the darkerside to rants

(via Schockwellenreiter

I admit, I am not good with math (Calculus, Algebra I am quite good at, same goes for geometry), but this is beautiful and almost makes me want to try and get better at Calculus.

I admit I am always fascinated by hair / fur animation as this still is where a lot of “revealing mistakes” happen. But this one is quite good, not only in the fur animation but also in the overall execution. Kudos.

(via Schockwellenreiter)

Above is one of the earliest tests of Kodachrome film from 1922, this is probably one of the oldest colour film images one can ever see, and yes, the irony is that you experience it digital.

I was actually going to wait for this post until I get my last six rolls of Kodachrome back from Dwayne’s, but as Canada Post seems to be determined not to return them to me this year I figured I get this one in “under the wire” so to speak.

Many people have (or still are as the time of this writing) been sweating bullets about their films. Because you see, as of Noon Central Time today there will be no more Kodachrome development in the entire world. The last place who did it will shut down the machines at the end of day tomorrow and if your roll didn’t make it to them today it will never be developed as Kodachrome.

So why should it matter, hasn’t the world moved on to digital photography and nobody cares about still film photography anymore?

Mostly. But for more than 50 years Kodachrome is and was the way the world recorded events, from the mundane family picknick to far flung places like the Afghani Girl which is probably National Geographics most famous photos.

Speaking of National Geographic, they were once upon a time one of the largest users of Kodachrome, almost all of their correspondents recorded the world in the colours of Kodachrome and this is how many, even of my generation, learned about far flung places. Long before the Internet came along and made it easy to see parts of the world that one would most likely never visit.

So why the sadness over Kodachrome then? Because it is an end of a product that, together with Technicolor, defined the look of much of the 20th century. For many the world WAS Kodachrome.

Be it this blurry picture of the CNE Model Kitchen that I found on a flea market:

To a shot from an Ontario Hydro at Niagra Falls:

Or Algonquin Park in 1957:

I am sure if you rummage through your basement or attic you will find some old slides from your family vacation back in the day.

Yes, now we have digital and many programs that are trying to “copy the look”, but it’s not the same. If you find a slide, hold it up against the light, get a loupe and marvel at the colour and expression. For me digital has nothing on it.

So, until I get my last six rolls back, here is a shot I took at the 420 in Vancouver in 2009:

There always seems to be confusion about what Atheism is or why it is a valid position to have. This nice, 10 minute video is a really good introduction to the “atheist dilemma” if you want to call it that.

There are problems, the AF mostly not to mention the low resolution. I am trying again right now with MF and will “borrow” a better camera and see if I can get it working. If it does, I may end up setting up a webcam again

Makes me want to do my own.

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.

Still mesmerized with the 20mm lens on the GF1. Time for a shave?