heavy bags. There's no rationale behind it but that's the way its going to be. In the kind of atmosphere of suspicion in the cities, the only winner will be the Arab, forcing us to change our lifestyles because of them.
Friday, November 13, 2015
Fifteen Years of Digital
For fifteen years I have indulged in digital photography. For 10 of those years I have been using the same digital SLRs. Let's have a quick chronology:
2000 - a secondhand Olympus C820L purchased for a project then subsequently sold.
2001 - an Olympus C2020 - purchased for a summer working in Lumbier, Spain. It worked but not satisfactorily and was sold.
2002 - Nikon 995 - excellent camera that was used for a couple of years. It's packed in storage right now.
2002 - Nikon 3200 - excellent compact that inexplicably died in 2010. One day it worked, the next it didn't.
2004 - Canon S1IS - This worked until 2009 then died but the fault was a known recall issue so it was returned, fixed and I had it back. The photos weren't that great after the repair but the videos were OK.
2005 - Canon XT. I'm still using it. 8 megapixels. It's not the latest but I have noticed no lack of capability even though later camera systems are smaller.
While my cellphone takes excellent images, it lacks in low light photography. It is however the camera of choice because it uploads instantly, ready for use online.
This is a cellphone image. The first image was from my XT. There's not very much difference. The XT image has an edge but to be honest, the difference in image quality is easily trumped by the ease of use of the cellphone.
What does the future hold? Who knows? I know I want to take more night sky photos but better than this. The Tamron 17-35 lens used for this photo was tragic in terms of image quality. The corners have been described as "softer than last night's mashed potatoes". I sold that lens.
There are but two ways forward in order to take that kind of photo again. I could get a lens to replace the sold 17-35. To get decent optical quality the lens would have to be a prime. Thereby hangs the problem. A 12mm Rokinon lens would be the cheapest but at $450 new, price rules it out. Secondhand would be better but it's not a lens that would hold its value so there's another reason not to buy new. I assume the poor resale value is why none are available secondhand.
The alternative would be to get a different camera to use with my existing F4 lens. I'd need to gain at least an extra stop or maybe two. Star photos are normally shot at EV-6. It just seems nuts though to spend $400+ on a new camera when my XT works perfectly well.
A different way forward would be to use a more compact micro four thirds camera with lens. Secondhand that comes to a much more reasonable $150. The questions are whether I'd want to spend $150 in order to take a specific kind of photography or whether I'd want eventually to change systems to micro four thirds. It's an interesting thought that'll probably not happen due to my current priorities lying elsewhere.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Camera Review websites
In the aftermath of the furore on the camera forum that couldn't bare the truth to be aired, the plethora of camera review sites came to mind. There just seem to be so many! Some are plainly bogus, being owned by camera stores, camera makers and brand fanzines. The rest are just plain suspect.
Given that advertising revenue worldwide across the internet is reducing due to competition and the realization that most internet users either block adverts or don't have the money to buy products, such websites cannot afford to write high quality reviews or articles. Indeed, most content these days is used generated (spelling and grammatical errors unchecked with Android oddities thrown into the mix) on review websites.
In order to increase traffic, many websites add forums for users to discuss things. With wafer thin margins, paid moderators are not used. Instead volunteer moderators are the norm. The problem there is that while forums increase traffic, they don't increase revenue. Putting a forum just attracts the kind of person that spends all their life on internet forums. For proof of that, look at the post counts. 10,000 posts is not unusual for a forum addict. Going further, how much time are they spending, reading forums and responding? How much time is left for gainful employment?
It strikes me that the vast majority of internet users, use the internet because it is cheap entertainment. Indeed, its very popular entertainment given the number of internet centric gadgets that abound. I'm thinking of smartphones, smart watches, tablets etc. Without the internet, they're of less value than the average brick. It's amazing how internet addiction has become the norm. With all this addiction to the internet and widespread internet consumption, advertising budgets have further to go. Hence, revenue for carrying advertisements dwindles.
In the days of magazines, some were almost decent but the vast majority were purely advertising vehicles. Indeed those that still exist are largely advertising vehicles with juvenile articles thrown in in order to perpetuate the falsehood that the buyer is getting a magazine worth reading. Truth be told, the original purpose of a magazine was for something short to read on the toilet that could then be used as toilet paper.
Amidst all this declining revenue, review websites have to supplement their income whether it's from bribes, paid reviews or by selling users details. Thus, the era of the independent review is truly gone.
Another thing to question is, with the thousands of camera review websites out there, is how many have bought the cameras they go on to review and how many get free cameras or camera loans? It just strikes me that they can't all have actually had their hands on the cameras they review. Camera companies can't be dumb enough to loan out cameras to anybody that claims to have a review website? I can imagine it now: "Hey, Leica, gissa S2 for my review website" followed by "psst, mate, wanna by a snapshot camera. Only $5 or two beers and she's yours".
Indeed, I am reminded of a cartoon I saw today. Two people were sitting at a table talking. One commented that his laxative had more Facebook friends than he did. Everything seems to have become internet centric rather than life centric. People are beginning to rely upon these websites and forums for their purchase decisions instead of real life. It's quite scary!
Given that advertising revenue worldwide across the internet is reducing due to competition and the realization that most internet users either block adverts or don't have the money to buy products, such websites cannot afford to write high quality reviews or articles. Indeed, most content these days is used generated (spelling and grammatical errors unchecked with Android oddities thrown into the mix) on review websites.
In order to increase traffic, many websites add forums for users to discuss things. With wafer thin margins, paid moderators are not used. Instead volunteer moderators are the norm. The problem there is that while forums increase traffic, they don't increase revenue. Putting a forum just attracts the kind of person that spends all their life on internet forums. For proof of that, look at the post counts. 10,000 posts is not unusual for a forum addict. Going further, how much time are they spending, reading forums and responding? How much time is left for gainful employment?
It strikes me that the vast majority of internet users, use the internet because it is cheap entertainment. Indeed, its very popular entertainment given the number of internet centric gadgets that abound. I'm thinking of smartphones, smart watches, tablets etc. Without the internet, they're of less value than the average brick. It's amazing how internet addiction has become the norm. With all this addiction to the internet and widespread internet consumption, advertising budgets have further to go. Hence, revenue for carrying advertisements dwindles.
In the days of magazines, some were almost decent but the vast majority were purely advertising vehicles. Indeed those that still exist are largely advertising vehicles with juvenile articles thrown in in order to perpetuate the falsehood that the buyer is getting a magazine worth reading. Truth be told, the original purpose of a magazine was for something short to read on the toilet that could then be used as toilet paper.
Amidst all this declining revenue, review websites have to supplement their income whether it's from bribes, paid reviews or by selling users details. Thus, the era of the independent review is truly gone.
Another thing to question is, with the thousands of camera review websites out there, is how many have bought the cameras they go on to review and how many get free cameras or camera loans? It just strikes me that they can't all have actually had their hands on the cameras they review. Camera companies can't be dumb enough to loan out cameras to anybody that claims to have a review website? I can imagine it now: "Hey, Leica, gissa S2 for my review website" followed by "psst, mate, wanna by a snapshot camera. Only $5 or two beers and she's yours".
Indeed, I am reminded of a cartoon I saw today. Two people were sitting at a table talking. One commented that his laxative had more Facebook friends than he did. Everything seems to have become internet centric rather than life centric. People are beginning to rely upon these websites and forums for their purchase decisions instead of real life. It's quite scary!
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Almost six months!
Yesterday my blog stats showed an entry from June 30 was receiving several views. I went back and reread that entry out of curiosity. It was all about my having left Facebook. I can barely even remember using Facebook now and certainly don't miss it. In fact, very few of the people I know in real life actually use Facebook.
I'd say the best comment about Facebook is that people I met in the past and don't wish to encounter again, probably use Facebook. Why should I post to Facebook and let them know by virtue that I'm posting that I'm still alive? Better the people that I don't want following me to believe I died in that grenade explosion! Even worse, people would be able to look me up!
I have very much a feeling Facebook is primarily used by weak people who need emotional support. They need approval or adulation for everything they do. Why else would they post for all the world to see, the things they do. Some things should remain private such as relationships, what you had for dinner, where you live etc. Instead, Facebook users broadcast it for all the world to see. Many even via Facebook messenger allow the world to see their current location at all times. What a bonus for burglars, muggers and rapists!
Similarly, people love to seek approval via forums. I used to marvel at people who'd post online their latest purchases, letting all the wrong people know what they owned. Psst - the guy in No. 3 just bought a $3,500 camera and its small and pocketable.
They agonise on forums, trying to get others to make their decisions for them. I have $295 - should I buy this or that? Make your own darn mind up - its your money!
Most of what they laughably call Social Media is anything but. There just seem to be way too many downsides. Everything is double edged...
Foursquare - let's your friends know where you are. Also lets your enemies, process servers, bosses and burglars know where you are. Rather hard to deny having had a call from work that you're in the area when you're busily posting from the restaurant next door!
Twitter - anything you post can and will be taken completely out of context and used against you.
Facebook - the same as foursquare and Facebook plus additional dangers. Imagine working for a defence contractor and being a member of a group opposed to their work when you were enrolled in that group by a friend and didn't even know about it!
Do I miss Facebook? Hardly! I'd like to be in touch with some of the people but judging from their lack of effort in contacting me off Facebook, I clearly wasn't that important in their lives. Perhaps more than that, their Facebook addiction is too strong.
Do I miss forums? Not really. It's a breath of fresh air not reading the garbage posted. It's nice not starting sensible discussions only to see them perverted into a mockery of sanity within two responses.
Would I miss the internet if it was simply switched off? Not really. Indeed, I am at the point where I just don't feel the internet is really worth paying for!
I'd say the best comment about Facebook is that people I met in the past and don't wish to encounter again, probably use Facebook. Why should I post to Facebook and let them know by virtue that I'm posting that I'm still alive? Better the people that I don't want following me to believe I died in that grenade explosion! Even worse, people would be able to look me up!
I have very much a feeling Facebook is primarily used by weak people who need emotional support. They need approval or adulation for everything they do. Why else would they post for all the world to see, the things they do. Some things should remain private such as relationships, what you had for dinner, where you live etc. Instead, Facebook users broadcast it for all the world to see. Many even via Facebook messenger allow the world to see their current location at all times. What a bonus for burglars, muggers and rapists!
Similarly, people love to seek approval via forums. I used to marvel at people who'd post online their latest purchases, letting all the wrong people know what they owned. Psst - the guy in No. 3 just bought a $3,500 camera and its small and pocketable.
They agonise on forums, trying to get others to make their decisions for them. I have $295 - should I buy this or that? Make your own darn mind up - its your money!
Most of what they laughably call Social Media is anything but. There just seem to be way too many downsides. Everything is double edged...
Foursquare - let's your friends know where you are. Also lets your enemies, process servers, bosses and burglars know where you are. Rather hard to deny having had a call from work that you're in the area when you're busily posting from the restaurant next door!
Twitter - anything you post can and will be taken completely out of context and used against you.
Facebook - the same as foursquare and Facebook plus additional dangers. Imagine working for a defence contractor and being a member of a group opposed to their work when you were enrolled in that group by a friend and didn't even know about it!
Do I miss Facebook? Hardly! I'd like to be in touch with some of the people but judging from their lack of effort in contacting me off Facebook, I clearly wasn't that important in their lives. Perhaps more than that, their Facebook addiction is too strong.
Do I miss forums? Not really. It's a breath of fresh air not reading the garbage posted. It's nice not starting sensible discussions only to see them perverted into a mockery of sanity within two responses.
Would I miss the internet if it was simply switched off? Not really. Indeed, I am at the point where I just don't feel the internet is really worth paying for!
Plunged into darkness
Last night as I was about to commence a photo blog entry, the area was plunged into darkness. This photo of my home was taken with my Nexus 4 in pitch blackness. The flash has no reach at all hence the graininess.
Looking at the photo, the graininess is not unpleasing and is very reminiscent of the Ilford HP5 that was my favorite film in my 35mm and 120 film days. That had me looking up Ilford online.
While Ilford still exists, their best product, Ilford Cibachrome does not. That was a positive color printing paper which produced the most wonderfully rich colors. It was also fade resistant for up to 200 years.
Many times I remember printing from slides. Because of the nature of the paper, it had to be handled in complete darkness. Complete darkness in darkrooms, particularly amateur darkrooms which live a double life as bathrooms, usually means minimal ventilation. The fumes from Cibachrome chemicals are particularly noxious. They smell tarry and after breathing them, your lungs feel like they're on fire. Prolonged inhalation of the vapors is not recommended according to the instructions. That always seemed daft because darkrooms all have poor ventilation.
Needless to say, after an hour or two in the darkroom, ones clothes had the smell of the chemicals permanently infused. It was a great relief therefore when I could afford the Patterson orbital wibbly-wobbly otherwise known as the orbital processor. Once the paper was in the tray, processing and fluid changes could be done in the daylight.
It does not surprise me that Cibachrome has been discontinued. I'd imagine it had been thoroughly attacked by the environmental gangsters and by falling sales. It was somewhat of a niche product. Not everybody used transparency film. Indeed, the digital darkroom was probably the biggest cause. I once frequented Colliers Photographic Emporium in South Wales. The owner, Mike Collier said "The digital darkroom is the best thing ever to happen to photography". It's so true - it reduced exposure to chemicals and reduced the darkroom from an entire room to a scanner beside a computer.
Back then, Mike Collier didn't believe in digital imaging. The writing had been on the wall for years before that though. I recall asking when APS film came out which recorded exposure information on a magnetic stripe very much in the manner of Super 8 sound film, why the manufacturers didn't just go digital. It made much more sense. TV cameras used digital sensors, web cams existed, all the features of SLRs were electronic. It just didn't seem sensible to keep stuffing 1830s technology into a 1986 marvel of technology.
Now, I'm more amazed that Ilford hasn't followed Agfa and Kodak into bankruptcy and obscurity. Like Circuit City and Office Max in the US, its probably just about clinging onto life by the tippy tips of its fingernails.
Part of me misses the romance of the darkroom. I don't miss the hour or so putting it together, the slow progress, the smells, the chemicals, the cost, the space and the time taken putting it all away. It was something fun to do when you were living with your parents but in my own place I can't afford the time or the space, particularly when my home is the 24 foot long, 91 inch wide passenger compartment of a 20+ year old former school bus.
And the darkness us because I am reliant upon a 15A extension cord that goes out of a house and into my bus. The bus as yet has no onboard power, hence when power goes out in the house, power goes out in the bus!
Sunday, November 8, 2015
Hugely entertaining!
There's a pretty worthless camera review site in which the camera testing is distinctly unchallenging. Not a single test comes back with less than around 85% approval!
A few days ago, somebody put up a discussion, questioning the camera reviews and their worth. I commented that the ratings were all pretty biassed on on most review sites. I further pointed out that most websites gave reviews according to money received from manufacturers and suppliers.
Now, the site that I got banned from is owned by... Amazon! Looks like the arrow hit the mark there!
As far as content of that site is concerned, the reviews are worthless. As I said before, every camera gets a great rating. Every piece of equipment gets a great rating. The reviews all look like they've been penned by the manufacturer or the seller. Dissent over the quality and integrity of the reviews is suppressed.
The discussion forums are laughable as are most forums. People put sensible discussions up and the responses are laughable. It's as though the vast majority of posters are unintelligent to the point of being fools or perhaps (being very charitable) under the mental age of about 7. Indeed, I've met more intelligent 7 year olds!
So, should I set up a new account or just wash my hands of that website? On the whole, its probably best just to wash my hands of the site! It was entertaining to read the stupid responses to things and even more entertaining to see the buffoonery going on. Indeed, putting comments up based on reality would attract such ludicrous responses that several times I've been laughing so hard that everybody in the house could hear it.
It's time to move on from photo forums. Indeed, I am a member of a camera club in real life so forum membership isn't really that interesting any more. I think one of the best comments I read was somebody asking why people were so negative about my photos and my comments when they said "he is good". They didn't seem to receive a sensible answer. It was more of a " just because" which is a total non answer.
Friday, November 6, 2015
Global warming is a lie!
For years I've been wasting my time online. Let's just face it, the internet is the biggest pile of lies known to man. The only people to make money from the internet are the people selling computers and internet services. OK, those are rather outrageous claims?
Let's compare this argument to Harrison Schmitt's arguments about global warming. Having studied the mechanics behind global warming, I'm pretty much behind Dr Schmitt in that its a load of tosh. Dr Schmitt argues that the people fussing about the evils of communism simply seized on global warming as their campaign when communism collapsed. There are enough people willing to make money from any cause to perpetuate the cause.
The reason global warming is junk science is volcanoes. The amount of global warming gasses produced over the last 100 years is less than 1% of the global warming gasses produced by just one single volcano. There are hundreds of active volcanoes spewing out CFCs and other such global warming gasses every day. The amount mankind adds is negligible.
Now, going back to the internet, like global warming, it too is bunk. Look at the most viewed website - pornhub! The most viewed website is a titty website. Governments are crawling over each other like roaches to scrutinize what their citizens are scrawling on what is essentially a worldwide graffiti wall.
So let's look at my experience of the internet...
1. Websites and blogs. They're mildly fun to do but don't attract much in the way of viewers. Today, for example, this blog has had 156 recorded views, most of which I am certain are miscounts.
2. Making money online. That's sheer fantasy! I have AdSense on my blogs, websites and YouTube. Last month income was a massive three cents from it all. At one point I had a small business that was mainly advertised online. The website had zero visitors the entire life of the business. In fact, the online advertising cost money but attracted less interest than my advert in the Yellow Pages - which never paid for itself!
3. E-mail - largely killed by junk mail. Certainly I have an email account but I hardly ever look at it as its always full of rubbish. I don't get emails from anybody and just don't give out an E-mail address any more. If people want to contact me, they can write or phone!
4. Online job adverts - I really don't know anybody that got a job as a result of an online application. I certainly never have. In fact, I don't know anybody that got a job through filling in an application form either. Usually it's a case of who you know or who your friends know!
5. Online shopping - not particularly trustworthy.
6. Social media. Since everything you put online can be seen by everybody, is it wise to put anything online in your own name? I've seen so many come too grief over innocent and not so innocent online comments. Best to avoid it.
7. Online forums/discussion groups - not worth bothering with. One one, the other day, an important legislative issues was raised. Contributors didn't discuss the issues, preferring to go off on tangents over spelling and other such nonsense.
8. Technical websites - how do you know they're accurate or even honest? I can't believe the number of purportedly serious websites that I've seen that have been riddled with factual inaccuracies!
As far as surveillance is concerned, if you're bothered by it, don't throw $500 at a new smartphone. Instead, spend $30 on a new flipphone and turn the blasted thing off when you're not using it. I spent the first 27 years of my life without ever having used the internet. I can assure you life without the internet is not only possible but that you'll get more done without it.
How does the internet influence my photography? Simple - I stopped bothering about posting photos and reading people's opinions as most of the individuals posting comments were on a mission to post nastiness. I joined a real world camera club and we show our photos in person, once a month. What a contrast! Online is nastiness and negativity. In a real group with real people, it's pleasant and cooperative.
Returning to Facebook, I suspect somebody tipped off Facebook that I was using a pseudonym. Clearly that would have been the kind of person I would choose not to associate with. I've seen enough people fall foul of things they've said innocently on Facebook, years before to be sure never to want to open account in my own name.
So, what about the internet? Is it really necessary? I don't believe it is. In fact I believe that unless you access free public Wi-Fi that its most definitely not worth paying for. Indeed, were I to return to Britain, I would most certainly not bother with the internet any further. At the moment I just use public Wi-Fi and nothing else.
Let's compare this argument to Harrison Schmitt's arguments about global warming. Having studied the mechanics behind global warming, I'm pretty much behind Dr Schmitt in that its a load of tosh. Dr Schmitt argues that the people fussing about the evils of communism simply seized on global warming as their campaign when communism collapsed. There are enough people willing to make money from any cause to perpetuate the cause.
The reason global warming is junk science is volcanoes. The amount of global warming gasses produced over the last 100 years is less than 1% of the global warming gasses produced by just one single volcano. There are hundreds of active volcanoes spewing out CFCs and other such global warming gasses every day. The amount mankind adds is negligible.
Now, going back to the internet, like global warming, it too is bunk. Look at the most viewed website - pornhub! The most viewed website is a titty website. Governments are crawling over each other like roaches to scrutinize what their citizens are scrawling on what is essentially a worldwide graffiti wall.
So let's look at my experience of the internet...
1. Websites and blogs. They're mildly fun to do but don't attract much in the way of viewers. Today, for example, this blog has had 156 recorded views, most of which I am certain are miscounts.
2. Making money online. That's sheer fantasy! I have AdSense on my blogs, websites and YouTube. Last month income was a massive three cents from it all. At one point I had a small business that was mainly advertised online. The website had zero visitors the entire life of the business. In fact, the online advertising cost money but attracted less interest than my advert in the Yellow Pages - which never paid for itself!
3. E-mail - largely killed by junk mail. Certainly I have an email account but I hardly ever look at it as its always full of rubbish. I don't get emails from anybody and just don't give out an E-mail address any more. If people want to contact me, they can write or phone!
4. Online job adverts - I really don't know anybody that got a job as a result of an online application. I certainly never have. In fact, I don't know anybody that got a job through filling in an application form either. Usually it's a case of who you know or who your friends know!
5. Online shopping - not particularly trustworthy.
6. Social media. Since everything you put online can be seen by everybody, is it wise to put anything online in your own name? I've seen so many come too grief over innocent and not so innocent online comments. Best to avoid it.
7. Online forums/discussion groups - not worth bothering with. One one, the other day, an important legislative issues was raised. Contributors didn't discuss the issues, preferring to go off on tangents over spelling and other such nonsense.
8. Technical websites - how do you know they're accurate or even honest? I can't believe the number of purportedly serious websites that I've seen that have been riddled with factual inaccuracies!
As far as surveillance is concerned, if you're bothered by it, don't throw $500 at a new smartphone. Instead, spend $30 on a new flipphone and turn the blasted thing off when you're not using it. I spent the first 27 years of my life without ever having used the internet. I can assure you life without the internet is not only possible but that you'll get more done without it.
How does the internet influence my photography? Simple - I stopped bothering about posting photos and reading people's opinions as most of the individuals posting comments were on a mission to post nastiness. I joined a real world camera club and we show our photos in person, once a month. What a contrast! Online is nastiness and negativity. In a real group with real people, it's pleasant and cooperative.
Returning to Facebook, I suspect somebody tipped off Facebook that I was using a pseudonym. Clearly that would have been the kind of person I would choose not to associate with. I've seen enough people fall foul of things they've said innocently on Facebook, years before to be sure never to want to open account in my own name.
So, what about the internet? Is it really necessary? I don't believe it is. In fact I believe that unless you access free public Wi-Fi that its most definitely not worth paying for. Indeed, were I to return to Britain, I would most certainly not bother with the internet any further. At the moment I just use public Wi-Fi and nothing else.
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Britain, the unfree fascist state
I'm from Britain. I was born in Britain. Then after 35 years I moved to the USA where I'm now living.
In the intervening 15 years I have seen Britain go from a sloppily run country to a police state where every excuse made to intrude into people's private lives is blindly swallowed by an increasingly gullible public.
I have come to the conclusion British people would be happy to have to queue for a rectal probe every time it was decreed by the council to be necessary in order to find benefit cheats etc. Britain has totally surrendered the right of individuals to be individual.
If people really cared, they'd be attending MPs surgeries and political meetings to such an extent that large halls and fields would be needed. They'd be writing so many letters to MPs that each MPs daily mail would arrive in a lorry. Their phones would be in constant use. There would be marches and demonstrations - not of a piddling few hundred or few thousand but a hundred thousand or a million.
I fear that Britain is a country I would be afraid to live in, these days. Way too much surveillance and meddling in people's personal affairs. Given the horribly high crime levels, cameras just wouldn't be wise to carry. Similarly, if a camera were carried, all manner of people would come out of the woodwork to denounce the photographer.
In the intervening 15 years I have seen Britain go from a sloppily run country to a police state where every excuse made to intrude into people's private lives is blindly swallowed by an increasingly gullible public.
I have come to the conclusion British people would be happy to have to queue for a rectal probe every time it was decreed by the council to be necessary in order to find benefit cheats etc. Britain has totally surrendered the right of individuals to be individual.
If people really cared, they'd be attending MPs surgeries and political meetings to such an extent that large halls and fields would be needed. They'd be writing so many letters to MPs that each MPs daily mail would arrive in a lorry. Their phones would be in constant use. There would be marches and demonstrations - not of a piddling few hundred or few thousand but a hundred thousand or a million.
I fear that Britain is a country I would be afraid to live in, these days. Way too much surveillance and meddling in people's personal affairs. Given the horribly high crime levels, cameras just wouldn't be wise to carry. Similarly, if a camera were carried, all manner of people would come out of the woodwork to denounce the photographer.
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
When photographers become pedophiles
The BBC website proudly proclaimed that a new law is to be enacted in the UK. The article text stated:
The internet activity of everyone in Britain will have to be stored for a year by service providers, under new surveillance law plans.
Imagine that some innocent user gets a virus through email or from an infected disk. At some point later the virus goes live. The infected computer opens hundreds of porn and pedophilia websites. It has happened in the past and will do so in the future.
Now think about the next logical step. Police start scanning service providers records to see who viewed certain websites. A red flag goes up since viewing any pedophile website is illegal. This is an area where the burden of the proof is upon the accused to prove their innocence.
Like as not, those infected by porn viruses will just groan and reach for a real antivirus program to replace whatever junk was paraded as antivirus software by their computer supplier. The virus will be removed quietly and without fanfare. The record of the visits will be recorded forevermore.
The police might catch a real pedophile and his excuse will be "I had a computer virus". The police catch an innocent who'd had a virus who will say "I had a computer virus". They'll both get 5 years hard time amidst hardened criminals that think little of pedophiles.
Add photography into the mix and photos of the photographers own children and of their family's children.... You can see where that's going... Any remote credibility to the defence that it was a virus has gone.
This is very typical knee jerk reaction legislation and all too common in the UK. Indeed I am reminded of Benjamin Franklin who said ”He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.”
The "security" in question is allegedly against terrorism. The liberty is surrendering one's privacy. I am now reminded of Goering "Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
All you can do is pray that one day the brainwashed, emasculated public of Britain will wake up and realize that Britain now has more surveillance of its population than the KGB had in Russia and the Stasi in Germany. Were the evil communists right and the saintly capitalists wrong?
The internet activity of everyone in Britain will have to be stored for a year by service providers, under new surveillance law plans.
Imagine that some innocent user gets a virus through email or from an infected disk. At some point later the virus goes live. The infected computer opens hundreds of porn and pedophilia websites. It has happened in the past and will do so in the future.
Now think about the next logical step. Police start scanning service providers records to see who viewed certain websites. A red flag goes up since viewing any pedophile website is illegal. This is an area where the burden of the proof is upon the accused to prove their innocence.
Like as not, those infected by porn viruses will just groan and reach for a real antivirus program to replace whatever junk was paraded as antivirus software by their computer supplier. The virus will be removed quietly and without fanfare. The record of the visits will be recorded forevermore.
The police might catch a real pedophile and his excuse will be "I had a computer virus". The police catch an innocent who'd had a virus who will say "I had a computer virus". They'll both get 5 years hard time amidst hardened criminals that think little of pedophiles.
Add photography into the mix and photos of the photographers own children and of their family's children.... You can see where that's going... Any remote credibility to the defence that it was a virus has gone.
This is very typical knee jerk reaction legislation and all too common in the UK. Indeed I am reminded of Benjamin Franklin who said ”He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.”
The "security" in question is allegedly against terrorism. The liberty is surrendering one's privacy. I am now reminded of Goering "Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
All you can do is pray that one day the brainwashed, emasculated public of Britain will wake up and realize that Britain now has more surveillance of its population than the KGB had in Russia and the Stasi in Germany. Were the evil communists right and the saintly capitalists wrong?
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Drones
Today it seems the US government is requiring drones to be registered. This has the rabble on photography groups up in arms because of the perceived attack on drones used by photographers and videographers.
How did this come to be? It seems people with drones have been missing them. Indeed, during the South Carolina floods there was footage of drone users going around security cordons to play with their drones. I say play because so many people took photos and videos of the floods that no image could be remotely saleable. Add to this that emergency services have complained about drones hampering while recording their work.
There have been complaints about drones from pilots whose planes have had to divert away from areas where drones have been causing a hazard to women complaining of voyeurs videoing them. Clearly a very unsavory group can afford and own drones. The volume of complaints has increased tremendously so now drone registration is here.
I've never owned nor used a drone. The only use I can see for a drone is to inspect rooves for damage instead of scampering up ladders. In terms of flying, they're not exciting unlike a model aeroplane which requires all kinds of skills, as they fly themselves.
The biggest problem with drones are
1. Owners have no liability insurance so its hard to get compensation for damage caused by a crashing drone.
2. Owners will be hard to trace in the event for example a paedophile flies a drone from a van to a neighborhood half a mile away and videos children. The video is back at his van before the drone is and the drone is expendable. He can fly it to get the video and simply abandon the drone.
3. Terrorists could use drones as delivery methods for biological and chemical weapons.
4. Nosey parkers sending drones into places they shouldn't and causing problems.
5. Espionage of all kinds. Pepsi could fly a disposable drone into coca-cola headquarters to spy out new secrets as an example.
At the moment drones can't carry much weight - the consumer level drones anyway - though people have weaponized drones. In the future, Amazon etc are thinking of drone delivery. With that power of drone, weaponization is very possible.
Weaponized drones have another issue. Its possible since all drones use software for drones to be taken over and controlled by hostile groups. Indeed, a Terminator style future with armed drones controlled by hostile groups used to attack a country is very possible.
Drones have much wider implications than to photography. The genie is out of the bottle and Pandora's box is open!
How did this come to be? It seems people with drones have been missing them. Indeed, during the South Carolina floods there was footage of drone users going around security cordons to play with their drones. I say play because so many people took photos and videos of the floods that no image could be remotely saleable. Add to this that emergency services have complained about drones hampering while recording their work.
There have been complaints about drones from pilots whose planes have had to divert away from areas where drones have been causing a hazard to women complaining of voyeurs videoing them. Clearly a very unsavory group can afford and own drones. The volume of complaints has increased tremendously so now drone registration is here.
I've never owned nor used a drone. The only use I can see for a drone is to inspect rooves for damage instead of scampering up ladders. In terms of flying, they're not exciting unlike a model aeroplane which requires all kinds of skills, as they fly themselves.
The biggest problem with drones are
1. Owners have no liability insurance so its hard to get compensation for damage caused by a crashing drone.
2. Owners will be hard to trace in the event for example a paedophile flies a drone from a van to a neighborhood half a mile away and videos children. The video is back at his van before the drone is and the drone is expendable. He can fly it to get the video and simply abandon the drone.
3. Terrorists could use drones as delivery methods for biological and chemical weapons.
4. Nosey parkers sending drones into places they shouldn't and causing problems.
5. Espionage of all kinds. Pepsi could fly a disposable drone into coca-cola headquarters to spy out new secrets as an example.
At the moment drones can't carry much weight - the consumer level drones anyway - though people have weaponized drones. In the future, Amazon etc are thinking of drone delivery. With that power of drone, weaponization is very possible.
Weaponized drones have another issue. Its possible since all drones use software for drones to be taken over and controlled by hostile groups. Indeed, a Terminator style future with armed drones controlled by hostile groups used to attack a country is very possible.
Drones have much wider implications than to photography. The genie is out of the bottle and Pandora's box is open!
Saturday, October 17, 2015
The true cost of photography
Years ago, before I went digital with my photography, I debated the cost of digital versus film. I'm still not sure the costs work out in favor of film.
With film I used to buy bulk rolls of 100 feet of film and put it into 36 exposure cassettes. It was something that could be done on a rainy day. It was quite fun to do. I suspect I would go through a roll or maybe two a year. Each bulk roll would yield around 25 cassettes of 36-39 exposures.
Currently 100 feet of film is around $70. My film of choice was Ilford HP5+ black and white. As with digital, I printed very few of the photographs I took, storing the negatives in date order in a ring binder. As I processed my own films, the cost was low enough to be negligible and certainly not more than $1 a roll.
There were many skills involved leading to a much more satisfying experience. Skills that just aren't used with digital leading to digital photography being rather a dumbed down version of photography.
Film cameras changed very little over the years though with increasing technology they became increasingly unsatisfying in use. Built in meters ended the skill of estimating exposure based on lighting conditions, built-in automatic exposure made people lazy about their exposures, built-in autofocus took away many of the focussing skills needed. APS film was clearly a step toward digitization. APS film had a magnetic stripe that recorded exposure data.
Along came digital and people have no fear of spoiling a photo because photos now cost nothing per photo. That meant a great explosion in camera sales as those afraid of making mistakes knew they could just keep reshooting until they got it right.
The great explosion of photography came as a great bonus for camera manufacturers as they expanded their factories, doubled, tripled and quadrupled production and profits. Immense money was spent on research and development. New cameras which had been introduced on average every 7 years were now churned out every 18 months. This ensured companies could sell new cameras every year without worrying about a saturated market.
The camera companies agreed amongst each other that to best milk the market, they would dribble out improvements slowly. This would ensure customers would replace their cameras every two years. Needless to say, a lot was spent on marketing and brainwashing the public into believing they needed to "upgrade".
So now we have a situation where $500 - $1000 is spent every 2 years on a new digital camera. Over the fifteen or so years I've been doing digital photography, I have spent (on cameras alone) $2,500 and I got off lightly. Had I upgraded every two years the that figure could well have been $10,000.
Because of the constant upgrading, older digital equipment loses its resale value. I paid $1,200 for a camera that I'd now get maybe $80 for on a good day.
With film, the cameras used to lose resale value far more slowly. As an example, I had a great deal in 1990 when I bought a 10 year old Nikon FM for $300. It was a great little camera and got used right up until I went digital.
In the ten years I used $1,800 of digital SLRs I took 10,000 photographs. Of those, I can certainly assure you many were duplicates or very similar. Some were for GIF animations. In my film days, I doubt I took 2,000 photos. The interesting thing though is that the slower and more deliberately I took photos, the better I liked the results.
I have never taken photographs as an art form. I leave the arty farty stuff to people who fancy themselves as great artists. My photography is stuff that I think looks good and now that I'm not trying to knit rice puddings (selling photography), I just photograph whatever I want. Sometimes I even follow the latest trends!
I suspect the photos on digital were more fun because of their instant view ability. I suspect film photos are better because they're more considered.
But back to cost. Digital costs many of the skills of film because they're not used. Taking 10,000 photos on a film camera would have cost $19,444 in just film. That's a stupid comparison though as film users think before pressing the shutter button.
In 20 years of film cameras I took 2,000 photos. That's around 100 a year or 3 rolls of film a year. Even though there would be years when I'd take no photos and years when I'd use many rolls, it balances out.
Looking at how I do my photography today - I use a cellphone and take between 0 and 10 photos a day. Most are not the kind of photos I'd use film for. Film I used for things I wanted to remember. Digital is just a fun thing.
I have a feeling the true cost of digital is more than monetary. It's is a cumulative de-skilling of the photographer combined with a lessening of the worth of photographs. There was a time when a grainy black and white photo of Machu Picchu meant something. Now a million tourists a year take darned good photos of Machu Picchu on their cellphones.
It's getting very much to the point where one asks whether photography has become like writing. Everybody can read and write. The scribe of old is now history. The photographer is also headed for history.
Does photography now have value other than to the companies that sell overpriced camera gear?
I have a feeling I would be taking fewer photos with film but better photos. I'm with somebody that said some 15 years ago that the digital darkroom was the best thing ever to happen to photography. I see their point of view totally.
What about camera size? Well, since the current DSLRs are oversized enough to resemble something Fischer-Price would make, I can't say that I'm impressed. Digital camera lenses are also larger along the same lines. It is all lighter though. I rather suspect the plastic is thick to compensate for its flimsiness as opposed to the metal originals.
I can honestly say I feel photography has been greatly devalued by digital to the point where spending money on cameras should now be grounds for hoots of derision. Perhaps this is the time for those who are really interested in photography as opposed to the current digital gizmooligy to get into the wonderful old processes using dry collodian etc.
With film I used to buy bulk rolls of 100 feet of film and put it into 36 exposure cassettes. It was something that could be done on a rainy day. It was quite fun to do. I suspect I would go through a roll or maybe two a year. Each bulk roll would yield around 25 cassettes of 36-39 exposures.
Currently 100 feet of film is around $70. My film of choice was Ilford HP5+ black and white. As with digital, I printed very few of the photographs I took, storing the negatives in date order in a ring binder. As I processed my own films, the cost was low enough to be negligible and certainly not more than $1 a roll.
There were many skills involved leading to a much more satisfying experience. Skills that just aren't used with digital leading to digital photography being rather a dumbed down version of photography.
Film cameras changed very little over the years though with increasing technology they became increasingly unsatisfying in use. Built in meters ended the skill of estimating exposure based on lighting conditions, built-in automatic exposure made people lazy about their exposures, built-in autofocus took away many of the focussing skills needed. APS film was clearly a step toward digitization. APS film had a magnetic stripe that recorded exposure data.
Along came digital and people have no fear of spoiling a photo because photos now cost nothing per photo. That meant a great explosion in camera sales as those afraid of making mistakes knew they could just keep reshooting until they got it right.
The great explosion of photography came as a great bonus for camera manufacturers as they expanded their factories, doubled, tripled and quadrupled production and profits. Immense money was spent on research and development. New cameras which had been introduced on average every 7 years were now churned out every 18 months. This ensured companies could sell new cameras every year without worrying about a saturated market.
The camera companies agreed amongst each other that to best milk the market, they would dribble out improvements slowly. This would ensure customers would replace their cameras every two years. Needless to say, a lot was spent on marketing and brainwashing the public into believing they needed to "upgrade".
So now we have a situation where $500 - $1000 is spent every 2 years on a new digital camera. Over the fifteen or so years I've been doing digital photography, I have spent (on cameras alone) $2,500 and I got off lightly. Had I upgraded every two years the that figure could well have been $10,000.
Because of the constant upgrading, older digital equipment loses its resale value. I paid $1,200 for a camera that I'd now get maybe $80 for on a good day.
With film, the cameras used to lose resale value far more slowly. As an example, I had a great deal in 1990 when I bought a 10 year old Nikon FM for $300. It was a great little camera and got used right up until I went digital.
In the ten years I used $1,800 of digital SLRs I took 10,000 photographs. Of those, I can certainly assure you many were duplicates or very similar. Some were for GIF animations. In my film days, I doubt I took 2,000 photos. The interesting thing though is that the slower and more deliberately I took photos, the better I liked the results.
I have never taken photographs as an art form. I leave the arty farty stuff to people who fancy themselves as great artists. My photography is stuff that I think looks good and now that I'm not trying to knit rice puddings (selling photography), I just photograph whatever I want. Sometimes I even follow the latest trends!
I suspect the photos on digital were more fun because of their instant view ability. I suspect film photos are better because they're more considered.
But back to cost. Digital costs many of the skills of film because they're not used. Taking 10,000 photos on a film camera would have cost $19,444 in just film. That's a stupid comparison though as film users think before pressing the shutter button.
In 20 years of film cameras I took 2,000 photos. That's around 100 a year or 3 rolls of film a year. Even though there would be years when I'd take no photos and years when I'd use many rolls, it balances out.
Looking at how I do my photography today - I use a cellphone and take between 0 and 10 photos a day. Most are not the kind of photos I'd use film for. Film I used for things I wanted to remember. Digital is just a fun thing.
I have a feeling the true cost of digital is more than monetary. It's is a cumulative de-skilling of the photographer combined with a lessening of the worth of photographs. There was a time when a grainy black and white photo of Machu Picchu meant something. Now a million tourists a year take darned good photos of Machu Picchu on their cellphones.
It's getting very much to the point where one asks whether photography has become like writing. Everybody can read and write. The scribe of old is now history. The photographer is also headed for history.
Does photography now have value other than to the companies that sell overpriced camera gear?
I have a feeling I would be taking fewer photos with film but better photos. I'm with somebody that said some 15 years ago that the digital darkroom was the best thing ever to happen to photography. I see their point of view totally.
What about camera size? Well, since the current DSLRs are oversized enough to resemble something Fischer-Price would make, I can't say that I'm impressed. Digital camera lenses are also larger along the same lines. It is all lighter though. I rather suspect the plastic is thick to compensate for its flimsiness as opposed to the metal originals.
I can honestly say I feel photography has been greatly devalued by digital to the point where spending money on cameras should now be grounds for hoots of derision. Perhaps this is the time for those who are really interested in photography as opposed to the current digital gizmooligy to get into the wonderful old processes using dry collodian etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)