Truth be told, I wasn't taken by the name. I was hoping for more, like maybe V1, or A1 for analog one. But it didn't hold true.

Impossible Project has been grinding its way to more sales of positive polaroid film. They have in the past come out with a slew of accessories for you to double down on their instant film. Problem was the films relied on old Polaroid cameras which are in decline.

The old Polaroid formats needed more users, hence the new camera from Impossible Project named the i-1.

I am for analog cameras. But I clearly want a classic of vintage to shoot with in the same way I would buy and use a vintage or classic car if I had the money. Would I buy a replica car? Nope.

And the i-1 is a replica of sorts with updated ring flash and some exposure controls.

It doesn't look one bit like the beautifully designed Land Cameras from Polaroid.

At first, by looking at the picture, I thought the folks at Impossible Project had invented a new analog telephone....and mistakenly called it a camera.

Apparently that's the problem with designers. They use the best and cheapest option for flash by having LED bulbs arranged in a ring shape. This low power option will give good life to the battery no doubt.

Beyond this, you have bluetooth. It connects to your iPhone or Android device allowing you to remotely capture images and control the shutter speed and aperture.

Not sure how useful this would be as controlling the aperture and shutter speed via an app just sounds weird. If you don't know the exposure reading for a scene, how are you to remotely dial in the needed aperture or shutter speed?

Finally the resulting images are dreamy. Sort of...

Those of you who have been shooting in Instagram won't have a problem adapting to the square format pictures but for me at least, the camera appears bulky and unlike those collapsable Land cameras, they can be quite a pain to carry around. This new i-1 will hit the retail shelves in May 2016 and is expected to cost in the ballpark of US$300.

This is a little weird. Not that it cannot happen but it takes a little skill to be able to do this. Galaxy film photo paper is a straight to paper development process that has no real film. In fact, the film is the paper and the paper is the film.

Positive paper, like the instant camera paper, isn't new. But what happens here is a little more tricky as you need to have a two stage development process. This project is meant for medium format cameras, and what you get from the resulting image are black and white or monochrome prints.

There is no need for an enlarger to print this since you virtually develop the paper just like you would with negative film. I am assuming the steps are the same though no chemical info was available on the site.

Medium Format Cameras

If you have an old Hassey or Mamiya camera lying around and would would like to goof off a roll to see the results, it could be worth your effort. But the problem of developing it remains your own as not may places develop b/w films anymore let alone monotone paper prints from Galaxy.

Without a camera, you are practically fucked.

To buy, well, you are in luck. If you want to double down on analogue, you can't go wrong with the Rolleicord which you can buy off eBay.

As a kid, I remember my Dad having borrowed one of these to try. Not sure if there was film in it but it is quite mesmerizing. The image is displayed on a ground glass screen and you look downwards to compose. Square format is pretty easy to compose of course, so shooting is a piece of cake. 

It is also relatively easy to carry around, even though they are much bulkier than your iPhone, I am sure the trouble you have carrying it around will be well worth it. 

Galaxy film has been fully funded on Kickstarter. No sure when you will be able to buy any online but I must warn you, developing the positive paper can be a bit of a nightmare if all you ever did in your entire life was print on a ink jet printer. 

There is always this myth that your hobby should pay for itself either as a form of investment. People who collect stamps as a hobby a long time ago saw the value in that which they collected. While people who painted saw value in their art but that's not always the case of course with digital photography.

Some of you enjoy a hobby for the sheer pleasure it bring to you and if photography is on that list, it should remain that way. 

In the age of the Internet and social media, it has become apparent that images make for a good story of your passage through the many places that life takes you. I have a friend named Peter who loves food, and he take pictures of them. It has never occurred to him to make that a paying hobby and he never sells what he shoots for stock image sale. 

I have this other guy named Alan who loves collecting old film cameras and using them Although I have never seen a single picture that he has taken nor is he one of those who constantly share what he has shot, nonetheless his hobby of shooting with film cameras has given him immense enjoyment. He's also built up an envious collection of rare cameras which will be worth a good chump of change in years to come. 

One of the beauties of a hobby is that it has to be enjoyed, and for me Photography has always been a solitary enjoyment exercise. You don't need a shooting buddy or a photo assistant to carry your loaded cameras around. 

Start with a Genre you Love

When you start shooting, it has to be on subjects you love. Some love food and they shoot food. Others have phases in their lives, which I am guilty of, and I have drifted from shooting night scenes to macros of bugs and horticulture. Once you discover a challenge worth your time, you pursue it. 

Over the years, I have gone from shooting garden variety macros, to motorsports and cars, dabbled in studio photography of models to see what it was like and even gone on to shoot street photos. I was even told that shooting cars were the most difficult as I couldn't agree more till digital photography arrived and made that relatively easy. 

I eventually settled on street photography, which by definition is the worst paying form of photography today but I still love it. I have sold two street photos to date, both of which were snapped up by a hotel group but these were royalty free. 

Street is cool. I love capturing the daily life of people in urban environments but no one will hire a street photographer for a wedding shoot, or for that matter going Pro when you only have street cred on your name card. Street photography hasn't been a worthwhile vocation for a very long time. 

Why I enjoy Street Photography

When you shoot, you're a hunter. The only difference is that you hunt for pictures to keep in your camera. I had a lot of fun doing this during the 90s when I was in Hanoi, Vietnam. Three of us were out in the streets shooting what was a Soviet era of Vietnam that is very different from what you see today. 

You bagged nice little memories from the trip on the things you see around you but the truth is none of the pictures were sold. I remember passing some of the slides to an image bank and for years, they held it. None were sold. 

The secret why they were not sold is because no one would buy them. You see, photos only sell if they represent a commercial product. Even editorial photos hardly sell these days except maybe for royalty free use. 

Today, street photography pictures are still not hot sellers. It never could earn you a pretty penny unless you framed it up as an abstract piece and sold it at a souvenir store. That's quite an investment if you asked me but the whole point here is street photography isn't about making money. 

For me, it has always been about collecting memories of places that I have been. 

Keeping your Hobby Manageable

Yes, photography can get out of hand. You start to want things, like maybe a 300mm lens and accessories. Things will start to get expensive as you start collecting lenses so don't get into the habit of buying things that you regret later. 

For me, I never did have that regret even though that spiffy 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is hardly used by me, it served its purpose from another time when I shot motorsports. I did point this lens on a monkey and some local wild life but none of these pictures sold anymore than the ones I put up on numerous image banks. 

Keeping your photography simple and affordable is the key to enjoying it. There is no reason to be a gear head because at the end of the day, you'd be judged on what you shot....and not what you shoot with. 

If there was a place you could rent a lens or borrow one, so much the better. You have to develop your style of shooting and often, you only end up with carrying 2 lenses at most. Going crazy with a long list of prime lenses isn't going to make you a better photographer. It is at this point that we photos call these folks 'gear heads'. 

Being a 'gear head' isn't going to make you a better photography by any count. You may fuss over the different apertures and sensors on each camera but you come out shooting blanks as none of the pictures are any good. 

People who enjoy pictures and photography can tell if you are a bad photographer by looking at your images. It is something that photogs know and they won't tell you because they don't know you well enough to tell you in your face. Why bother?

Think in Pictures

I find that visualisation helps you see things better when it comes to framing a subject. 
This is an exercise in creativity as you visually place the subject in the window of your mind and see how it would look before taking that shot. 

Some like to squeeze a few shots in every angle imaginable and hope to get lucky with one. That's not helping you train your mind. As a hobby, you need to let that spark in your mind do its magic. Once that comes naturally, you're good to go. 

The story of Max Jackson versus Color Run Inc. will go down in photographic history as one of the most bitter showdowns between an up and coming photographer and a multi million dollar commercial entity. We have all had our days when people would ask for free 'samples' for commercial use and are unwilling to pay for your day out shooting an event. Basically I don't negotiate without some form of worded contract and yes, they will ask for them. It is in your interest to state the affirmative or the negative at such a point so think wisely.

The usual ruse they will use is these excuses:-

• I will give you the image credit
• Offer you free publicity and exposure to the masses
• Promise of future assignments

When you are a newbie. It's hard to not want to turn down such an offer. After all, you need the free publicity. Remember that once you give it away, you can't turn back. It's like virginity, if you give it to a cheap hooker, you're fucked. Financially speaking, it's the final nail in the coffin for you.

There is nothing wrong with a work for hire agreement where they pay you for your time and you take the pictures that will belong to them. This is far easier for a newbie to negotiate.

Where the Color Run Debacle went Wrong

In the vaporous age of internet consent, you can easily purvey sexual favors from a minor without knowing it. This is no different in the Internet age where people start asking you for free stuff and the moment you say yes, they will load it all up with their welcome wagon and take it all home snickering at the loot they have just gotten away with.

Digital imaging isn't worth much if you care to look. Too many people will ply the welcome wagon and give away their stuff for free, that said, any amateur who dips his toes into the water will have to do the same and why not? The next guy is giving his stuff away so must I.

Therein lies the problem. As a photographer, you could easily have submitted those same photos to a royalty free site and directed your would be client to go there and purchase them. It would have solved the problem of not having to do any negotiations.

Demand for Ransom

In Max Jackson's case, the magic figure was US$100,000. But you forget that you can't fight an entity larger than you without first having a WMD of your own. This is where all hell breaks loose.

The first rule is to send them a gentle reminder that rights negotiated were not honored and that you are willing to burn bridges with the entity when pressed to do so. Failing of which you need a lawyer to word out a settlement agreement and a demand for payment letter for you. Never draft this out on your own as your letter can be misunderstood as a ransom note. Get a lawyer if you want to demand for damages and this is where Max got wrong footed. 

In Black and White

When you deal with entities that are big and imposing, don't think for one moment that you are going to win just because you bought into the tale of David and Goliath. The law is all about contracts and this is where you as a photographer should prepare one for every occasion. Go google one up that basically protects you basic rights. There are busloads of contract samples on the Internet for imaging contracts. 

One of the problem with photographers is the lack fluency in writing a simple contract. If you are unsure, then you better damn well spend the money to get one written for you. That contract should cover two spectrum of use. 

• Limited Rights Usage
• Perpetual Rights Usage

Limited rights usage is simple. You tell the people that you intend to let them use your photos for the desired purpose and anything that falls out of that scope has to be negotiated. 

Perpetual Rights Usage would be giving away all rights to the photos to the client to do what he pleases. This is probably the best way to start if clients gets sticky about where and when they want to use them. 

Newbies are not Pro Photographers

Pro photographers negotiate rights on many factors, including for use in Print, TV, Billboards, etc. As a newbie, you don't have the muscle to pull such a thing off because you're not a pro and you don't have the business acumen to package the deal. 

Let me cut a long story short. Pros have all the necessary documentation drafted out for selling photos to clients. Amateurs do not and people can tell when they ask for free pictures. As a Pro, you don't give away free pictures because you own a legitimate business. Any request for free use will be countered with "I'm so sorry but I run a business, if you are interested in the photos, then allow me the courtesy to direct you to my stock image library to purchase them". 

Last Word on Photo Licensing

You have to admit that you can't do it all. Sometimes you license the use of the photos yourself, other times you let someone else license it for you. There are lots of stock image libraries around the world. Pick one that you like best and put your pictures up for sale. Stock image libraries do not litigate but they have a contractual obligation to give you the rights managed licensing agreement for you to take action. There are third party agencies that litigate in America when it comes to rights managed photos but it does not apply for cross border copyright infringement. What's more, even in America, the copyright debacle is full of inconsistencies. For example, you need to have your image registered with the Library of Congress to enjoy copyright protection. 

Microstock libraries are normally royalty free. But the buyer pays according to the resolution size he or she needs. If someone steals it from the buyer, don't expect the agency to come after you. 

Litigation is expensive, and for royalty free photos, it makes no cents.

Nostalgia, that's what it is when it comes to owning the Pen F.

I have the analogue version of this camera that gives you 72 shots from a roll of 36 frame film. And there are many similarities with the Pen EP digital cameras but the one that comes closest is the new Pen F, which unfortunately is going to confuse the hell out of you.

The new Pen F, and I say new because it is a digital camera, looks very much like the old one and consumers will no doubt be kicking themselves when they go searching for it on google. The problem is that both share the same name.

This is the film camera, not the digital one

The new Pen F isn't cheap. It cost 1,200 bucks....in USD. In terms of technical specs, you have a new 20 megapixel sensor in place of the 16 megapixel one found in the EM5. No weather sealing for the Pen though.

• 20MP Live MOS Four Thirds format sensor
• 5-axis image stabilization with automatic panning detection
• 2.36 million dot OLED electronic viewfinder
• Up to 10 fps continuous shooting (20 fps with electronic shutter)
• Highly customizable interface, twin controls
• Fully articulating 1.04 million dot, 3" LCD touchscreen
• 50MP High-res Shot mode
• 1/8000 sec top mechanical shutter speed (1/16,000 with e-shutter)
• 1080/60p video recording

The next drawback is the lack of 4K video, which is kinda sad if you asked me as video shooting is now a requirement for most cameras. 

The Pen F like its predecessor released in the 60s are designed to be used like a Rangefinder camera. You can keep both eyes open while keeping one in the viewfinder for framing. 

This means it is a street shooter. And not being a DSLR type camera makes it less useful if shooting commercial photos. I am pretty sure the AF is on par with some entry level DSLR but that's not the point. 

Selling Nostalgia

This is something which camera companies are now innovating though I am not sure how attractive this would be. Remember years ago when Nikon released the Nikon Df? How many actually liked it enough to buy one?

Olympus thinks it can reinvigorate the product line with a new Pen F line. I can already see a second generation Pen F with 4K video shooting if this one succeeds but I can't say I will be putting my bet on this. 

Digital cameras don't offer you much these days as the shooting experience is pretty standard with other digital offerings in the market. The only difference is that digital cameras will get more expensive since there are fewer buyers.

The craze from 7 years ago is truly dead. Nostalgia is probably the secret ingredient they hope you'd buy into as camera companies desperately need your money to soldier on.

So will it work? I really do not know.

Digital cameras are tools for the moment. If you want something of real value, you should take the Pen F analog because that is one camera that really rocks.

The resurgence of film photography will gather speed and in time, no one would remember the digital Pen F.

But in the mean time, Olympus needs to get its sales cracking and there is no better way to try than to give it the film look. 

This is an image of a rooftop ladder where a photographer claims he shot a silhouette of a plane though while waiting for a plane to fly over.

It won a Nikon prize in Singapore.

Goes to show that you only need an ounce of photoshop skills to win something online.

Using photoshop, the image was detected to be fake. But Nikon refuse to admit its error. This sparked a whole slew of fake pictures that became a meme.

Including this one of a Tie Fighter. 

So what do we take from this? Obviously a picture is worth a thousand words but with Photoshop, it's worth probably far more. 

I recently had a conversation with a camera retailer who joked that these days, you don't have to be a top notch photographer to get jobs...as long as your photoshop skills are excellent that's what clients want. 

Looking back, what he said is true. I mean, which of you out there who shoot weddings and commercial photos would refuse to use Photoshop to remove any imperfections?

Running a Photo Contest is a fatal affair for a Brand

During my time with Sony, I was given a chance to run a photo contest and we did. It was a difficult decision and we had to take Photoshop into account. 

You had to send in copies of your originals which were short listed and later, asked for the RAW files. The contest itself was free to enter. We only wanted pictures that told a story and that was it. There was a lot of work involved and many people were engaged for a rather simple project like this. 

All because we wasted to be sure that whoever won the prize deserved it. 

When brands like Nikon give out prizes to undeserving photographers, it gives the impression that Nikon values Photoshopped images more than real ones and this is VERY bad for the brand. 

Nikon was in no doubt not in a big hurry to remove the image from its Facebook page or for that matter cancel the award. They were lost for words. Sort of like shooting yourself in the foot and then putting your foot in your mouth. 

This is why having a photo editor run a contest is crucial. And these are not your average Tom, Dick or Harry. They are experts in detecting fraud and in another time, they would be known as fraud detectors. Why do Brands have to do this? Because Photoshop exist. 

Photoshopping is not illegal for Stock Image Sales

Many a time, Stock Image Banks or Libraries do not make it clear on the subject of image manipulation because they encourage it. 

Stock images sell because it is a cleaned imaged, that means an image that has been created or staged to the point that it appeals to buyers. 

If you have brands in the background or foreground, it is up to you to remove them. Once it is done, it because more marketable as the buyer doesn't need a copy of Photoshop to clean it up for their use. 

A less than perfect photo isn't enough. It has to be perfect, not for viewing but for commercial use. 

Once photographers get into the habit of this, then firing up Photoshop becomes a routine affair for processing photos rather than use Image Editors like Lightroom. 

Photography is about the capture of Images

This is where I have problems with the above understanding. You become less of a photographer and more of a photo manipulator. 

You then have to ask yourself where you stand. 

I don't have a copy of Photoshop sitting on my computer for the last five years, and have allowed my Photoshop skills to depreciate with each new version of Photoshop CC. Do I miss it? 

Not one bit. 

I find that I enjoy my photography more either using a mobile device or on an analog camera. I don't even use my digital cameras to shoot anymore. 

The purity of the experience is in the art of making photos with a camera and not with a computer. I don't think of capturing less than perfect photos because I know I can fire up Photoshop to change things around in an image. 

This is a very important lesson if you want to learn the art of Photography in a digital age. 

You have to ask yourself if you are doing it for profit or for your own sense of enjoyment before embarking on it and if you say the former, that is to sell your works, then you probably need to ante up on your Photoshop skills more than your Photography skills. 

Photos can also be sold as framed artworks so this works to your advantage if that is your goal. 

The the purist who just wants to enjoy Photography, my advice is for you to take up a film camera before you shoot with a digital one. The experience and skills you pick up from this contributes exponentially to your skills later and you won't regret a moment of it. 

It is official, Corbis has sold out to Visual China Group, the same group that bought out 500px over a year ago.

Corbis sold for less than it was imagined, with rumors flying saying it was below US$100 million and with a library of 50 million images, that sounds like a deal that can only made in China.

Getty has an agreement to sell Corbis images outside of China so that won't affect world wide sales for photographers.

Photographers weren't too happy as they were not informed of the sale and some have even started to pull their images out from the library. But to say that Chinese are going to abuse the issue is misstating the facts.

Decline of Revenue for Stock Images 

With lax to no regulation by stock image agencies over the use on the Internet, the decline was to be expected. For the record, world wide copyright enforcement for stolen images is extremely low and DCMA takedowns cannot be enforced with servers hosted outside of the US.

Even with personal images, the law is on the side of the offender for US cases. You cannot claim a copyright if you didn't file for copyright protection in the US. This is a costly affair and with your images worth only a tad more than the royalty image, getting a lawyer to sue the offender just doesn't make sense.

To make matters worst, even if rights managed photos are exploited, stolen or misused, stock image agencies still fail to perform any type of regulation to ensure rights are not abused.

This means that a offender can buy a lower quality photo for web use and still blow it up to wall size for use on rooms and walls.

Photographers who own these photos do not know the buyers and this is kept confidential. If a rights use issue does crop up, offenders normally get a slap on the wrist rather than pay any penalty since laws are opaque when it comes to copyright from country to country.

Worst time for Stock Photographers

It is hard to imaging who would want to carve a career in stock photography when royalty free and crowd sourced photos are disrupting the markets.

Camera gears are getting more expensive, and to be kitted out with the latest equipment for professional photography would be a very difficult business proposition.

This is not to say that you can't make money from ad hoc photography services be in commercial photography or weddings. It is how much you can make that determines your future in the business.

Stock photography cannot be treated as a mainstream  income but for beer money. So enjoy the photography while keeping in mind the weekend booze could be more memorable if you earned a little more.