Here is a Kickstarter Project that is worth backing. A self made camera engineer of sorts is trying to create a new 4x5 as well as Fujifilm Instax Wide instant film adapters for a wide range of old skool cameras. 

His Kickstarter presentation isn't very polished but Kendar Chen is pretty adamant about having a film back that will fit most old film cameras that used  Polaroid 600se instant film sheets. 

Since the demise of Polaroiod, the Impossible project has been hard at work producing these instant film stocks from a bygone era and unfortunately, not everyone is able to buy into them. 

Two instant film stocks that is still widely available is made commercially by Fujifilm, namely the Instax Wide and FP-100C

If you are going to use instant film, your best option is to use them with the best instant film available. The problem with the Impossible Project film stocks are they are very unreliable as can be seen by the output results. The chemicals used from for the original Polaroid film stocks are no longer available and as a result, substitutes have to be used. The new film stocks are still being tweaked, and do not perform like the original Polaroid film so something had to be done.

Fujifilm still manufacturers their instant film stocks that gives consistent results. The FP-100 is by far one of the best if not the best in the market. The Instax Wide comes in a distant second. 

What Rezivot has done is create those backs that will fit onto some of these old skool cameras that have no film stocks available and to adapt others to take in the Instax Wide processor. This processor mimics the shooting and spitting out of the film after capture. 

So with it, you could literally adapt it to a few different types of cameras, including Mamiya 6x7 and Hassey. This means those old cameras aren't going away but now have the necessary ammo designed for you to shoot again. 

For the Kickstarter Campaign, you have a choice to back your desired film backs depending on the camera you still have lying around in the attic. 

The campaign just started and I urge you to make this a reality. Apparently, they already have a few successful beta designs and are still working to make more old film cameras useful once again.

After its rebranding exercise, 500px was suddenly in hot soup after it announced that it is going into China with 500px.me as part of their expansion drive. 

What CEO Andy Yang didn't know was he had opened a door to a hornet's nest. 

As Andy pointed out in the Series B Funding scheme, Visual China Group which poured in the money expects 500px to be live in China. So when 500px started a Beta site to test out the system by mirroring the same content in China as well as their global site, photographers went on a rant to say that they didn't give their permission to go live in China. This is of course utterly stupid since 500px is not blocked in China after checking. 

China a Country for Pirates?

The only reason why photographers feel insecure is that they fear their photos would be stolen. I find this highly amusing as for some reason, photographers do not know that their most precious works are regularly stolen in the western world as well as sites like 500px are not responsible for the content you put up. 

For example, if you have a large screen computer like the iMac, you can take a high resolution snapshot of the screen and it will be saved in TIFF. The snapshot file can then be extrapolated to a larger image when you have the right software. 

To think that by displaying your images on 500px.com versus 500px.me is safer is pure hilarity. 

True. China has as bad rap for stealing anything but if their beef is with China Vision Group, the investor of 500px, then you probably have it coming. First, 500px has already given away your images as free backdrops on Chromecast. You don't get a cent if you get featured. 

China Vision Group is a content company, now owned by Alibaba.com. 

The deal is no different than 500px giving Google a free ride on Chromecast. 

500px.me will remain in Beta?

Probably not after Andy pulled the plug as he was trashed in social media for not seeking permission. 

To me, all this hullabaloo is pointless for the following reasons. 

• 500px.me is meant to be a Chinese centric site, 500px can still go ahead without the .me prefix and have a dual language login for Chinese users. This means the Chinese site will be a CDN site hosted in China. 

• 500px is not a well known source for royalty free imaging since their pricing is much higher and the stock image market is going on a downward spiral. It makes no sense to think you can earn less by not allowing the Chinese to view your images. 

• TTIP and TPPA makes no mention that your images would be protected under their copyright terms. What is protected are Music and Movies, not to mention TV content as well. Again, to think that you will have more copyright protection with these trade pacts is pure fantasy. 

Having to get your permission for 500px to use your images in China is just another layer that does nothing for you as a photographer or your earnings. If you are serious about not having your images stolen, then don't display them on any social site. 

It makes no sense to do so if you know technology well enough to conduct image theft. 

It's up for preorder but one isn't available just yet. Now would you want one coz technical specs are kinda thin. Or would you like to wait and see? Lomo has since put its pre ordres on hold as they have been inundated with demand and they can't cope with the orders.  

Here is what we know about the camera. 

• If offers TWICE the picture area of an INSTAX Mini print.
• It has interchangeable lens for wide and close up shots. 
• It has fully auto exposure settings
• It has a lens cap that doubles as a remote shutter
• It is actually a Fuji Mini Instax Wide camera with changeable lens attachment
• It is fuguly

Now many years ago...I was intrigued by this Instax Wide camera, ok...it was more than a decade and a half ago, but I settled for the Instax Mini instead and for good reason. 

I wanted to travel and didn't want to lug around a camera which was bigger than both my hands. 

It is fucking big and don't let the Lomo video fool you into thinking otherwise. The problem is the film and how it has to swallow the whole Fuji film cartridge making the camera a beast. 

Now, I have been a SLR users all my life and would gladly move away to something analog like a rangefinder but these days, I am not that active anymore in shooting and when I do, I have a Galaxy Note 4 for all those shots that come without notice. So when I held the Instax Wife from Fuji in my hands those many years ago, I decided that it has to mean something if I am to use that camera. 

For one, I would prefer a Polaroid EE100 Reporter as it folds into a nice package but comes with a fixed lens. Comparatively, the Lomo Instant Wide has interchangeable lenses. But for me, the Polaroid would win over my choice since the two is about the same in size and bulk. 

The Polaroid has character, while the Lomo looks almost Soviet-ish in design. However both a plastic bodied so don't assume it will last a life time even though the EE100 is still available on eBay for cheap. 

When you buy an instant camera, you have to know what you are using it for. If is is just for fun and you can afford those pricey prints, then it's fine. Fun is a cost factor. If you don't have a need to shoot analog then please don't. 

Shooting analog is difficult. 

There are severe technical limitations that makes it difficult to operate and even though the camera has an auto exposure, not all scenes render well on instant film. Once you understand this and don't mind going the distance to learn to use it, then it is fine. 

I hate to see people think that shooting analog is easier than digital. I beg to differ. Once your expectations are ruined, the whole analog concept will be dumped along with it and you'd never get the chance to experience it once you double down on an iPhone. 

And this is what Lomo is all about. It is about the shooting experience that analog gives you that you won't find on a digital medium. For me, digital is almost fool proof. The many ways it can go wrong for you can be corrected in post production while in analog, that is never the case. There are more challenges in analog photography and this is what makes it different. 

So if you are in the mood for a challenge, then don't hesitate to pick up an analog camera. 

Remember the Taylor Swift demand that Apple pay her when her music is played for non-subscribers using Apple music during the trial period? Ditto. 

Apparently 500px feels that it owns your pictures and for that, streams it live to Google Chromecast for absolutely nothing. That's how much your digital pictures are worth I'm afraid. They have licensed it to Google for nothing and photographer's contribution to the site will now be carried for free as an image backdrop. 

Now I cannot see why Taylor Swift could make such a demand using the same logic while photographers seems to get ripped off by the same process. 

If Google wants those images as a backdrop for Chromecast, then they should pay for it. 

I do not know at this stage if 500px did a backdoor dealing with Google on this and it certainly does not bode well for people who want to earn some money from their photographic works. Why doesn't 500px tell Google that they can only display creative commons type of images only and that until a photographer signs off as a CC release, no picture will be displayed until a fee is paid. 

Imagine for a moment that they only give you credit for the image displayed. Would that translate to financial success?

I'm afraid not. 

No one is going to be paid and the want for fame does not equate with fortune. You work could net you picture a framed and printed picture sold from 500px but giving it away as a backdrop is pretty much like shooting an image for free just for your photo byline. 

Why not shoot for free? The thousands you sunk into camera gear gives you so much joy that not having a roof over your head or a hot meal on the table isn't a priority. 

Having your picture discovered is one thing, but getting paid for it is a whole different issue. Being discovered as a photographer these days is like finding a nickel on the street. If it makes you happy just to be that nickel well good for you. 

But for the rest of us. We want to be paid because we believe that our pictures are worth something more than that nickel on the street. 

So let's hear it from Photographers in the comments below...!

Cosina recently announced the end of production for all its rangefinder cameras. Even in a time where interest in film photography has become a bit of a renaissance, Cosina could not sell enough of them to keep them alive. 

This is not to say that you'll see the Voigtlanders disappear from the shelves overnight. There are still plenty of stocks, just that maybe the models might be looking for won't be in stock. 

Like for example the Bessa R4M would have been my camera of choice. It has 21mm framelines for wide angle shooting, so you don't have to buy an optional viewfinder like in the case of Leica M cameras. Leica has no solution for wide angle lenses except for a clip on viewfinder which you have to pay for. 

Voigtlander lenses are still being manufactured so it's not a big dent on your film shooting experience. 

For me, the Voigtlander rangefinder cameras was a good step towards film photography for beginners as they are much cheaper to own than compared to the Leica MP or M series rangefinders. 

Leica still manufactures the MP, a pro level film camera which cost a bomb. But the Bessa was the cheaper alternative. In fact, it is only a fraction of the cost of a used Leica M7. You could go buy a used film camera on eBay, but there are some of us who want to own something new. 

Why the SLR won the Film Battle

Before the introduction of the SLR, the rangefinder was the only professional film camera you could use. How the SLR became king of the hill was simple. It was much easier to focus and use. 

In a rangefinder, you have to align two split focus images together to know that you are in focus, whereas in a SLR, you can judge the focus by the clarity of the whole frame. Even the highly praised Olympus XA did away with rangefinder focusing in subsequent models. 

The ease of using a SLR was evident from the onset but prices between the two didn't differ as much. Both needed manual lenses and the Japanese found a way to make it cheaper. This meant that Voigtlander was sold to Cosina and the European heritage faded away. 
Over the years, Voigtlander started to withdraw production of its cameras, the first to go were the A models, now even the M models have been killed off. 

As rangefinder cameras fell out of fashion, the digital age was probably the final nail in the coffin. 

What you'd be missing on a Voigtlander Cameras

The Bessa R3M had a 1:1 viewfinder aspect ratio so you can keep both eyes open to frame a subject. This is clearly a step above what a Leica could do. 

But shooting with a film camera like the Bessa takes some getting used to, the A models have auto exposure while the M is fully manual. I could double down on a manual model as that is the best way to experience rangefinder photography like the old pros use to do. 

Using an old world method to capture images has to be experienced to be appreciated. 

There is no instant previews or sharing to social media. Film has to be developed and printed. Money must be spent on film. 

Film stocks give a varying degree of results. No two film stocks behave the same way. You get 36 shots in a roll, which means there is no machine gunning your way to a picture like you do on an iPhone. 

If you mess up the exposure, there is no second chances so you have to bracket shots which are important to you. 

Film photography, especially using a rangefinder camera, sharpens your level of observation as you learn to anticipate picture  moments before it happens. This is more so with the rangefinder as you need to work the focus and set an exposure for the moment while thinking of the framing. 

If you don't work fast enough, you will miss that moment. So instead seizing the moment, you anticipate it why observing what goes on around you. 

Sure you can do this with a film SLR as well, but that defeats the point of training your eye and mind to think at the same time. 

Shooting with a rangefinder is more difficult, sort of like driving with a stick shift on a classic car but the experience you get from it is out of this world. It's a sense of achievement to be able to shoot good pictures on film with a rangefinder than it is on your iPhone. 

So if you intend to embark on this challenge, I urge you to hurry. Bessa models would soon be only found in a used camera store. 



  

New on Kickstarter, this is a project that is worth backing. The GP1 housing is probably the only housing you should be getting if you have budgeted for a GoPro 3 or 4.

First, the GoPro 4 has pretty impressive low light capture capability, and with 4K action capture....which is missing from most compact cameras these days, it's a camera that is hard to beat. The problem with the GoPro has been the form factor.

The tiny body makes is incredibly difficult to use as a normal digital compact camera. And this is what spurred the Exo GP1 in the first place.

The GP1 is only a housing with just a few extras, like a fixed viewfinder and a cold shoe mount on top of the housing to mount LED lighting for video shots and a tripod attachment on the bottom.

So if you had only one camera, there is no need to double down on another just for shooting 12 megapixel photos.

Oh, yeah....since the housing is limited by the camera itself, you're stuck with the 12 megapixel photo mode on the GoPro Hero 4.

Go Pro doesn't mention much about the lens' wide angle reach, which I suspect is between 18mm to 20mm in full frame speak.

There is no optical zoom capability so you will have to digitally crop the image into a zoom image.

The GP1 cost about US$250 and is made from aluminium, a useful option if you are the rough and tumble type. However the price is for early backers of the project so it's not possible to purchase this for less than 300 bucks should it get funded.

There will be plenty of complaints as we speak since the 12 megapixel photo capture isn't quite enough for photographers these days. Plus the wide angle makes it very difficult to shoot with since you're stuck with just one focal length.

But if you're one of those who prefer to carry only one camera and that happens to be a GoPro, this housing makes perfect sense.

Here is another one of those assignment based platforms that helps photographers find work. It's a bit different than Scoopshot Pro but nonetheless share similar ideas. 

The only difference is that the fees for these are fixed and judging from the worth of your time, I only have reservations. 

Back in the dark ages of film, a photographer could easily charge between 50 to 100 bucks an hour. Remember this was 20 years ago and today, we find those same rates dominating Toggally, a photog for hire site based in the US. 

I want you to sit back and think for a moment about what I have written in the past about digital photography equipment. The cost of which hasn't changed but the amount of equipment you need to do a shoot has. 

Post processing is done by you and your computer. You don't just hand RAW files to the customer. If you failed to process them, the customers from Togally can choose to reject them. So you need to ante up to a computer, capable of doing that...software...well, there is a choice. Most DSLRs come with a standard photo processing program that runs on either OSX or Microsoft, so that won't be a problem for you. But it is up to you to buy a fast computer capable of handling all the processing needs. 

Photographers are Craftsmen? Or Journeymen?

Journey men are reliable workers but there is nothing outstanding about them. Craftsmen use more creativity in their work and can probably handle more skilled task. 

And this is where Pro Photographers are today. 

Taking pictures for a living...as a pro will be determined if you do the job creatively or reliably. 

Unfortunately for you, the photog wannabe, Togally makes no distinction for the two. 

What you are worth is 100 bucks an hour, and should you shoot for longer periods, the rates gets cheaper, at 50 bucks an hour as seen by the Event assignment cost above. 

I don't remember a time where a photographer's time would get cheaper by the hour like some unskilled labor by a migrant who would choose to be paid cheaper by working extended hours. It sounds positively Mexican. And how Togally gets this magic number is beyond me. 

For corporate shoots, your fee is still 100 bucks an hour, but you get a full 100 bucks for an 8 hour day. As a rule, photographers should never be working on an extended shift beyond 8 hours because photos need to be processed as clients today expect everything in real time—the digital phenomena. So if a corporate photographer is hoping to earn more than this, then they have lucked out. There are not breaks, you have to be on your feet all the time taking wonderful pictures and not leave out a moment. It's like the work of an editorial photographer out to get the news. The best shots win. But I suppose Togally thinks you can cruise to the finish line by just being there. Please note the money back guarantee. 

For commercial photographers shooting products in a studio, they have a raw deal as they get paid only 600 bucks a day. I don't know about you but there is a studio cost to this which needs to be addressed. If you live in a warehouse, you can set up a corner in your dwelling for all your photography needs but you do need cheap lighting and a computer....plus rent for the warehouse. So is 600 a day going to cover it if you don't get an assignment every other day? Even if you live just on air and water, there is an expense for electricity, water, mobile phone and Internet fees. 

Wedding photographers also get paid 100 bucks an hour. Now we all know weddings do happen often enough but the same people don't get married and divorced within a week like in Las Vegas. There is a finite number of weddings in a day and that's where photographers have to capitalise on their income. Getting paid 100 an hour like any other photographer isn't going to help your credentials as a professional wedding photographer. There is a marketing cost to it and I don't mean paying Facebook to promote a page for your business. Wedding photography is a co-operative endavour. You need a wedding gown studio, make up artist, props such as cars and location shoots. It is fine if the Wedding is held just in a church and the bride and groom have their own costumes but not having a make up artist would mean more photoshop work later, so why not let your customers pay for the make up artist and save yourself some valuable photoshop time? I have shot weddings and some last for a full day while others just need you to be at the wedding solemnisation that last less than an hour. 

If you want a photographer to cover a sports event, that's 50 bucks an hour. I suppose they are not referring to the World Series or a NASCAR event but probably more like college basketball or maybe a golf tournament. 

Then it occurs to me, if that is treated as an unskilled assignment, then what isn't?

Shooting sports isn't easy. You need a telephoto lens that will cost you a bomb to own, why are you being paid so cheaply? I invested in a zoom lens, f/2.8  70 to 200mm and that didn't quite provide the reach all the time. The sweet spot is a 300mm lens for professional sports. However if you got close enough, you can shoot motorsports with just a 200mm lens if you know where to put yourself in a specific location.  

Shooting college football and basketball might seem easy enough but you still need at least a 200mm lens for that reach. I know there are plenty of used lenses on eBay which you can buy for a song but most of them are either manual lenses or have apertures of f/4 wide open. For indoor shoots, lighting is always a problem unless you had a spiffy full frame DSLR that allows you to crank up the ISO all the way up. 

Conclusion

I have had this suspicion that fees paid to photogs these days have bottomed out. It has not gotten any higher but stayed flat for the last 17 years. 

There is no indication that the fees have been marked up for inflation considerations or for that matter, or to take into account the amount of equipment you had to own — a point that was missing from the Togally site. 

For me, owning a studio outside of your home is an investment. A studio with proper lighting to shoot products and still life is a fixed expense that you have to pay every month. 

Shooting specific genres of sport requires an even heavier investment in prime telephoto lenses like a 300mm or maybe even a 600mm lens. Such equipment cost has to be paid off and if you are paid far less to do this, chances are you'd have to mortgage your left kidney to loansharks to refinance that acquisition. 

The reality of it all is that being a Pro Photographer in this day and age takes a lot of guts, misery and accountability. If you can't run a successful business that pays for its own expenses then you're just feeding a desire to be in a market space that has no commercial returns. 

So please don't quit your day job yet. Tip your toes into the water to see if you can hack the pace of living without any consistent wage. I hate it when photogs mislead people to say that they are happier doing what they do and living on a meagre income. They could be overdosing on Prozac and look through reality with rose tinted goggles. Besides, do you even have enough money for Prozac on a daily basis?

If you love what you do, then don't get hurt financially doing it. Because there is a cost to a retirement plan and if you don't have one by the time you hit 40, you're definitely fucked.