July 2009

There were 6 posts published in July 2009 (this is page 1 of 1).

Angry photographer rants

Microstock on Time cover

An angry, traditional photographer rants about how microstock photographers stole his big, fat pay cheque away, calls microstock low quality, and Robert—whose shot was bought by Time—a pervert:

Congratulations Robert, you’ve just become the poster-boy for exactly what is wrong about iStockphoto. A stock rate previously known to be $3,000 for the cover of Time Magazine you just sold for $30 – a 99% discount. After all big “wins”, the winner usually gets asked where they’ll go to celebrate. I’d ask you where you’re going with that dough, but you can’t even go to Disneyland, like winners in the past.

Signs of bad Mac software

Follow up to my previous post on tell-tale signs of bad Mac software before you even use it.

Five minutes into using Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP), converting some RAW files into JPEGs and TIFFs, I saw this dialog that I had no idea how to close.

Terminate?

On most sane Mac software, I could have just clicked on the red button on the top left to close this box. But not in DPP because the developers have disabled the close button.

I had to pick up quite a bit of courage to try the “Terminate” button.

Signs of bad Mac software (before you even use it)

Restart computer

I’ve been avoiding the Canon provided software suite, including the Digital Photo Professional (DPP), like a plague. I’ve seen how my friend struggled with the interface, and It always seem like a piece of unpolished software. Today I decided to install it to compare the RAW outputs with Lightroom. True enough, even before I get to use the software it already reeked of a bad Mac software.

Here are some tell tale signs of a real lousy experience to come.

  1. Requires running an installation program
  2. Installs icons in your dock without your permission
  3. Asks you to restart your computer when the installation is done

For some of the more complicated software such as Adobe suite and Microsoft Office, where some files (such as fonts) need to go into places other than your Applications folder, I think it’s understandable to have an installation program.

No reason for number 2 to happen though. With Microsoft Office you can prevent it from happening if you customised the installation option. But not with DPP. It’s just plain rude to vandalise my dock this way.

And what’s with the you-need-to-restart-your-computer thing? Hello, I just installed a RAW convertor, not updated my OS.

Film bigots II

I took issue with a bigoted and misleading write-up by a group of “elite” film photographers at Anti Lomography with my previous post.

Someone, who posted a comment under a link to rangefinderfilipinas.com, replied:

Sorry, but you missed the point. Or a lot of points, I should say. If you read past the ‘about’ page, you’d see what you’d missed.

For instance, it’s not against post processing per se. It’s about EXCESSIVE postprocessing that takes the ‘photography’ out of, well, photography. It’s about using things like extreme HDR or making people have skins like bronzed rubber vinyl.

“1 hour lab processing”? If you looked at the tags, you’d note that a good number indicate some form of developing reference. In BW. Since when did 1 hour labs run D76 or Rodinal? Would you have that where you are? Many of the photos posted there also originate from prints – some conventional bromides, some alternative prints. And of the scans, many were subjected to some form of post processing- just enough to make them look right, and restore what the machine missed. The machines and software used often don’t render things as how the photographer saw the image. Just enough to put back what was lost. Not as far as making neon sunsets or plastic skins.

But then again, you probably did not see all these, did you?

I don’t understand why people write things that they do not mean, and put it up on a page that seeks to explain their reason of being.

Nowhere in the writeup did it state that the group is only against extreme post processing. In fact, the writeup is clearly against any form of digital post-processing (and of course, everything anything else but their form of film photography).

Here are some highlights from the write-up:

“Plus, we compose and calculate our exposure with our minds and eyes before the shot is taken; not with Photoshop after the image is captured.”

“The capture of a beautiful image can be taken in just an instant, but the making of that image could be due to years of study and learning. All done without the help of Photoshop!”

“Digital is one of the best ways to learn photography but when you get sick of “post processing” buy an old film camera and discover yourself and further discover photography.”

Any clear-minded person would come to the same three conclusions based on this bigoted and clearly misleading writeup: one, film photography requires no post processing (“All done without the help of Photoshop!”); two, any form of post processing is bad; three, film photographers are superior because they don’t ever need to post process their photographs.

I’m very wary of people who loudly proclaim the superiority of one medium over another, but provide no objective evidence other than subjective claims such as their preferred medium having “emotion, feeling, depth and texture to a good film image that is just not there in a digital shot.”

The site ostensibly claims to be anti-lomography. But in reality, it really is a pro-film and anti-everything-else group.

Ironically, many of the photos found on Anti Lomography looks just like the lomographs that they claim they’re out against.

Film bigots

Over at Anti Lomography, a group of film purists are attacking what they deemed as their inferior film counterparts—lomographers who use “old film cameras that are generally of extremely poor quality and overpriced”.

They claim they aren’t anti-digital and support digital photography as one of the best ways to learn photography. But they would later add: “when you get sick of ‘post processing’, buy an old film camera and discover yourself and further discover photography.”

I can’t believe there are still people who believe that film is any more pure than digital. Any self-respecting photographer—film or digital—would spend time post processing their photos. Ansel Adams was not only known as a master in landscape photography, but a master in darkroom techniques.

The only reason why they would imply post processing as bad and inferior to film photography is probably because they’ve been shooting like the lomographers—letting the 1-hour labs do the developing and printing for them.