In the past, photographers were often mistaken for film makers as the stock film that used to capture images were the same type used in capturing motion pictures and home movies were the stuff of legends as portrayed in the JJ Abrams movie, Super 8mm. Analogue film came in several varieties in the 70s and it was the success of the 35mm film that gave birth to the motion picture industry (and the porn film industry in the US). But let's not go the 35mm route. For people who are nostalgic about analogue film, the best place to start is with the 8mm stock.

Today, we have Pro8mm as the only surviving cult cine-cam maker which still extols the value of analogue capture. The best example for us is their version of the Canon 310 XL Super 8mm camera sold by them on the site (and on photojojo.com) called the Rhonda Cam.

Rhonda cam is in essence Lomography for the motion picture film enthusiast. Selling for US$395, it is probably one of the best value for money analogue motion picture cameras you can buy on the market right now. The Canon 310 XL was a legendary name in Super 8mm capture as it had a much better lens and an aperture of f1/0. This means that it can be made to work in low light conditions with the right analogue film. Super 8mm comes in a fixed cartridge for quick release and change so you can continue shooting as long as you have enough film stocks in your back pocket.

Now there are plenty of Canon 310XL film cameras being advertised on eBay for less than US$50. Apparently no one is keen to keep shooting expensive film so it has to find a new owner. We all know that film isn't cheap. A roll of Super 8 will last you up to 4.5 mins of shooting and there is no such thing as digital storage. Pro8mm offers a film package similar to what the folks in Kodak use to and offers free processing of the film for US$80 a roll inclusive of scanning in SD digital video. Now that is expensive if you were only able to shoot roughly 4 min of film WITHOUT sound. Yep. It's silent and there is no way to add sound unless you sync that in during post production telecine. The term telecine refers to film media transferred to a digital medium. Most of the film stocks are color negs, so unless you use color reversal film, you won't be able to project it. So think of the film with processing costing 40 bucks but with a further 45 bucks thrown it for the whole telecine package.

How is shooting film is all the same?

Pro8mm Super 8mm film stocks come rated from ASA64 to ASA500. Most of them have a exposure latitude of only 6 stops, while the 160ASA has 9 stops. This might not make sense to you as a digital photographer but it says a lot about the film. The motion picture capture process is the same as analogue film photography. You need to note the ASA speed of the film, that best suits the scene you wish to capture and fire away. Even though exposure can be set automatically, you can never be too sure about high contrast or low light situations so a light meter can be handy.

There are two types of film stocks for the Super 8mm. The negative film can't be projected but the color reverals film can only be experienced with the use of a projector. You also need to ante up on a projector, which can be had for roughly US$600 to US$800 refurbished. There are only two film stock for color reversal film so shooting rated at ASA200, one in color and the other in b/w.

Why Super8mm is Beautiful

I don't have children and for that I have no use for archival quality but for those of you who have, it makes perfect sense to shoot the best moments on analogue film.

Film is forever. Still images are nice but moving ones are better. The LomoKino achieves this to some extent with 35mm film used in photography but hand cranking the device for a 5fps capture harks back to the 19th Century. A roll of 36 exposure 35mm film will only gives you roughly 6 seconds of motion capture. That's probably just enough to film your self in a new car backing out of the garage.

Rhonda Cam's Super 8mm gives you up to 4.5mins depending on the chosen frame rate so you have this leeway to play with (with pro spec Super 8 cameras, you can shoot at 24fps for up to 2 mins of footage). However with the postage and processing included, you could well end up paying up to US$100 per reel (shipping your film from worldwide that is).

Comparatively, you can shoot all your want, share it online till the cows come home and gets plenty more likes online if you shot digitally on your iPhone. Total cost? Well how much did your iPhone cost without contract?

The beauty of the analogue medium has to be experienced to be appreciated. It is a lot harder to shoot, takes effort to process and there is a learning curve. Shooting analogue is a hardskill learnt through time and effort. The surviving film will outlive you and in time your own great grandchildren can appreciate what life was in the time you lived.

Digital is vaporware. It is gone the moment a service closes down. You might think that Instagram and Facebook would be forever but that's taking it too lightly. I remember a time when Netscape Communications was the unstoppable force on the Internet, look where they are now. What about the hard disk crash that wiped out all your holiday photos? Ditto.

What Pro8mm has done is to make analogue motion capture cool again. The retro movie camera is just plain kick ass and it feels good to hold one with the collapsable stock folded in. But all these experiences comes at a price, and only you can decide if you can afford it. The Rhonda Cam is probably the best analogue experience that can be had in a overtly digital world.

It is a costly hobby if you want to shoot solely on this medium but this is why it is so cool. The limited shooting time gets you thinking about what you shoot all the time as you will be assembling the scenes as you go along and capture what you feel makes beautiful memories. That alone is priceless.

Rhonda Cam Specifications

Focal Length: 8-5 – 25.5mm f/1.0 Macro Zoom

Speed: 18 FPS plus Single Frame

Auto Exposure

Power/Manual Zoom

Power = 2-AA

So what will you remember about 2014 that was worth reviewing? Was it the Drone craze where people ante up to a flying camera or was it that you should never let monkeys take a selfie?

The drone photography business has taken off in such a way that the US National Parks have banned them forever from their midst.

A Geeky Drone Pilot gets roughed up at the Beach

Bad pilots who fly them in public have blood in their hands after crashing them into pedestrians. The craze has gone so far that even GoPro have announced they will come out with a flying camera as soon as their R&D engineers get back from their Christmas Holidays. Meanwhile frustrated single and bow legged women have gotten brave enough to beat up geeky drone pilots who fly their wares in public. That said, aerial photography in 2014 hasn't been all that good.

On another note, David Slater's predicament echoes some of the pain felt by photographers around the world when his monkey pix was made public domain. Technically, and this by legal definition, Slater should not have released it as a selfie because an animal can legally be the rights holder and not the human that owns the camera. His pictures went viral and made it to the top ten list of stories in 2014 in regard to the photography profession that went wrong.

Photography as a Profession

Being a photographer in 2014 has gotten more difficult. There are loads of photographers who cringe on admitting this one true fact that they lack the financial means to prepare for retirement. The successful ones (which are only a handful) gloat at their peers who can't seem to get ahead in the cut throat world of photography.

True. There are plenty of corporates in this world who hire photographers to do work. But these jobs hardly constitute a viable means to earn a living wage judging from the equipment and business savvy one needs in this world.

Remember that in the old world of analog film, photographers co-existed with color lab technicians who developed the prints needed for real world use. Today, everything is online and the onus is on the photographer to process, capture and edit photos all on their own for the same amount of fees—which does not take into consideration the amount of camera equipment, software and computers you need these days to conduct your business. Color lab technicians in the good old days were the go-to guys whenever you needed something done to your positive or negative film. Some even went as far as to manually touch up the negatives or positives to remove blemishes and such from actual film. Photography in its heyday supported a long string of down line jobs, from print makers, color labs and the printing press. Today, with the Internet Disruption model, this is no longer possible. It is basically you and your equipment that decides the way you conduct a business. As for digital prints for hanging on your wall, you can upload them to Flickr and order one online.

Photography went from becoming a hard skill to the Performing Arts where photographers had to suffer for their art without clients ever taking them seriously. Everyone is a photographer thanks to the iPhone and as long as you have 1,000 followers on Instagram, you're a pro. This is not expected to change in the near future and in 2014, I would like to say a silent prayer to all those photographers who have abandoned their dream for a stable monthly income in light of the demands of the real world.

Keeping up with the Joneses

So we have more megapixels in 2014 but camera companies are not making more money from it. So you have more more cameras with the same megapixel count. This has been one of the stories for 2014 and if you were one to fall for this old Jedi mindtrick, then you've been had.

Each time a sensor is created, millions are spent pouring into the research and development process. To think they will be able to give you more pixels for cheaper is a defeatist strategy. People are taking more photos but not with actual digital SLR cameras or DCCs.

The Lumia 1020 still ranks on top of my list for a camera even though it's not really a camera in the first place.

Even though the Apple iPhone 6 ranks on top for color reproduction and low light performance, I'd rather have DNG files of scene I take to work them in post production for a better fit. Who cares if the iPhone can post to FB and Instagram all at the same time? Good pictures have to be edited in some way unless you were using a Leica camera with those expensive glasses for lenses.

Behold! the MA!

Speaking of Leica, they will take the headline for the only company to have come out with a top spec analogue camera! Yes! Film lives! Then again you need to check the price tag before you jump for joy. The new Leica MA weighs in at just over US$4700. It is totally manual, no light meter, nada. When you consider the Leica MP, a pro spec manual camera that sells for just over U$4900, that 200 dollar difference starts to look shady.

Compare the MP

The MP was built for professionals, namely press people who love winding each frame mechanically to capture a picture. It has the same flash x-sync and shutter speed as the MA. Either Leica has a wicked sense of humor or they are just removing old unsold MPs by cannibalizing their parts to make a new budget model (though the term budget may not necessarily apply in this case).

Regardless of where you stand these days. I would like to wish you all a great year ahead shooting can capturing moments that truly matters instead of trying to take a dozen selfies each time you chance across a bathroom mirror.

Photography will still be around and for better of worst, your best bet is to not to buy into the hype and use only what you need to get a good picture.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to All!

Yes, it has finally happened. The fiasco regarding Flickr offering Creative Common images for paid Wall Art prints has come to a conclusion. Below is the excerpt of the farce...and apology. In all rational, why would CC type images be offered up as Wall Art in the first place?

We’re sorry we let some of you down.

About a month ago, we introduced Flickr Wall Art to allow our members to order printed photos on wood or canvas. Over the past few weeks, we’ve received a lot of feedback from the community and beyond — while some expressed their excitement about the new photography marketplace and the value it would bring, many felt that including Creative Commons-licensed work in this service wasn’t within the spirit of the Commons and our sharing community.
We hear and understand your concerns, and we always want to ensure that we’re acting within the spirit with which the community has contributed. Given the varied reactions, as a first step, we’ve decided to remove the pool of Creative Commons-licensed images from Flickr Wall Art, effective immediately. We’ll also be refunding all sales of Creative Commons-licensed images made to date through this service.
Subsequently, we’ll work closely with Creative Commons to come back with programs that align better with our community values.
The Wall Art service will continue to be available, but will not tap into Creative Commons-licensed images. You’ll still be able to order Wall Art from your own photostream, as well as the work of Flickr’s licensed artists, who are part of the Flickr Marketplace. If you want your work to appear in the Flickr Marketplace, you can sign up here to be considered and a member of the Flickr curation team will reach out if your work is a good fit.
From the beginning, we’ve worked hard to foster a community of creators. It’s our deep commitment to the Flickr community that inspires us everyday. Please continue to share your ideas and feedback.Bernardo HernandezVP of Flickr

Film is alive and well in Italy judging from the enormous support Ferrania got from its Kickstarter project. This was a project to save a few upstream suppliers who made the materials possible for film production and this is probably the most exciting news to come out of Europe which happens to be the bastion of Lomography of Austria. 

Early backers of the program have already pitched in to the fullest so you can be assured that they will be up and running in 2015. 

 

What is more exciting is the production of analogue motion picture film which were the mainstay of home movies in the 50s to the 80s. 

What is important is that Super 8mm film is still being made by Kodak but not the Kodachrome stock and this means processing anything remotely Kodachrome is impossible. 

Now many of you will be asking where to get a Super 8mm or 16mm film camera, well eBay of course. 

As for processing, Dwayne's Photo (no relation to the Rock) is still processing motion picture film stock. 

Why shoot stock film when there is digital? Well film is forever and when your digital storage dies, so will your captured moments.

 

LomoChrome Turquoise XR 100-400 is an infra-red film released by Lomo for use in quirky captures beyond the ordinary. The film does not render turquoise colors, hence the name so it's one of those weird effects you'd be getting if you shot on water...everything will be rendered blue, whereas warming colors will turn emerald. Get the drift?

The film itself being infra-red, means you can cross process it in normal C-41 negative solution to have it both 120 and 36mm formats. The stock is limited to 5000 rolls so it's on preorder now before it is available.

Rated at 400 ASA, it is probably is quite safe to shoot both indoors and outdoors though I have to pass on judgment when it comes to low light and high contrast situations.

The exposure latitude is something you gotta learn to deal with, and you can't do that with just one roll. That's one of the caveats with shooting on film. You virtually waste a roll as a sample. Having a working light meter will be indispensable so remember to download an app on your iPhone or Android device before going out with that film camera of yours.

Now the film bundle isn't cheap, be prepared to spend US$60 for a pack of 5 films.

First and foremost, the picture above is credited to David Slater, who says that he owned the photo but he didn't capture it. He created the conditions that were optimum for such a picture and as such had claimed to it. Unfortunately, Wiki-commons disagreed and now there is a ongoing copyright battle on who owns the picture. 

What is Public Domain?

Wiki-commons lets people put up copyright free images for everyone's use and these become public domain picture which cannot be used commercially. But seriously folks, do you think people will ever care to respect this bit?

public domain images of Steve Jobs

There are plenty of images in public domain which you can use for blogs and researched papers that will be deposited in pubic domain. Such images cannot be used for commercial gain so even if you used this picture on a banner advertising your garage sale, that would be in breach of the law, citing wiki-commons isn't going to save you.

Who can put Pictures in Public Domain?

Only the photographer can decide to donate a picture he took to public domain. Nothing else matters. The problem here is two folds, Slater didn't take the picture nor did he get a signed release from the Monkey as a model. This makes the whole idea on Slater owning the picture very murky.

So technically, the monkey owns the picture, regardless if it was Slater's camera that took the picture. And since Slater did not get a signed model contract....there is no copyright contention.

Monkey See Monkey Do

Slater baited the monkey to take the selfie. But in the end, he could have just sold the picture as something he had owned. To save himself, he could have fibbed about the picture and then made millions in selling the image for commercial use. Selfie was in essence a bad tag for the picture because this is what created the copyright debate.

Stupidly, he didn't have the brains to do this and now it is too late. However all is not lost. Even if the image is in public domain, it still cannot be used commercially. Slater can still profit from this if he can prove he is the holder of the analogue image.

Opps. He shot digital. Damn. He could have gone the analogue route and saved himself a ton of problems.

Digital files are useless. You may own the RAW image of the file but no one is going to look at a RAW file as proof of copy. Anyone can technically steal a RAW image from your HD and put that up as his own. Even a high resolution JPG can be turned into a DNG file with the right app. Quite a different story if you had a copy of the analogue image in your HD and the real slide or film image in safe keeping.

Lesson is, professional stock image photographers would be better off shooting analogue to protect their own interest. Digital is vaporware...think about it.

This is the lesson gleaned from photographers all over the world who have accidentally shot and released images onto the Internet and regretted it later as it would have cost them lots in commercial licensing.

Rated at ASA200, the new Cine200 Tungsten film isn't all that new to begin with. During my day as a photographer, I would not have bought such a film for use for outdoors for one simple reason, the film gives a cold cast, looking more blue than what you'd get with daylight film.

What are Tungsten Rated Films

Used primarily in studio that have floodlights, these lights give a extremely warm cast, and to balance them, you'd use a Tungsten film so that the colors would appear accurately as perceived in daylight.

The idea behind this is to allow the photographer the freedom to shoot in Tungsten lighting without the use of lens filters. This was a god send for analog photographer who worked constantly under floodlights shooting magazine adverts to printed catalogs.

All you needed to do is to load up the film and shoot. You could also do a vise-versa on normal daylight balanced film with a lens filter that balanced the harsh lighting. Either way,  Tungsten film fell out of fashion during the digital age because White Balance controls negated the need to use any type of filters.

Digital Tungsten White Balance

You can of course switch on your digital camera, go to your White Balance controls and select Tungsten lighting and get the same effect. There is no big deal about this. This method will only give you a bluish looking tint. Not a bad thing if that's what you are looking for but if you have RAW files on your HD, you can give all your digital photos the same look in any post production program like Photoshop or Lightroom.

Lomo's Tungsten Revival

For the young and aspiring analog photographer, the whole Tungsten film revival might seem like a big deal but to the old hands in the industry, it's a yawn.

But this is not a bad thing for people who continue to shoot film. The reason? Well, for art sake. These days, you can virtually tell if an image is digital or analog based on its tint and color reproduction. The closest to digital reproduction can only be achieved through good quality slide film but that too must be under optimum lighting conditions. Films are generally balanced for daylight exposure, if you have heavy clouds hovering before you, that changes the definition of daylight as well so your pictures won't look as good.

Digital Auto White Balance is better at detecting and correcting these minor shifts in the weather so you won't have to do this manually.

Shooting Tungsten in Daylight

Easy as pie but don't be surprised if you don't get the cooler tint during a hot summer's day at the beach. Very warm and sunny weather almost mimics the real conditions of Tungsten lights so you get a well balanced picture in the end.

There is no reason not to use it in everyday mixed lighting conditions just to take your artistic freedom up a notch.

My advice is ultimately this. Film is expensive so remember to capture something worth keeping.

With 30 days to go, Lomography has exceeded all its expectations with over 200K pledged on a 100K required funding on Kickstarter. That is a resounding cheer for analogue photographers but the biggest winner has to be Fujifilm, the only remaining instant film maker on the planet. The consumables don't cost much, which at US$1 buck a print, it makes for good memories.

The Lomo Instant Camera is a generic Fuji Instax Mini as it uses the same type of mini instant film but it goes one step further by offering a choice of clip on lenses for the camera that gives you fish eye and portrait angle shots. The colored gel filters are not going to be much of a hit for me, at least in a traditional sense but hipsters will no doubt double down on them.

Long exposure is included if you want to get creative but you have been warned as this is essentially a bulb mode for instant photography. Get the exposure wrong, and you'll wind up having an overexposed pile of goo.

To be fair, I think the portrait lens is a great inclusion but the fish eye is pure rubbish. Then again, Lomo intends to sell the camera kit within the ballpark of US$150 for the camera that comes complete with a wide angle lens. This bodes well for photographers who want a choice and can ante up to the portrait lens clip on as an accessory.

Shutter controls are pretty limited, just at one speed, 1/125 sec. The Mini Instax film is rated at ASA 800. The only way to control the exposure is through the aperture setting. 

But my main beef with this system is the sheet film size. It is small. Probably not as tiny as the first generation Zink prints but close. This means the instant film format isn't suitable for scenic, architecture or even street photography for that matter. It is a format meant for having fun with, shooting friends and family and the family pet. There is no macro capability either, so it would be a hassle to shoot anything smaller than a canary. Size wise, it's not much bigger than the Fujifilm instax mini cameras though I must add that it does bear some resemblance to Lomo's Belair series of cameras in terms of design. The Belair X6-12 has a Fuji Instax wide attachment to allow you take larger size instant pictures but from the initial test samples offered by users, only the 90mm lens seems to perform up to expectations. So if you gotta have that camera, then I suggest you wait for the Lomo Instant which should be made available to users all over the world in 2015. 

Film Format: Fujifilm Instax Mini Film

Exposure Area: 42mm x 64mm

Shutter Speed: 1/125s / Bulb

Exposure compensations: +2/-2 Exposure Values

Ejection Mechanism: Motorized

Multiple Exposures: Yes

Built-in Flash Guide Number: 9(m)

Automatic Flash Output: Yes

Battery Supply: 6V (4x AAA batteries)

Tripod mount: Yes

Cable Release Mount: Yes

Aperture: f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22, f/32

Is there hope for analogue photography? Seriously? Well in the day of 3D printing, it might just be what you need to keep those rolls of film going.

The Open Reflex camera is completely printable camera designed by Leo Marius. The idea behind it was to adapt a camera body to a lens mount which takes in a spool of film. This camera is only capable of firing at a fixed 1/60s shutter speed. This might ruin a lot of moments but at least you have a good lens to pair with it.

The whole project will cost you less than 50 bucks, that's provided you already have a 3D printer at home.

There isn't much room for analogue photography other than the stuff you find on Lomography, much of which take less than normal photos. The Open Reflex camera on the other hand makes for a very good kit camera, which can be adapted as a complete kit sans the lens. 

Trusted that the lens will be the problem, I reckon the only way around this is to package a cheap Russian made lens as part of the kit. It just doesn't make sense for kids to assemble something and look out for a used lens on eBay.

As you already know, much of the picture quality (which you can see here) is determine by the lens. Color negative film don't have much contrast and even with b/w film, you can see that may have to tune it up a few notches with Photoshop.

Leo likes the idea of having this turned into a kickstarter project of some sort but seriously folks. Film is in decline and unless it's for a school project, there won't be many backers.

Homebrew, all you need is a 3D printer. For that alone, I think it rocks!

OpenReflex by LeoMarius on Sketchfab

Amazon.com has just gained the ability to sue photographers who use a white background to capture a product photo with this patent award from the US Patent Office (USPO) which means they can technically ask for licensing fees if you ever thought otherwise.

Yes, you heard me. White background. Here is an except of the Patent text filed:-

a background comprising a white cyclorama; a front light source positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting the background, the longitudinal axis further being substantially perpendicular to a surface of the white cyclorama; an image capture position located between the background and the front light source in the longitudinal axis, the image capture position comprising at least one image capture device equipped with an eighty-five millimeter lens, the at least one image capture device further configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty and an f-stop value of about 5.6...

Amazon is an online retailer and for that, most if not all of the photos captured for use on their site has a white background. D'uh. Apparently the text also mentions the use of a 85mm lens so if you happen to get sued, all you gotta do is prove that you used a 75mm or a 90mm lens to shoot your object and you're home free.....provided you hired a lawyer to defend yourself which can run into thousands of dollars.

First, let's be clear. This patent is not an innovation. The patent was filed by Amazon in 2010 and granted this year.  For me at least, the idea of such a photographic exercise is really to fight other online retailers who would use a picture of a product shot with a white background. This gentle art of arm wrestling your competitor to the ground with a lawsuit is one of the best ways to perform a take down without using too much effort. Smaller online retailers who cannot fight Amazon's lawyers will have to move on. The very act of hiring a lawyer to defend yourself in corporate America is a dangerous proposition as it cost a lot of money.

This patent can be used only for sites hosted in America. Amazon in this case can't use it against say, China's Taobao or any online property hosted outside of the US.

Photographers probably need not be too worried but you should tell your client that you won't be using a 85mm lens to shoot a product. Instead, why not try using an iPhone? With the right lighting and a portable lighting studio like the Foldio, you can add a watermark that says "shot on an iPhone with Foldio", to deter the legal sharks from Amazon.

 

What's my Take on the Picture?

What this will eventually mean is that the professional photographer will be obsolete. The only reason why clients would want to use you for a studio shoot is that the object in question is so damn large that it will need a whole room with lighting just to ensure that it is properly lit. That said, you could soon be mothballing your DSLR until your client shows up at your doorstep with a product so large that it can't be shot with an iPhone.

"I am sorry but I can't do this" I said, of which the Marya said "good bye".

This is the story of image theft and it happens all the time. I was looking for some freelance work and came across a posting in freelancer.com, they were looking for writers who knew about travel destinations. The idea seem simple enough, the client wanted a short write up on travel destinations and people could pitch their worth to them. Unknown to the writers, the client has hidden a few "caveats" by not revealing that they also want you to steal high resolution photos.

The idea behind the job was at best, questionable. I suggested they would need to buy photos from a stock agency, with a bulk purchase, it would cost less than US$0.70 a photo for Royalty Free images.

The client went on to say that the purpose is completely different. With that I thought maybe they are using it offline as a training document in a school room. Then I decided to ask if it was off line or online use. The answer shocked me....it was for online use.

Any image for public use should be cleared for public use. You cannot go around taking photos in that manner. I know that some may use images gleaned from Flickr to illustrate a Powerpoint presentation for internal use. I am still ok with that but there are limits. If you use a presentation online for any reason, this is a business exercise and for that you have to buy photos.

The client doesn't seem to care and since it was a Malaysian company, there is good reason to suspect that the online use will be hosted outside of the US, meaning a DCMA takedown will be totally ineffective.

Why Companies should go Legit

It cost you next to nothing. Sign up with a stock image agency on a monthly or annual basis and you can download all the pictures you want for a subscription fee if you have a budget. There is no such thing as not having a budget for even the cheapest of photos from RF Stock Image agencies.

When I worked alongside Sony Asia Pacific, there was never a moment about not paying for Royalty free or Right Managed photos. I would seek them out, research them and buy them for Sony. I have paid over US$40,000 in photo royalties to photographers on behalf of Sony for one project alone.

To not pay a dollar or less for royalty use is like stealing candy from a baby—its no easy! These days, medium resolution RF images can easily be bought for a dollar a pop. We all know that life is bitch when you can't get something easily and for free on the Internet. But there are limits to what you can do and ripping off photographers isn't one of them.

I came away from that episode completely frustrated and angry. For me, I don't think photographers are making a killing out of selling their photos. In fact, the whole business of selling photos has gotten so complicated of late to the point there is no way to address the issue anymore. Which pictures should you be offering for RF, and what should be rights managed? With smartphone photography muscling in on the stock image business, there is literally no point in charging more for a photo just because you shot it on a ten grand worth of equipment. The value of an image has depreciated so much these days that anyone with an iPhone can compete with you in the RF stock market sphere.

Print publications don't buy photos like they use to. In fact, thanks to royalty free photos and image scaling software, they can use any image in print without breaking a sweat.

I am constantly reminded of the kind words I got from photographers such as Michael Yamashita, Abbas Atta of Magnum and author Michael Freeman. They need people to champion their rights and change the mindset of clients who are out to buy photos. Don't think for one moment that a stock image agency will do that for you. Litigation is an expensive process and the last thing they want is to lose customers. That is why co-operative image agencies owned by the photographers themselves work best. They have to protect their own interest when no one else will.

Every year, new film stocks are being discontinued by either Fujifilm or Kodak, the latter being a target since it is emerging from bankruptcy. So it should not come as a big surprise that the sort of new gear you can buy on the Internet these days are limited. Film is forever they say but film sales has been in a comatose state for years. What's out there today? If you are going to start on film, what is available?

Medium Format Rules

How do you get started on medium format photography? You could go buy a new camera or an old one from eBay but your best bet is still on a camera which is still in production. There are many old used cameras you can buy online but the danger is that it will break on you. Having experienced this first hand, you need to appreciate the working value of a camera versus an unreliable used unit. This is not to say that you should not buy used cameras. For beginners, I think you need to find a place to fix a camera should it break down. In big cities, its often very easy to find a camera repair shop run by those old dudes in glasses. But in a smaller city, such folks can only be found in retirement homes.

Wanderlust Travelwide 4x 5

Kickstarter funded Travelwide medium format camera will be on sale soon this summer at US$149. Not a bad price for a medium format camera except that it is not really a camera in the first place. What you get is a body and a pinhole lens cap which essentially lets you start shooting but they don't tell you that you also need to have a film back and a set of real lenses, 90mm type, which could cost you anything from US$150 to US$450 on eBay. The film backs are cheap, you can find one at Keh for less than 10 bucks.

Lubitel 166+

Nice little number from Russia, this TLR plastic bodied camera is capable of a variety of shutter speeds—a serious consideration if you want to shoot on the go. As a packaged  TLR camera, the features are good so you can shoot the moment you take it out of the box. It comes with a fixed lens, 75mm and cost about US$350. Sold on the Lomographic store, I think you can buy this and get it delivered anywhere in the world.

Kiev 60, 88, 645

The Hasselnyet cameras are great value for money and unfortunately, with the ongoing problems in Ukraine, I am not sure this camera will still be manufactured. The Kiev 60 sells for US$390, while the 88 model goes for US$475, the 645 sells for US$430. Not a bad idea really as all the camera kits come with a 80mm lens. The 88SWC model is a wide angle version, sells for US$775 with a 30mm lens.

Buying Used Equipment on eBay

Very risky affair but it might be worth it if you can find something that is of value. These days, eBay sellers are a dime a dozen. Almost anyone can sell something they consider a piece of antique and it is only the more experienced among us who will know what is a piece of junk.

All mechanical parts have a life span. It could be the shutter, winder or the photocell that measures light. Then there is wear and tear, like the glass being used as a mushroom farm, where it gets really foggy.

I would not advise anyone to get something they do not know enough about and with used cameras, there are heaps. Technically speaking, mechanical wear is less obvious if the item has been rarely used but the gunk they used for parts lubrication (often of animal origin) would have to be cleaned out and you need to send it for a CLA (clean lubricate and adjust) that is performed by a professional. Do not for one moment think that you are handy with the screwdriver and thus have the license to take it apart. Cameras are not like cars, they have delicate parts and once broken, you may have just inherited a junk heap.

Medium Format Film Development

Developing film isn't all that difficult. It's actually quite fun if you happen to have a dark room but in most cases, you don't really need one if you are only going to develop negatives.

If you don't plan on playing with chemicals, be sure to look out for color labs that still process film found in big cities. You can mail in your exposed roll and have that digitally transferred onto a CD.

Analogue photography is very rewarding. It is difficult to master but once you do, it's like getting that license to drive and own your first car. Medium format allows you to think about big pictures, and to have the film as mementos to share with others in later life is a real blast.

By now, everyone would have heard of the Leica T. It's a first for Leica as it taps a mirrorless camera market segment with a spiffy new T mount lens. 

We had heard the rumors, that maybe Leica would produce a MFT type mirrorless but that would be watering down its image. 

Presently, the MTF segment, dominated by Olympus and Panasonic already offer mounts to use Leica M type lenses as well as mount Panasonic made Leica camera lenses. The Leica T for that matter uses custom T mounts, so it won't be backward compatible with any of the other Leica lenses on the market. It would only be be appropriate that Leica found a way to squeeze more money from a user with this US$1,850 body designed specifically for a point and shoot photographer. 

The APS-C sensor is the same 16 megapixels and should not perform any better than the current crop of cameras with similar specs. The Leica comes with the option of having a Vario-Elmar-T 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom or a Summicron-T 23mm f/2 prime (non-zoom) lens. Both lenses will cost $1,750 each. You could add on a US$500 M mount made by Leica just to mount those old M type lenses. 

This means you will have to fork out US$3,000 for the privilege of owning one should you be devoid of any M lenses to begin with. 

Leica has partnered with Audi to make the body. It is cut from an aluminum block just like the engine block of a Audi R8 so this could be the reason why the featureless camera is so expensive. 

It looks pretty normal from a design point of view, like maybe a brick that has been crafted to fit a camera's body and not the other way round. No much thought has been used in this process, precision equipment shaved the block into a heavy skeleton of a camera and hopefully it will qualify as a weapon once you decide to toss it at your enemies once it stops working. 

Photography is a Gentleman's Hobby

Leica can do no wrong with this model. You don't have to make many to make that much money and with the Leica brand name attached to it, people will line up to buy it. The demand for premium cameras is growing. Pros will carry Nikon and Canon to do their job, casual photographers will turn to Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus for everything else. 

This means there is no one company able to tap the luxury market. Carl Zeiss isn't in that line of business even though Sony thinks it could hack that market with the wildly expensive A7s. Leica, well, they just fit in like a glove. It doesn't even look out of place in a Prada handbag. So there you have it. Luxury in photography is Leica. 

For those who do not have the money to buy into such madness, well, consider eBaying one of you your kidneys. It might just do the trick. 

Pure Digital. What does it all mean? It means that it exist only in a digital form and no where else. This is what Lytro pioneered and now they are coming in for seconds with the US$1,600 Illum.

Pure digital also means you can't print this, at least not yet, until the whole saga of pixel technology is addressed. There is promise in Lytro Illum as a 3D camera, with 3D parallax capability but they don't seem to be leveraging on that. Instead, they are using the technology as a refocus-able image, which exist only in the Cyber world. Makes me wonder what good is all  that.

Lytro is not about Megapixels

There is no megapixel information on the sensor because it doesn't work that way. From the current iteration, the Lytro Illum is VGA quality if you so choose to print a copy of a refocused picture. You cannot for example, refocus a shot, crop it and print a copy out without pixelation as the size of the digital image is very low. The lightfield techology used here needs the extra sensors to capture depth and color information so as to give you the ability to refocus a point.

Lytro has no Commercial Applications as Yet

Besides being able to refocus, a good tool for selling highly detailed products of art, the technology does not offer any commercial value to photographers. 

As more people move to the mobile sphere to access the Internet, there will be less demands for desktop browsing. This also means that Lytro has to transition to a mobile capable browsing experience. 

At the moment, Lytro only has an iOS app, which allows you to view and upload image to the Lytro site. Lytro images cannot be used on a desktop unless you have the desktop program— free to download and use from their site. There is no plugin for Photoshop or Lightroom. In short, there is no other way to enjoy the whole experience except with dedicated software from Lytro. 

You cannot upload Lytro images to Flickr or 500px either. What you can do is to share a link to your images to social media sites, nor is there a way to generate a gif image. 

Lytro Potential yet to be Realized

This is my biggest beef with the technology. I am not sure where it fits. Or if it really has a niche of some kind for photographers to exploit. Sure, there will be those who want to jump onto the bandwagon before it becomes a big but that clientele is limited. Photographers who want to access this technology can do so at their own peril as there is no apparent return on such a investment. 

The quality of the images, which you can see here, offers very little in terms of dynamic range and color accuracy. In fact, the pictures looked washed out, the images just don't quite jump right at you. 

Until such a time the technology is further enhanced to address such short comings, I am afraid there isn't much use in investing in a camera like this. It is at best, an expensive toy. So if you happen to have some spare cash lying around, you could consider this as a distraction. After all, that's what a toy is all about.