This is an open call for any Australian lomographers out there to submit content for OZLOMOGRAPHY a new site I have started to explore the lomographic experiences of Australian photographers. By content I mean anything; short written pieces on your experiences in lomography in Australia, photographs, suggestions for links, ideas for interviews, free beer, whatever. Pay no attention to the design of the site at the moment, it's pretty ordinary....when I get a chance to put my designer hat on (and some more time) I will be coming up with something a bit more aesthetic.

On a separate topic, the photoblogring passed 1000 active members a while back now and is heading towards its second year ~ thanks to all who have played an active and continuing part!

This is an extract from an article entitled The Raw Flaw by Michael Reichmann and Juergen Specht which is posted at length on The Luminous Landscape

For most of the past 10 years (effectively, the entire geological age of digital SLR cameras) photographers have been almost oblivious to a lurking danger. This threat – and it is no exaggeration to call it that – can best be understood by analogy.

<...>

Now, imagine the following scenario. We retrieve our files, find the negative or slide that we want to reprint, and then discover that it has become opaque. The image is gone or otherwise inaccessible. We still have the piece of film that originally went though the camera, but the image itself cannot be accessed! Imagine if the the company that made your original roll of film had manufactured it so that the film only fit into one type of enlarger, and that those enlargers aren't being made anymore. Or that the chemical properties of the dyes used to make that roll of color film were such that they would only interact to form an image with matching dyes in a printing paper from that same company; but – sorry, that company was sold a few years ago and the new owners decided to stop making that type of paper.

<...>

You as a photographer have two issues to deal with. One – is the preservation of your RAW files in a physical format that will be readable into the future. There are many strategies for this that basically involve making multiple copies of your files on different media, and keeping those media safe from physical damage. If these files are copied to new media and new media types on a regular basis then you have a strategy for physical preservation.

The second issue is that of being able to actually make use of the data that's in the RAW file, and this is where we run into trouble.

<...>

How many RAW formats are there? Believe it or not, as of mid-2005 there are more than 100 different RAW formats in existence.

This alone is cause for concern. Companies come and go, and even those that persist often orphan old formats. There are in fact RAW formats in existence for which no manufacturer's software is currently available. And that's after less than 10 years.

Then there's the ugly matter of encryption. This was brought to the fore when in early 2005 Nikon released its flagship camera, the D2x, with encrypted white balance data.

Now, Nikon isn't the first, or the only company to encrypt their RAW files. But because they did so in such an intransigent way it has acted as a tipping point for the entire industry. Nikon owners are furious with the company, and quite a backlash has developed.

But let's apportion blame fairly. Other companies have done the same. In late 2003, for example, Sony encrypted the RAW files for its then new F828 digicam. It took only 3 days until the encryption was broken, but that's beside the point.

Companies like Canon and others are not free of guilt. Most camera makers use tricks to hide their data. Fortunately there are some very smart programmers out there, and to our knowledge none of these software tricks remain more than a trivial annoyance to anyone that really wants to crack them.

But, in the US at least, with the Millennium Copyright Act, the game has changed. Simply put, anyone that cracks encrypted or otherwise protected intellectual property is subject to criminal prosecution. And, since it possibly can be argued that the code (not content) in an encrypted or "protected" RAW file belongs to its creator (meaning the camera maker), any company or programmer breaking that code needs have liability concerns.

Similarly the proposed European Software Patents Protocol could mean that RAW formats will be patent protected and therefore not freely usable, even for interoperability purposes. If this comes to pass, European photographers could lose free access rights to their own photographs.

<...>

With this as background, the OpenRAW Working Group was founded.

The goal of OpenRAW is to encourage image preservation and give creative choice on how images are processed to the creators of the images – us – photographers.

This group is an amalgam of photographers and other interested people founded to create awareness of these issues, suggest a solution, and provide coordination for these efforts.

<..>

The OpenRAW Working Group believes that open file formats encourage innovation. OpenRAW is not asking manufacturers to disclose the trade secrets of their sensor construction or their firmware, only the structure of the RAW data recorded when the photographer presses the shutter button, because:

1. There is no guarantee that manufacturers won't change their camera software support policies and abandon older cameras from current software.

2. There is no guarantee that manufacturers will exist in the future. (Consider Contax and their groundbreaking full frame Digital N camera of just a few years ago – now completely orphaned. Could your camera suffer a similar fate one day?)

3. There is no guarantee that a software program will execute correctly in the future. So even if we keep old hardware and software around, there is no guarantee that it will work properly on future computer systems.

4. There is no guarantee that support will be added to new conversion software for older and discontinued models.

<..>

The time has come for us as digital photographers, and purchasers of equipment from the major manufacturers, to speak out. Historically, when people with a common cause, a just cause, speak out, their combined voices are heard.

Below is an open letter to all of the major digital camera makers. If you agree with its basic premise, we urge you copy it off the screen and paste it into an email to the camera maker of your choice, or to each of them for that matter.

Dear Sirs,

Sincerely,

Andre Nantel

A few weeks ago I was visiting a friend who's a working cinematographer, and I was leafing through the albums on his shelf (Henry Callahan, William Klein, Helen Levitt, and so on) and he challenged:

when someone shoots in color, does the color add an understanding to the image?

I don't think Jamie has read Tufte - - but it's a very Tufte idea: how much is just atmosphere (I guess), vs. real communication?

It hadn't been put to me in quite tha way before, and I confess I've thought about it since...

Frank

The New York Times has pronounced it; therefore it must be so. We take too many pictures! At least those of us who own and shoot with digital cameras do.

In her article in this morning's Thursday Styles section, Amy Harmon says:

"At a time when this country is indulging in an unparallelled binge of personal picture taking, and some digital photographers find themselves drowning in the product of their enthusiasm, the notion is dawning that even in a digital realm less may still be more"

She adds that "some critics warn that a great photograph's signular power to trigger memory may be at risk."

Makes me glad I only shoot film nowadays. Read on, discuss, and debate...

Stop Them Before They Shoot Again

Please note: this article will be free for only seven days on the NY Times website. Subsciption to access the NY Times online (which is also free) is required.

A few days ago, I came back to find Bear, my chihuahua, reading my magazine. Funny, clever, whatever you want to call it, I restaged the shot after I went to go get my camera and posted it on my site here.

{Insert sound of can opener whirring}

The question is, if you were the photographer who took this image of Salma Hayek, and you came upon this image that I took, would you be (a) pleased; (b) offended; (c) dialing your attorney's office; or (d) fill in the blank.

Inquiring minds would love to know.

-myla
myla kent | photography

Warning: To my utter amazement, it appears that some people can't see this as a photography-related joke. I was seriously tempted to delete the whole thing but I will instead make things worse by trying to fix it instead. People taking things too seriously is the reason why Cookie Monster is not allowed to have cookies anymore.

This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. Please don't answer it without giving it some serious thought. By giving an honest answer you will discover where you stand morally. The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation, in which you will have to make a decision.

You're in Florida...In Miami, to be exact... There is chaos around you, caused by a hurricane and severe floods of major proportions. You are a photojournalist working for a major newspaper caught in the middle of this great disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless.

You're trying to shoot career-making photos. There are houses and people swirling around you, some disappearing under the water. Nature is showing all its destructive fury. You see a man in the water. He is fighting for his life, trying not to be swept away with the water and debris. You move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar. Suddenly, you know who it is... it's

George W. Bush! (or Kim Jong Il, or Hillary Clinton, or Saddam Hussein, or your mother in law, etc...) At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him (or her, or it) under, forever. You know for a fact that he (or her, or it) will die if you don't do something quickly. You have only two options. You can save him (or her, or it) or you can take the most dramatic photos of your life. You can save the life of George W. Bush (or Kim Jug Il, or Hillary Clinton, or Saddam Hussein, or your mother in law, etc...), or you can shoot a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo, documenting the death of one of the world's most powerful men (or woman, or carbon-based lifeform). This photo will catapult you into the stratosphere of journalism.

Read the comments for the question (and please give an honest answer):

A few monts ago I had the pleasure to have dinner with Ian Summers, and attend one of his workshops. I just want to point out his site where you can read about him and what he does and has done. I guess you would call him a creative consultant, and if you ever have the chance to attend one of his workshops, you will leave inspired and enlightened with a big spark of creativity under your ass. This is a really great workshop to evaluate, boost, and learn about your career too. (Yes, ANY career)

You can read his 501 Quotes, Questions and Ponderings here

And visit his site for more info about him and what he does here:

Thanks, Ryan

Another opportunity to display the differences in approaches! Yay! The Gates were unfurled this weekend in Central Park, allowing another opportunity to compare different approaches to a singular event. It will only be up for a brief time (16 days), so it we can see both theme and variations... So far the weather has been mild, but the sun has been brilliant. There may be a blizzard yet (who knows?) But the bare trees allow a clear view of the saffron strip, and I'm just wild about saffron (she's just wild about me).

So this is the starting thread, and I don't pretend to be comprehensive, so tack your shots in the comments!

So far, two from rion.nu: 1, 2

And Mike Epstein from Satan's Laundromat chimes in: 1, 2

And my single pic so far (I'm a single shot a day kinda cat): 1 (Now my second: 2)

All this is chiefly to show the different ways people approach a spontaneous event. I'd really like it if people could take this to the next level and offer constructive criticism, but if not, well, I can always work on perfecting my speidini.)

AGAIN!! All others with The Gates shots are encouraged to post their links here!

You can see my latest here.

The New Year is almost upon us, and you know what that means
– resolutions. In this month’s issue of Popular Photography, there is a section
listing some people's photography resolutions for the year 2005. Here are some of mine:

• Take a photography class.
• Save up for a dSLR and film scanner.
• Get more comfortable with darkrooms, digital and
  traditional.
• Carry a camera EVERYWHERE I go.

What are your photography resolutions for 2005?

Rod

I'm not sure how many people here are working photographers, but this has been somewhat of a breakthrough year for me as I try to support myself with photography.  I've had the opportunity to photograph a few celebrities, including Moby, Michael Chang, and tons of not-so-well-known-in-America European DJs. 

But recently, I had a chance of a lifetime by spending some time with Mike Tyson.  I photographed him with a few other celebrities such as Dennis Haysbert (the president on the show '24') and as seen in the photo, legendary boxer Roberto Duran.  It was definitely a test of one's patience to photograph Tyson as he is not one of the nicer people I've met.  But there's still a strange sense of greatness that lingers around him, particularly the way people throw themselves at him in hopes of getting a few words in.  I literally had to stay out of his way except for a few posed shots with him and Duran, whom he regards as his favorite boxer.

Has anyone here photographed a celebrity and had to deal with the huge egos that go with them?  It was definitely a learning experience for me as a photographer.