Film is alive and well in Italy judging from the enormous support Ferrania got from its Kickstarter project. This was a project to save a few upstream suppliers who made the materials possible for film production and this is probably the most exciting news to come out of Europe which happens to be the bastion of Lomography of Austria. 

Early backers of the program have already pitched in to the fullest so you can be assured that they will be up and running in 2015. 

 

What is more exciting is the production of analogue motion picture film which were the mainstay of home movies in the 50s to the 80s. 

What is important is that Super 8mm film is still being made by Kodak but not the Kodachrome stock and this means processing anything remotely Kodachrome is impossible. 

Now many of you will be asking where to get a Super 8mm or 16mm film camera, well eBay of course. 

As for processing, Dwayne's Photo (no relation to the Rock) is still processing motion picture film stock. 

Why shoot stock film when there is digital? Well film is forever and when your digital storage dies, so will your captured moments.

 

LomoChrome Turquoise XR 100-400 is an infra-red film released by Lomo for use in quirky captures beyond the ordinary. The film does not render turquoise colors, hence the name so it's one of those weird effects you'd be getting if you shot on water...everything will be rendered blue, whereas warming colors will turn emerald. Get the drift?

The film itself being infra-red, means you can cross process it in normal C-41 negative solution to have it both 120 and 36mm formats. The stock is limited to 5000 rolls so it's on preorder now before it is available.

Rated at 400 ASA, it is probably is quite safe to shoot both indoors and outdoors though I have to pass on judgment when it comes to low light and high contrast situations.

The exposure latitude is something you gotta learn to deal with, and you can't do that with just one roll. That's one of the caveats with shooting on film. You virtually waste a roll as a sample. Having a working light meter will be indispensable so remember to download an app on your iPhone or Android device before going out with that film camera of yours.

Now the film bundle isn't cheap, be prepared to spend US$60 for a pack of 5 films.

First and foremost, the picture above is credited to David Slater, who says that he owned the photo but he didn't capture it. He created the conditions that were optimum for such a picture and as such had claimed to it. Unfortunately, Wiki-commons disagreed and now there is a ongoing copyright battle on who owns the picture. 

What is Public Domain?

Wiki-commons lets people put up copyright free images for everyone's use and these become public domain picture which cannot be used commercially. But seriously folks, do you think people will ever care to respect this bit?

public domain images of Steve Jobs

There are plenty of images in public domain which you can use for blogs and researched papers that will be deposited in pubic domain. Such images cannot be used for commercial gain so even if you used this picture on a banner advertising your garage sale, that would be in breach of the law, citing wiki-commons isn't going to save you.

Who can put Pictures in Public Domain?

Only the photographer can decide to donate a picture he took to public domain. Nothing else matters. The problem here is two folds, Slater didn't take the picture nor did he get a signed release from the Monkey as a model. This makes the whole idea on Slater owning the picture very murky.

So technically, the monkey owns the picture, regardless if it was Slater's camera that took the picture. And since Slater did not get a signed model contract....there is no copyright contention.

Monkey See Monkey Do

Slater baited the monkey to take the selfie. But in the end, he could have just sold the picture as something he had owned. To save himself, he could have fibbed about the picture and then made millions in selling the image for commercial use. Selfie was in essence a bad tag for the picture because this is what created the copyright debate.

Stupidly, he didn't have the brains to do this and now it is too late. However all is not lost. Even if the image is in public domain, it still cannot be used commercially. Slater can still profit from this if he can prove he is the holder of the analogue image.

Opps. He shot digital. Damn. He could have gone the analogue route and saved himself a ton of problems.

Digital files are useless. You may own the RAW image of the file but no one is going to look at a RAW file as proof of copy. Anyone can technically steal a RAW image from your HD and put that up as his own. Even a high resolution JPG can be turned into a DNG file with the right app. Quite a different story if you had a copy of the analogue image in your HD and the real slide or film image in safe keeping.

Lesson is, professional stock image photographers would be better off shooting analogue to protect their own interest. Digital is vaporware...think about it.

This is the lesson gleaned from photographers all over the world who have accidentally shot and released images onto the Internet and regretted it later as it would have cost them lots in commercial licensing.

Rated at ASA200, the new Cine200 Tungsten film isn't all that new to begin with. During my day as a photographer, I would not have bought such a film for use for outdoors for one simple reason, the film gives a cold cast, looking more blue than what you'd get with daylight film.

What are Tungsten Rated Films

Used primarily in studio that have floodlights, these lights give a extremely warm cast, and to balance them, you'd use a Tungsten film so that the colors would appear accurately as perceived in daylight.

The idea behind this is to allow the photographer the freedom to shoot in Tungsten lighting without the use of lens filters. This was a god send for analog photographer who worked constantly under floodlights shooting magazine adverts to printed catalogs.

All you needed to do is to load up the film and shoot. You could also do a vise-versa on normal daylight balanced film with a lens filter that balanced the harsh lighting. Either way,  Tungsten film fell out of fashion during the digital age because White Balance controls negated the need to use any type of filters.

Digital Tungsten White Balance

You can of course switch on your digital camera, go to your White Balance controls and select Tungsten lighting and get the same effect. There is no big deal about this. This method will only give you a bluish looking tint. Not a bad thing if that's what you are looking for but if you have RAW files on your HD, you can give all your digital photos the same look in any post production program like Photoshop or Lightroom.

Lomo's Tungsten Revival

For the young and aspiring analog photographer, the whole Tungsten film revival might seem like a big deal but to the old hands in the industry, it's a yawn.

But this is not a bad thing for people who continue to shoot film. The reason? Well, for art sake. These days, you can virtually tell if an image is digital or analog based on its tint and color reproduction. The closest to digital reproduction can only be achieved through good quality slide film but that too must be under optimum lighting conditions. Films are generally balanced for daylight exposure, if you have heavy clouds hovering before you, that changes the definition of daylight as well so your pictures won't look as good.

Digital Auto White Balance is better at detecting and correcting these minor shifts in the weather so you won't have to do this manually.

Shooting Tungsten in Daylight

Easy as pie but don't be surprised if you don't get the cooler tint during a hot summer's day at the beach. Very warm and sunny weather almost mimics the real conditions of Tungsten lights so you get a well balanced picture in the end.

There is no reason not to use it in everyday mixed lighting conditions just to take your artistic freedom up a notch.

My advice is ultimately this. Film is expensive so remember to capture something worth keeping.

With 30 days to go, Lomography has exceeded all its expectations with over 200K pledged on a 100K required funding on Kickstarter. That is a resounding cheer for analogue photographers but the biggest winner has to be Fujifilm, the only remaining instant film maker on the planet. The consumables don't cost much, which at US$1 buck a print, it makes for good memories.

The Lomo Instant Camera is a generic Fuji Instax Mini as it uses the same type of mini instant film but it goes one step further by offering a choice of clip on lenses for the camera that gives you fish eye and portrait angle shots. The colored gel filters are not going to be much of a hit for me, at least in a traditional sense but hipsters will no doubt double down on them.

Long exposure is included if you want to get creative but you have been warned as this is essentially a bulb mode for instant photography. Get the exposure wrong, and you'll wind up having an overexposed pile of goo.

To be fair, I think the portrait lens is a great inclusion but the fish eye is pure rubbish. Then again, Lomo intends to sell the camera kit within the ballpark of US$150 for the camera that comes complete with a wide angle lens. This bodes well for photographers who want a choice and can ante up to the portrait lens clip on as an accessory.

Shutter controls are pretty limited, just at one speed, 1/125 sec. The Mini Instax film is rated at ASA 800. The only way to control the exposure is through the aperture setting. 

But my main beef with this system is the sheet film size. It is small. Probably not as tiny as the first generation Zink prints but close. This means the instant film format isn't suitable for scenic, architecture or even street photography for that matter. It is a format meant for having fun with, shooting friends and family and the family pet. There is no macro capability either, so it would be a hassle to shoot anything smaller than a canary. Size wise, it's not much bigger than the Fujifilm instax mini cameras though I must add that it does bear some resemblance to Lomo's Belair series of cameras in terms of design. The Belair X6-12 has a Fuji Instax wide attachment to allow you take larger size instant pictures but from the initial test samples offered by users, only the 90mm lens seems to perform up to expectations. So if you gotta have that camera, then I suggest you wait for the Lomo Instant which should be made available to users all over the world in 2015. 

Film Format: Fujifilm Instax Mini Film

Exposure Area: 42mm x 64mm

Shutter Speed: 1/125s / Bulb

Exposure compensations: +2/-2 Exposure Values

Ejection Mechanism: Motorized

Multiple Exposures: Yes

Built-in Flash Guide Number: 9(m)

Automatic Flash Output: Yes

Battery Supply: 6V (4x AAA batteries)

Tripod mount: Yes

Cable Release Mount: Yes

Aperture: f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22, f/32

Is there hope for analogue photography? Seriously? Well in the day of 3D printing, it might just be what you need to keep those rolls of film going.

The Open Reflex camera is completely printable camera designed by Leo Marius. The idea behind it was to adapt a camera body to a lens mount which takes in a spool of film. This camera is only capable of firing at a fixed 1/60s shutter speed. This might ruin a lot of moments but at least you have a good lens to pair with it.

The whole project will cost you less than 50 bucks, that's provided you already have a 3D printer at home.

There isn't much room for analogue photography other than the stuff you find on Lomography, much of which take less than normal photos. The Open Reflex camera on the other hand makes for a very good kit camera, which can be adapted as a complete kit sans the lens. 

Trusted that the lens will be the problem, I reckon the only way around this is to package a cheap Russian made lens as part of the kit. It just doesn't make sense for kids to assemble something and look out for a used lens on eBay.

As you already know, much of the picture quality (which you can see here) is determine by the lens. Color negative film don't have much contrast and even with b/w film, you can see that may have to tune it up a few notches with Photoshop.

Leo likes the idea of having this turned into a kickstarter project of some sort but seriously folks. Film is in decline and unless it's for a school project, there won't be many backers.

Homebrew, all you need is a 3D printer. For that alone, I think it rocks!

OpenReflex by LeoMarius on Sketchfab

Amazon.com has just gained the ability to sue photographers who use a white background to capture a product photo with this patent award from the US Patent Office (USPO) which means they can technically ask for licensing fees if you ever thought otherwise.

Yes, you heard me. White background. Here is an except of the Patent text filed:-

a background comprising a white cyclorama; a front light source positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting the background, the longitudinal axis further being substantially perpendicular to a surface of the white cyclorama; an image capture position located between the background and the front light source in the longitudinal axis, the image capture position comprising at least one image capture device equipped with an eighty-five millimeter lens, the at least one image capture device further configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty and an f-stop value of about 5.6...

Amazon is an online retailer and for that, most if not all of the photos captured for use on their site has a white background. D'uh. Apparently the text also mentions the use of a 85mm lens so if you happen to get sued, all you gotta do is prove that you used a 75mm or a 90mm lens to shoot your object and you're home free.....provided you hired a lawyer to defend yourself which can run into thousands of dollars.

First, let's be clear. This patent is not an innovation. The patent was filed by Amazon in 2010 and granted this year.  For me at least, the idea of such a photographic exercise is really to fight other online retailers who would use a picture of a product shot with a white background. This gentle art of arm wrestling your competitor to the ground with a lawsuit is one of the best ways to perform a take down without using too much effort. Smaller online retailers who cannot fight Amazon's lawyers will have to move on. The very act of hiring a lawyer to defend yourself in corporate America is a dangerous proposition as it cost a lot of money.

This patent can be used only for sites hosted in America. Amazon in this case can't use it against say, China's Taobao or any online property hosted outside of the US.

Photographers probably need not be too worried but you should tell your client that you won't be using a 85mm lens to shoot a product. Instead, why not try using an iPhone? With the right lighting and a portable lighting studio like the Foldio, you can add a watermark that says "shot on an iPhone with Foldio", to deter the legal sharks from Amazon.

 

What's my Take on the Picture?

What this will eventually mean is that the professional photographer will be obsolete. The only reason why clients would want to use you for a studio shoot is that the object in question is so damn large that it will need a whole room with lighting just to ensure that it is properly lit. That said, you could soon be mothballing your DSLR until your client shows up at your doorstep with a product so large that it can't be shot with an iPhone.