It’s a rant, I wrote it because it bugged me.

Or rather the tired and old “Film vs. Digital” cost thing.

Last week I was asked to put in a proposal for film photoshoot. This was supposed to be a whole day affair with up to 15 models doing “lifestyle” shoots for a product. Groovy.

My initial proposal came in at $2510 plus HST.

The breakdown was as follows:

Basic Shoot cost (up to 8 hours): $700
Film (20 rolls total including processing): $400
Scanning ($0.50/frame): $360
Post Production (estimate 90mins per roll at $35/h): $1050

Today then I was told that the shoot was delayed and that my pricing was “too expensive” and that the budget is $500 (something I didn’t know initially, if I had I wouldn’t even have bothered) and as much as they like my film shooting style, they will have to go with someone who does digital (as it was implied, this HAD to be cheaper, no film, you know) and also can bring a whole pile of lightening equipment.

Wow. I am not sure if I should shake my head or feel insulted.

Let’s look at this from a business perspective. My total time commitment on this shoot would have been at least 38 hours, that is the 8 hours for shooting and the 30 hours for post processing, not counting me going to the location, the cost of equipment etc. You get the idea.

The cost for equipment isn’t any lower shooting digital, if anything because digital equipment is expected to be replaced every two to three years the cost for equipment has to be recovered much quicker, say, within a year. On a $3500 digital camera (with an okay lens) that means for those $500 shoots you need to do an awful lot, and there aren’t any time savings, I already calculated less than 3 minutes per frame in post and considering the shooting environment and the ideas that were presented to me this could be underestimated.

Add to this that the expectation is that whoever will do this gig for $500 will bring along a whole whack of light equipment which is not cheap and will also take a long time to set up. Meaning: most likely much more than eight hours on location(s) (yes, that’s a plural S, the idea was to shoot at several different locations, which also means all the equipment needs to be broken down and transported to a new location, then set up again).

So, whoever will be doing this for $500 will, at the end of the day, have earned nothing beyond a warm and fuzzy feeling. S/He may have paid of a bit of the equipment, but there will be zero profit, zero eating too.

The funny thing is, the guy who asked for the quote produces an actual, physical product. He would not just hand it out to people on the street for free, he wants to make some money. So he calculates his cost, then adds a percentage on top and then sells it for that price. Meanwhile, he expects the photographer to work for some charity money.

This is why I think photography as a line of business is dead, as digital downloads have destroyed (or at least badly injured) the music distribution industry, so has the idea that “digital is cheaper” and “everybody has a camera”. I have heard this a few times before where people put in proposals for wedding shoots only to be told that it was too expensive and that Uncle Herb has a Digital Camera and he’s not that bad, so he’ll do it instead.

If you look at my above list I do have $750 in direct film related cost (film + scanning), but the reality is that if I would shoot digital I would have worked this in via “equipment rental”, because those HDDs, Memory Cards and new digital bodies every few years aren’t free either. It IS a business and if I do it, I do it to make money, not to get a warm and fuzzy feeling about being allowed to work for someone for nothing.

Am I miffed at being not hired? Not really, it isn’t my line of business per-se. I make money somewhere else at a much higher hourly rate, but I am somewhat surprised (okay, not really) that a business person who should know about cost and profit margins, thinks that for $500 someone could do this shoot for him and make money off of it.

Obviously there are always people out there who will try to get something for nothing, but I have the feeling that this is more the rule than the exception these days when it comes to photography, unfortunately.

Yesterday was “Pride Parade Day” and I got out and shot a few photos.

The funniest thing must have been the Conservative Party’s “float” though. It was one convertible with the party logo on the side, a guy at the wheel and someone else walking on the side, that’s it. The NDP showed up in force and even the Liberals managed to get a group together, but man, that Conservative attempt to appeal to this group of voters was dead before it started. I found it so sad I didn’t even bother taking a photo.

My general feeling with the event yesterday was that they are hurting badly for money, they had signs everywhere asking for donations for the parade as well as telling people it costs half a million dollars to put it on. Side effect of the economy?

A little story made the rounds on the Internet recently which seems to imply that come Mac OS 10.7 only applications that have been approved by Apple and distributed through their app store (for OS X) would be allowed to run on the computer, so no more downloading shady software from parts of the Internet just because you want. Apple won’t let you.

As it goes with stories like these the moment it “broke” the slagging started with people on the one side saying “Evil Apple” while others were more relaxed and essentially said: “Apple would never do that”, and a few even thought of this as a good idea.

So what are the odds that Apple would do something like this? From Apple’s perspective this actually makes sense, they are already controlling the iPhone and iPod environment via the app store. Sure, you can jailbreak your iPhone and then use any kind of app on it that you want, even install a completely new OS on it, but for the majority of people what Apple approves is what they will eat.

But iPhones and iPods (and iPads now) are one thing, a Computer is something else, aren’t we all just deeply excited to write our own programs, fiddle with code and have full control over every minute part of the computer? If you say yes you fall probably in the 1% of the population that actually does this. The rest will still be shaking their heads right now.

Still though, people aren’t quite used to the idea that they have to go through their Computer vendor to get software, but if Apple would want to do this, how would they go about it?

Firstly, they have already trained a lot of people to accept the app store as the arbiter of software to find. In turn for many smaller developer it has turned into a successful distribution method, so why not expand it?

Secondly, Apple could open an Appstore for OS X, once it is open they could make it “difficult” for apps that haven’t come from the App store by simply making it annoying. Right now if you download an application from the net and start it up for the first time OS X warns you that this application was downloaded from the Internet on a given date and that OS X isn’t sure you should really run this. Now imagine they would do this everytime you start an app, added with a note that trusted applications can be found in the app store?

Three, once people are used of using the appstore to find their apps instead of the internet, force them to go there. The majority won’t care as they are already used to it anyway and the few geeks that will be pissed off can be ignored.

So what about the public backlash if Apple would be doing this? I predict slim to none. The people who care about open systems are a minority. The average computer user “eats” what he is given, they don’t scour the internet for applications or try to custom build their own. If Apple shows them a big enough carrot in the form of the appstore combined with some nice fear mongering with regard to the dangers of the internet they can get people to buy into it.

Will they do it? Who knows, Steve Jobs maybe. But if you look at the way Apple has been developing it’s products it just seems to make some kind of sense. There was a huge outcry when the iPod came with unexchangable batteries, there was a huge outcry when Apple insisted on only letting applications on the iPhone that came via the appstore and again when they did the battery thing with the new Laptops (me being one of the by the way). Has it hurt Apple? Not in the least, they are selling more devices than they ever have before and they will continue to do so.

The one thing all the Gees and Free Software advocates forget is something very simple: Most people already treat their computers like appliances, if Apple can give them that feeling on the computer while still letting them do what they want they will like it.

Darkness before the light?

For many years, Harris Decima pollster Allan Gregg has asked respondents whether they consider themselves conservatives, liberals or centrists, and he’s also asked them how they vote. In recent years, he told the Manning Centre conference, the number of self-identified conservatives has been growing. But what’s almost more interesting is that the political allegiance of self-identified centrists has shifted, too. In 1997, 41 per cent of centrists voted for the Chrétien Liberals. In 2008, 48 per cent voted for the Harper Conservatives. Two things have happened. As the population ages and is buffeted by polarizing events like the struggle against international terrorism, the centre has shifted rightward. And the Harper Conservatives have pushed the Liberals, sometimes with their hearty co-operation, off-centre.

Gregg found that 89 per cent of respondents, nearly everyone, agrees that “nothing is more important than family.” Sixty-seven per cent agree that “marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman,” 60 per cent that “abortion is morally wrong.”

This is interesting to me for a few reasons.

Clever.

Human being are well known for their gift of self delusion. Be it that the “love of our life” can do no wrong until they finally can and we realize just how badly mistaken we were. I am pretty sure there are very few people out there in this world who did not fall into this trap.

Or the delusion that we need to do something out of reason X, where said reason is purely made up in our mind to justify our choice.

The list of course could go on and I am sure if you think for ten minutes about your life you will find a handful of examples as well.

While all of this can be emotionally tragic or have tragic realities on a personal level over the last 30 or so years we have witness a much bigger delusion with much more risk to all of us.

Take this headline for example:

Now this reads good, doesn’t it? We’re all better now, and wasn’t it just a hard time this 2008 / early 2009? But now it’s all better according to this headline, even though the subheadline tries to dampen the mood a bit.

But is this really the case? Are we really better off now? The articles has this little nugget in it:

The bank’s economists looked at another measure of debt, the ratio of assets to liabilities. Before the recession, households held from $5.6 to 5.8 worth of assets, for every $1 of debt. Currently, households are holding a record low $5.1 of assets for every $1 of debt.

Ah, now here’s the rub. The problem is that the net worth is wishful thinking only, you know, like the guy or gal you had a crush on high school from afar until they opened their mouth and you realized that they had the voice of a chipmunk. The problem with this whole headline and statement is simple: This isn’t real money.

Let me try to explain.

The way the networth is calculated is: Your Liabilities (e.g. your mortgage) vs. your assets (e.g. your paid off car). Well, that’s how it should be done. The problem is that they do not do this. They actually take the price they think your house will fetch on the market and count it as an asset. So they deduct the perceived house value from your mortgage and give you the difference as an “asset”.

That’s just delusional.

Think about it. They take a value that only exists on paper and has no real world application and make it out to be real so that you can feel better about the hundreds of thousands that you own to the banks. The problem with these house prices is that they aren’t set in stone. Sure, the papers were rife earlier this year and late last year of people getting into a bidding frenzy and paying more money than asked, but this can also go the other way if you suddenly have nobody able to afford / wanting to buy property, it always cuts both ways. Hence why you shouldn’t count your chickens until all the eggs have hatched.

Furthermore, the one thing they do not take into account in this calculation is interest.

When you go and get a mortgage in order to finance the purchase of a property (let’s be clear, getting a mortgage is not buying a house, it is getting a loan) you not only pay the principal (the sum you borrowed) but also the interest on it. In most cases (current artificially low interest rates ignored) this amounts to almost doubling the purchase price over the course of the average loan (of course if you pay it off faster you pay less interest and you’re better off. But people who could do this would not go for a 0/40 or 5/35 mortgage, and even at just 25 years you still pay a hefty sum in interest).

What this means though is that you are probably in negative equity, meaning you actually lost money on that “investment”.

And yet, if you talk to your bank they will continue to tell you that you are actually building equity on your house, they will look at your credit rating and tell you that you are actually doing well etc. It is smoke and mirrors, not to outright say you are delusional and the bank is doing it’s best to keep you that way.

Here’s another example from a message board:

Who cares if prices come down 20% when they already went up 30%?

Someone who can do a bit of math?

Say, you have $100 and magically they become 30% more (== $130), then drop by 20% (130 x 0.8) you are left with $104 or just a 4% increase (which will be eaten up by associated costs like closing costs, interests paid, repairs, taxes etc.).

Meanwhile, presume you only started out with $70, they then increased in value again by 30%, you now have $91, now it loses it’s value by 20% and you’re left with $72.8, or again 4% in “profit”.

The reason I point this out is because it exemplifies the utter lack people seem to have when it comes to finances and money and just how delusional we as a society have become.

The reason why this is all not so good for all of us is simple and answered in the CBC article from above as well:

TD said liabilities increased four percentage points faster than income last year and interest payments remain high, despite low interest rates.

You may want to chew on that for a bit and come to your own conclusion what this means for Canadian networth.

And by the way, this isn’t the only place where things like this are happening, it seems to be a global phenomenon and not only limited to the world of finances and real estate. Remember the whole “We’re going to use Ethanol in order to remove ourselves from the need of oil”? Yeah, similar scam, they conveniently forgot to mention that most of the corn is grown using fossil fuels, that the refinery / distillery is run on fossil fuel etc. But in the end it made people feel good at the pump, because it was ethanol, plant based, renewable and so much less CO2, fill her up.

Welcome to the age of global delusion, anybody want to guess how the crash landing will look like?

There is something magical about the sunsets on English Bay…..

Before there was digital, there was another way of getting instant gratification in photography: Polaroid.

The company has gone now to the dogs a few years ago, but there are a handful of people who are trying to resurrect at least part of the company, the Impossible Project. They have apparently at least partially succeeded and have announced a press conference on March 22nd 2010. Good for them.

For me the “return” (I put this in quotes as I am not really returning to instant photography, never really did it a lot, though my parents had a Polaroid 660) started last week when I was given an old Polaroid Land 103 camera.

I initially ran into some problems, no not getting film wasn’t the Problem, Fuji still makes it, rather that it needed a new battery and that wasn’t that easy to get, as in, only online.

But no fear and borrowing a soldering iron from a Friend, I managed to “adapt” a more modern battery to it and started snapping.

Walking around with a camera like the Land is… interesting. I am used to people staring, sure, not when I shoot with my Canon EOS 1v, it looks like any modern Canon dSLR, but be it with my Yashica D or my Zeiss Ikon 532/16 (yeah, you can tell that Zeiss had mostly engineers), though occasionally even my Contax G1 gets me roped into discussions, not to mention my Kiev-4. But I am digressing. But the really cool thing for me about the Land was how quickly you see the result and how good it looks.

Focus, frame, shoot, pull first tab, pull second tab, wait 90 seconds. Separate the print from the backing and wait a few moments for it to dry –> Done.

And it looks good too. Most people associate this kind of washout look with Polaroids:

But this was actually done on the iPhone with Camerabag, so not real at all.

The other advantage is: You get a real version of the print, not a small tiny image on a tinier screen that may or may not look later like you think it does. No, what you see is truly what you get.

Is it cheap? Not really, each frame cost me around $2 if I buy the film local, but if more people would shoot instant the cost would obviously go down. How did we ever let it (almost) die?

Over the decades “Street Photography” has become a new “category” in photography. It is, essentially, a way to catch a candid moment. Well, that’s how I see it anyway, others perceive street photography as anything that happens outside, faces, moments etc.

I have been a bit “shy” shooting people in the past, mainly because I found it intrusive, though I have gotten a bit better lately.

The challenge, for me, lies doing this without being noticed, there is a “voyeuristic” aspect to it. The photo above is an attempt in this, I am not too happy with it out of a few reasons:

1. It’s not in Focus.
2. It’s too grainy for what I shot.

The first one stems from me trying to use a rangefinder, set to two metre distance and an aperture of f/8 in order to get the shot. I clearly should have set the focus a bit further out and thus have her fully in focus.

There is also some bluriness due to me walking as well and a rather low shutter speed of 1/125th. This I should change as well, rather a wider open aperture and shorter focussing distance.

The second “issue” stems from the development. It came from a test roll I shot on a new film and developed in a way, as I later found out, that wasn’t quite suitable, because of the development in the jobo drum system it turned overly contrasty.

Ah well, live and learn

As with every year, the country has whipped itself into a “frenzy”, “remembering those who served our country”. By putting fake poppies on their lapels, and as a new fashion statement, onto their avatars on Twitter and Facebook et. al. Tomorrow they will be forgotten and people will continue the way they did before.

Otto Dix: Invalids

Well, not quite, those who went to war and fought in it are remembered.

Cities all over the country will have parades where soldiers march in lockstep with music and you can admire more than one “cool toy” (incidentally yesterday they released a new game: Call of Duty, Modern Warfare 2 which has lots of cool toys as well, but I will write about that at a different time).

Proponents of Remembrance Day are quick to point out that they don’t really (no really) support war, just that they are thankful for those who sacrificed themselves “for the country”.

So here is my question: Where are the days that remember the Firefighters, Police Officers, Paramedics etc.? Why don’t we have ambulances parade down the street with orchestras playing?

Oh, I am sure somewhere in the calendar someone put a “Paramedics Day” in there, but that will have as much resonance with the average person as “SysAdmin Day”. None.

Regardless on how people want to spin it, Remembrance Day is not about “honoring those who served” it is a marketing show that tells people that when we go to war it is for a just cause, and don’t you forget it, oh, and sign up here please.

Oh really?

Let’s take a quick stroll down history lane and see where Canada got involved and if it really was such a noble cause:

World War I:

Otto Dix Painting

As modern lore has it (there was even a movie about it last year), World War I was where Canada “was made”. I say modern lore here on purpose because having looked through some older newspapers / textbooks the interpretation that Canada was “made at Vimy Ridge” seems to be a rather new interpretation that is less than a decade old.

Let’s face it: as much as the modern Stereotype is that Austria-Hungary and the German Empire were the culprits in WWI the reality was not quite that black and white. But of course if you want to justify to have gone to war it must be “we are good, they are bad”, mix in some bravery and “birthplace of the nation” and you have created yourself a tale worthy of the Ring Cycle.

There are ample stories of people on both sides brokering a seize fire over the Winter Holidays and even exchanging gifts, so if the soldiers in the trenches could have a “good time” with the “evil enemy” then what exactly is left of the claimed nobility of WWI? Nothing.

People died on both sides, usually a horrible death, gassed, shot, crushed by tanks or torn to shreds by explosions or succumbing to infections due to trench foot and other ailments that were part of the daily “life” in the trenches on both sides.

World War II

Otto Dix: Flanders

Ah yes, in the Western World this is being billed as the fight of Good vs. Evil. Anybody who has read anything beyond the overall war (Nazi Germany Evil, Western Allies Good, and oh my God the Holocaust), would quickly realize that this was, once again, far from Black & White. WWII was about global politics, not about “defeating the evil Nazi Germany” or “saving the Jews”.

Two examples to illustrate this

A couple of people tried to flee Nazi Germany, they charter a ship, the SS St. Louis, it set sail from Hamburg to initially go to Cuba where the refugee’s wanted to wait until they could enter the United States.

When the St. Louis arrived in Cuba they were refused entry, so the ship turned north, trying to land in New York, again being refused entry the ship tried Halifax, where the Canadian Government refused entry for the ship and it’s refugees.

The situation in the end got so bad that the captain decided to run the ship aground and force the Canadian Government to take in the Refugees.

You can read the entire story of the St. Louis here.

The second example is about the Allies decision to not bomb the rail lines that were moving prisoners into concentration and death camps. The Resistance and their own intelligence network had made the Allied High Command aware of what was going on, they knew what the trains were being used for, but the decision was made that it wasn’t of “strategic importance” to prevent more people moved to slaughter.

You can read more about this here.

Lastly, there is of course the question as to what really lay behind WWII, much like WWI the answers aren’t as black and white, but I leave it up to you, if you are interested, to read through the historic documents of the time and come to your own conclusion.

But so much is pretty clear: It wasn’t about the death camps, the jews, the political opponents or the mentally disabled. It was, much like WWI, about who got to rule the world.

Korea

In that context Canada soldiered on and went into Korea, this was somewhat a bit different that it was a “UN Mission”, either way the war was as bloody and as useless as the other two engagements. It was once again not about “good vs. evil” but about “us vs. them” and them happened to be the Soviets and their man in Pyongyan.

After intense fighting the country ended up split in two parts, up to this day I might add, with a guy in power who got drunk on having stubbed the US and the West in the nose.

After Korea, Canada seemed to have smarted up a bit, under Pearson Canada came up with the role of “Peacekeeping” and for close to 40 years dedicated it’s military predominantly to that role. Just how “noble” even peacekeeping can be could be seen in the early nineties in Rwanda, where politics, not “nobility” or “humanity” won out.

I think the US ambassador to the UN made the most striking statement about the failure in Rwanda: “We have isolated reports of Genocide”, that was of course long after it had swept across the country. The cynicism and disregard for human life that the UN was supposed to protect is pretty staggering.

The reason why the US especially was trying so hard not to use the G word for so long was because the moment the UN recognizes a genocide the Security Council has to act. Not just by writing a stern note to the country that commits the genocide but by actively intervening. You know, the “noble war” thing. Of course this was shortly after the Somali mission that went tits up and the US didn’t want to get involved. So they avoided the issue for as long as they could, meanwhile hundreds of thousands were butchered in “isolated cases of genocide”.

And then there is Afghanistan. Canada (and Germany for the first time since WWII) are heavily involved on foreign soil. This isn’t a peacekeeping mission, this isn’t about “making things better”. Anybody who knows a little bit about the history of Afghanistan could have told you that the intervention would pretty much end up the way it did. Yet many countries, under the shock of 9/11, decided to commit troops to a cause that once again was sold to the populace as “noble” and “necessary”.

Of course if it really would have been about the terrorists who committed 9/11 Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would have been the targets they should have gone after, not a country that mainly existed in name and was essentially a loose collection of tribes that worked together when it furthered their need and who were at each others throat when it didn’t.

And in conclusion

Let’s be clear about one thing. War is not noble. Nobody ever died a noble death. There is no honor or nobility in death, regardless of what generals or politicians are trying to tell you.

Though there IS a need by the people in power and those who run the military to indoctrinate people to think that they are fighting the good fight and that it is a noble undertaking to put yourself in harms way for the “greater good”.

It is all Bullshit. War at times may be a necessity (in defense) but it is never a “noble cause” nor is it something we should admire or hold at high regard.

World politics was always made by old men and paid for in blood by the young. As long as we have had tribes we have sent (mostly) sons into harms way and rationalized it away with a noble cause or a necessity of some kind (if we don’t kill them, they will kill us).

No war ever started because of noble intentions, it started because the other group had something we wanted. Since WWI though we have perfected the ideal of the soldier who puts his or her life at risk to “serve his or her country” and elevated that service to a noble cause.

If people really want to remember those who we have sent into war to kill and be killed we should ask hard questions of those we have tasked administrating our country. We should make sure that we can defend ourselves if need be but do lack the ability to fight and offensive war and even then the military should be the option of “last resort” not the first one that comes to mind when a disagreement arises.

Remember that, next time you are in awe of large military machinery, play a military game, put a fake poppy on your lapel to “show your support” or shout of the top of your lungs that one “needs to support the troops”. The best way to remember the dead and support the troops is by not putting them into a situation where they have to kill or be killed.

Paintings are by Otto Dix.