the darkerside to rants

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:

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?

17.08.2010

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

In general I have to say I found myself rather disappointed this year. It wasn’t a very campy event (not that the previous years were really raunchy) and it seems most of the floats were corporate ones, used to advertise themselves, still a bit mind boggling to watch this whole thing.

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?

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?

I have to admit it is somewhat funny to see that the public is separated by a fence from the Olympic flame. Not quite sure who cocked that one up.

But, as I got some special access I can show you what the Olympic Cauldron looks like up, close and personal. Here’s a slideshow.

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

This is a photo that “made itself” so to speak. After I posted the shot on flickr a few people commented that they had “seen it” but apparently nobody had taken it. Funny how that goes eh?

The interesting thing for me in the shot was the light as well as the way the modern architecture of the building I was in (a Chapters) contrasted with the Hotel Vancouver (to the left) and the Vancouver Art Gallery (to the center right).

This photo proofs again that you need to be at the right time at the right place with the right light to make a photo really work.

It’s all about the timing and the light….