Well, I’m not sure how many occasions these photos could be used for.
March 30, 2011
March 19, 2011
American Digest: This is why Kodak is withering away
Tell me that this simple idea has never occurred to anyone at Kodak:
If the company that calls itself Kodak today had a brain, it would copy the “Instamatic 100” from Kodak’s greatest hits, drop a first rate lens in it, add some great chips, a view screen as big as the back of the camera, and rebrand it as the “Kodak Digimatic 100.” Instant win.
They’ll never be cool enough to do it. Somewhere in the 1990s, Kodak lost the ability to design and innovate. Once the king of the camera world, Kodak’s now just the place where bad designs and worse marketing go to die. Today, Kodak needs a brain the same way Scarecrow needed one in the first reel of “Wizard of Oz.” Like Scarecrow, there’s a long brick road awinding into the land of its dreams.
It wasn’t always that way. There was a time when it seemed that everyone in America owned an Instamatic. It was a camera that, in its simplicity, elegance and rock-bottom cost, was an icon of its age
Of course, doing it now would be far too late: this was a winning strategy for 2001, not 2011. If they do it now, it’ll flop because they’ve squandered all the immense goodwill that used to be associated with the company name. It was the “everyman” camera and film: professionals had their specialized cameras and even more specialized film, but everyone else just bought Kodak. Kodak was “good enough”, dependable, predictable.
It takes immense lack of talent to fumble that much potential so thoroughly and so consistently. Almost a genius level of anti-talent at the corporate level.
Comments Off on American Digest: This is why Kodak is withering away
January 23, 2011
Detroit’s abandoned buildings as “economic disaster porn”
Noreen Malone wants us to sober up and “stop slobbering over abandoned cityscapes”:
When I sat down to my keyboard recently to Google the city of Detroit, the fourth hit was a site titled “the fabulous ruins of Detroit.” The site — itself a bit of a relic, with a design seemingly untouched since the 1990s — showed up in the results above the airport, above the Red Wings or the Pistons, the newspapers, or any other sort of civic utility. Certainly above anything related to the car industry, for which the word Detroit was once practically a synonym. Pictures of ruins are now the city’s most eagerly received manufactured good.
We have begun to think of Detroit as a still-life. This became clear to me recently, when the latest set of “stunning” pictures of Detroit in ruins made the rounds, taken by Yves Marchand and Romain Meffre for a book, The Ruins of Detroit. They were much tweeted and blogged about (including by TNR’s own Jonathan Chait), as other such “ruin porn” photosets of blighted places have been, and were described variously as wonderful, as beautiful, as stunning, as shocking, as sad. They are all of those things, and so I suppose they are good art. But they are rotten photojournalism.
[. . .]
I suspect it’s not an accident that the pictures of Detroit that tend to go viral on the Web are the ones utterly devoid of people. We know intellectually that people live in Detroit (even if far fewer than before), but these pictures make us feel like they don’t. The human brain responds very differently to a picture of a person in ruin than to a building in ruin — you’d never see a magazine represent famine in Africa with a picture of arid soil. Without people in them, these pictures don’t demand as much of the viewer, exacting from her engagement only on a purely aesthetic level. You can revel in the sublimity of destruction, of abandonment, of the march of change — all without uncomfortably connecting them with their human consequences.
H/T to Felix Salmon for the link.
Comments Off on Detroit’s abandoned buildings as “economic disaster porn”
November 25, 2010
“They took more than 400, highly detailed photographs of the dig”
By way of A Blog About History, a story about a valuable set of over 400 photographs of the Sutton Hoo excavations:
Like the original ship burial, this remarkable find has laid unseen and forgotten for a long time. Tucked away in a dusty storeroom were a couple of fairly nondescript cardboard boxes.
Inside these unprepossessing packages were a photographic treasure trove which sheds new light on the discovery and the excavation of the Sutton Hoo ship burial.
Inside the boxes were more than 400 photographs taken during the summer of 1939 by two visiting school teachers Barbara Wagstaff and Mercie Lack.
It is believed that they had contacts with The British Museum which is why they were given access to the site but very little is known about them.
They took more than 400, highly detailed photographs of the dig — far more than the 29 official shots taken by the British Museum photographer.
The pictures have laid forgotten until now; as a selection of them are forming the centrepiece of a new exhibition at Sutton Hoo.
It’s hard to believe that the British Museum didn’t have a more comprehensive formal photographic record of the excavations.
Comments Off on “They took more than 400, highly detailed photographs of the dig”
November 24, 2010
Kuwait has a problem with some cameras
Cell phone cameras and compact cameras are okay, but DSLR cameras are not:
Kuwait has banned DSLR cameras in public places — except if you are a journalist.
But the ban does not apply to compact cameras or cameras in smart phones. Eccentric or what? And what about camcorders?
Majed Al-Saqer told the English-language Kuwait Times, which broke the news of the DSLR ban, that “sometimes people stop him while he is in his car with his camera, as if he were planning to kill someone with it. He said that he isn’t sure what the real problem is, whether it is people taking photos of each other or the size of the camera”.
There must be a reason, but it’s not immediately apparent.
Comments Off on Kuwait has a problem with some cameras
November 20, 2010
The use of glamour to advance weak economic ideas
Virginia Postrel highlights the power of glamour even in technical and economic arguments:
When Robert J. Samuelson published a Newsweek column last month arguing that high-speed rail is “a perfect example of wasteful spending masquerading as a respectable social cause,” he cited cost figures and potential ridership to demonstrate that even the rosiest scenarios wouldn’t justify the investment. He made a good, rational case — only to have it completely undermined by the evocative photograph the magazine chose to accompany the article.
The picture showed a sleek train bursting through blurred lines of track and scenery, the embodiment of elegant, effortless speed. It was the kind of image that creates longing, the kind of image a bunch of numbers cannot refute. It was beautiful, manipulative and deeply glamorous.
The same is true of photos of wind turbines adorning ads for everything from Aveda’s beauty products to MIT’s Sloan School of Management. These graceful forms have succeeded the rocket ships and atomic symbols of the 1950s to become the new icons of the technological future. If the island of Wuhu, where games for the Wii console play out, can run on wind power, why can’t the real world?
Policy wonks assume the current rage for wind farms and high-speed rail has something to do with efficiently reducing carbon emissions. So they debate load mismatches and ridership figures. These are worthy discussions and address real questions.
But they miss the emotional point.
I guess it’s a sign of weakness for the economic folks that they don’t realize how much of the battle for public support can rest on non-economic factors. You might be able to win all the technical battles, but it’s often the emotional factors that determine victory overall.
October 30, 2010
Another way to exasperate your customers
Clive sent me a snippet from Thom Hogan’s Nikon Field Guide (no direct linking to the article, apparently):
I’ve never been a big fan of complicated DRM systems, and I’m not sure that they actually work to prevent real theft of software any better than loose or no systems do. This argument started back in the 70’s. I remember having a conversation with Seymour Rubenstein about DRM vis-a-vis WordStar (Seymour was the founder and owner of MicroPro, the producers of WordStar). Seymour’s take was that you couldn’t prevent illegal copying and that some of that illegal copying eventually led to sales that you wouldn’t have otherwise gotten (usually at an update cycle back then, as we didn’t have the Internet to provide instant access). My own experience with DRM in Silicon Valley was similar. Indeed, I’d say that all heavy-handed DRM does is increase your Customer Support costs. But all this just masks the real problem: Nikon’s software costs too much, does too little, and is poorly updated and maintained. So adding tight DRM to the product just pisses the customer off even more when they get hit with it incorrectly.
Comments Off on Another way to exasperate your customers
October 22, 2010
Ever hear the phrase “the camera never lies”?
With Photoshop and other image manipulation tools, still photographs have become less and less dependable for preserving “reality”. It’ll be very soon that video will be just as undependable, but in real time:
The effect is achieved by an image synthesizer that reduces the image quality, removes the object, and then increases the image quality back up. This all happens within 40 milliseconds, fast enough that the viewer doesn’t notice any delay. As the camera moves, the system maintains the illusion through tracking algorithms and guesswork. It does seem to be thwarted by reflections though; a cell phone removed from a bathroom counter is still visible in the mirror.
I don’t think the mirror is the limitation in the video: either it’s currently limited to a single point of “invisibility” or the operator forgot to highlight the reflection for the program.
H/T to John Turner for the link.
Comments Off on Ever hear the phrase “the camera never lies”?
October 20, 2010
Shocker: terrorists now free to take photos of public buildings!
<sarc>Speaking of giving terrorists a free ride, some liberal lame-brain has granted terrorists the right to take photographs of public buildings:
The New York Civil Liberties Union and Libertarian activist Antonio Musumeci just won a court case that affirms the right of photographers to take pictures and record video out front of federal courthouses. The US federal government settled the case by apologizing to Musumeci for his arrest, acknowledging that it is legal to record at courthouses, and promising to issue guidelines to federal officers explaining this fact to them.
Amazing. Next you’ll be telling me that just anyone can now brazenly take photos of any federal building at all!</sarc>
Comments Off on Shocker: terrorists now free to take photos of public buildings!
October 8, 2010
Do you recognize this astronaut?
Apparently, he’s so easily identified in this image that he’s suing the artist, her recording company, and the stock image firm:
An American astronaut is suing Dido, claiming the singer misappropriated his image on her most recent album. Bruce McCandless II was photographed on a spacewalk in 1984; a quarter of a century later, he found himself floating in the centre of Dido’s Safe Trip Home album cover. And he isn’t happy.
McCandless’s complaint, filed last week, names Sony Music, Getty Images and Dido as defendants, using the singer’s full name – Dido Florian Cloud de Bounevialle O’Malley Armstrong. However, because the Nasa astronaut does not own the rights to the photograph, he is not suing for copyright infringement. Instead, he claims his “persona” was used without permission to help sell Dido’s album.
I don’t know what his chances of success might be, but if Sony Music bought the image from Getty, then it’s Getty that should be the only defendant . . . it’s the stock photography company’s responsibility to ensure that all the images they sell are properly licensed and available to sell on. Downstream users shouldn’t be held responsible for the due diligence of the seller.
Comments Off on Do you recognize this astronaut?
September 20, 2010
“I can do whatever I want”
H/T to LibertyIdeals for the link.
Comments Off on “I can do whatever I want”
September 10, 2010
Clarifying the clarification
It’s going to scroll off the front page soon, so I thought I’d better put in a link to this post about the ongoing confusion in Britain over photography and the right of the police to confiscate images or recordings in certain circumstances. I’ve updated the post twice with more information from The Register.
Comments Off on Clarifying the clarification
September 8, 2010
New Police policy: photography not illegal, but we’ll safeguard it for you
British police forces may be starting to accept that photography is legal in public spaces, but the Sussex police have come up with a new and sneaky way to get between photographers and their equipment:
According to a statement by Sussex Police: “Under Section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act [1984], an officer policing the event seized a video tape from a member of the public. Section 23 of the Act states that this can take place in ‘any place’, providing the officer is lawfully there and has reasonable grounds to believe it provides evidence of a criminal offence.
“The officer reasonably believed the tape contained evidence of a protester being assaulted by someone taking part in the march. It has been seized temporarily to ensure that evidence cannot be inadvertently lost or altered and will be returned, intact, to the owner as soon as possible.”
See, the very worst people to leave in charge of the camera or the storage media are the photographers: those people always take photos just to delete them, out of spite. The plod are totally within their rights to confiscate safeguard it, just to preserve the evidence.
Good luck on getting it back in working order, of course.
Update, 9 September: Jane Fae Ozimek updates the original story with a bit of additional information:
The police officer taking the film claimed legal justification under Section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which permits the police to seize film or memory sticks discovered “under lawful search” and where there are reasonable grounds to believe they provide evidence of a criminal offence.
So far, so straightforward. However, under s.14 of the same legislation, police may not remove “special procedure material” of a journalistic nature without a warrant. The question therefore arises whether Williams’ filming efforts, even though he does not describe himself as “a journalist”, is nonetheless of a journalistic nature.
The waters are further muddied by a letter sent out just four days earlier by Andy Trotter, Chair of ACPO’s Media Advisory Group to all Chief Constables. In it, Mr Trotter reminds police chiefs that there are no powers to prevent the public from taking photographs in a public place. Significantly, he goes on: “We must acknowledge that citizen journalism is a feature of modern life.”
“Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order.”
Update, 10 September: Clarifying the clarification to the declaration, or something. The Register is still on the case:
It would appear that at this point alarm bells started ringing at ACPO HQ, and late yesterday afternoon we received a further communication from ACPO. A spokeswoman told us: “We have clarified our guidance note to forces, however, as this does not affect the legal right of officers to seize photographic equipment in certain circumstances, such as during the course of a criminal investigation.
“While it is the job of police officers to be vigilant, to keep an eye out for any suspicious behavior and to act accordingly, we have been very clear in expressing our view that the taking of photographs is not normally a cause for concern. Whether s.19 PACE was used appropriately in the case in question would ultimately be a matter for Sussex.”
More to the point, Trotter’s freshly updated advice has been re-issued and now reads: “Once an image has been recorded the police have no power to delete it without a court order; this does not however restrict an officer’s power to seize items where they believe they contain evidence of criminal activity.”
For those readers too busy to play compare and contrast, the original guidance stated that the police have no power to confiscate recorded images, whereas the clarified guidance explains that they have. Clear?
August 11, 2010
iPhone girls are easy
Colby Cosh links to a dating website that actually provides useful photography information:
oh, also — iPhone users have more sex.
File this under “icebreakers, MacWorld ’11”. Finally, statistical proof that iPhone users aren’t just getting fucked by Apple:
The chart pretty much speaks for itself; I’ll just say that the numbers for all three brands are for 30 year-olds, so it’s not a matter of older, more experienced people preferring one phone to another. We found this data as part of our general camera-efficacy analysis: we crossed all kinds of user behaviors with the camera models and found we had data on the number of sexual partners for 9,785 people with smart phones.
Okay, I’ve posted the funny bit. The rest of the article actually does have useful photography tips, especially if you’re a user of dating websites.
August 4, 2010
Ye Olde Photoshoppe: a long history of doctored photographs
Over at How to be a Retronaut, a couple of examples of very early manipulated photographs, including adding a spare general to a group portrait:
Comments Off on Ye Olde Photoshoppe: a long history of doctored photographs
