This year marks the 25th anniversary of Adobe Photoshop. If you have been using Adobe's wildly successful Photoshop since version 1.0, you'd know that this software was responsible for changing the way photographers work with  digital photos. Adobe's photo editing tool is so popular, even ISIS terrorist use it to create propaganda.

ISIS Photoshop Image

ISIS photoshop image

Adobe's Photoshop was born in the age of analogue photography, where photos had to be scanned onto disk and manipulated. This allowed unlimited possibilities for photographers to improve on their images, and this alone does not mean enhancing the color curves. You can mask and take out objects that get in the way, change the color of clothing and blend in still subjects as requested by your client.

In my DTP years, I found Photoshop indispensable for creating wild and beautiful imagery for use in print and later websites.

Fast forward to the new century and the move to the Creative Cloud. Adobe says that it gives good reason for them to move to cloud based software as it gives them the chance to update the software quickly and address your needs efficiently. This was all bullshit of course, as Adobe had no means to control their software from being pirated and had to do something about it. Several attempts were made including the use of activated keys and regular updates via a live Internet connection. That didn't work. So what next? Why not try having an always online software?

Adobe's Epic Fail and Fall from Grace

When people talk about Cloud Computing, it's really about programs that connect you to a higher consciousness with greater processing power than your desktop PC. In the case of Google's Cloud strategy, your stuff exist in the cloud via Google Chrome, a PC device which has bare basic processors and just about enough RAM to run your CPU. The idea behind it was to allow you to carry a machine that let's the Cloud do your heavy lifting.

Not so for Adobe, Photoshop has evolved into a behemoth of code.  You can't possibly move your work to the cloud all at one so the CC badge was just added to confuse you. Relaunched as a subscription only cloud verified program for desktop PCs, Photoshop CC was meant to keep the pirates at bay while reaping the rewards of the digital imaging age.

Let's be reasonable, no photographer is desk bound all the time, you can't have digital uploads of your images unless you have hyper fast internet access. This means storing your client images online would require you to park yourself and computer at a Starbucks Cafe and let it chew through the web traffic. If you live in a city, getting high speed internet isn't a problem but not all photographers have such access.

Then you have the annual cost, for which they promise you regular feature updates. Seriously, when you move to the cloud, how often did you have to wait for new features? Did it come every month? Week? Let me tell you a secret, a program that needs to be updated regularly is one that is badly coded....to the point they are fixing it as it goes live. No program is totally bug free when released but there is a critical testing period in which to sort out the pressing bugs. If this bug hunting isn't done correctly, then the process will continue into your living room after you have bought it.

Adobe has found many creative ways to enhance the Photoshop experience...the the point it gets almost too cluttered with features. This is where Lightroom comes in. It simplifies the process for digital image editing without the heavy loaded features found in the full version of Photoshop. Pro photogs are advised to get both, so that one can function as a full service image editing tool while the other slimmed down version is more for photo management.

Welcome to Affinity

When Adobe bought out Macromedia, it was a designated anti-monopoly move that no one cared about. Since then there has been no real challenger to Adobe's Photoshop but on the Mac, Affinity hopes to change that perspective.

Affinity Photo is a stand alone Photoshop rival that is now in Beta. It is a wonderful alternative to Adobe's offering and though not really ready for prime time, it could pose a serious challenge.

What Adobe has done so far has been to build on the core of Photoshop over the years and this has made it very heavy on hardware resource. Affinity Photo on the other hand was built from the ground up so there isn't any legacy code to worry about. Affinity previously had a hit with Affinity Designer, a Adobe illustrator killer app that runs only on the Mac.



Affinity Photo Beta Has Landed from MacAffinity on Vimeo.

You can sign on for the free beta right now by heading to the their website. The other thing I like about Affinity is that it isn't cloud based. You can take it with you. No problems there when you travel anywhere with an assignment in tow. The features are very powerful as can be seen in the video so for the professional, this is a God send.

And now for the price...it's 50 bucks...USD, only from the Mac Appstore when it launches. And how much were you paying for your copy of Photoshop CC to do the same thing?

One of the underlying reasons that people all over the world have been totally taken with Photoshop is that it has become mainstream. Geeks, amateurs, professionals and even casual hobbyist have taken to it like ducks to water.

Adobe has never had it so good. But in order to monetize, they will need people to pay for the full version. Piracy was one of the reasons they switch to the cloud. But they could have just made it cheaper if they wanted people to buy more of it.

Affinity sees this as a way to muscle in, but only on the Mac for now. This makes sense as it concentrates its resource on building a stable alternative to Photoshop before embarking on world domination.

The folks at hayesburban found a way to revitalize some old analogue device for the digital age before it is made a door stopper. The NoLab Super 8mm digital cartridge is just one device that can be used in place of the traditional film cartridge. The Super 8mm NoLab module sticks into any Super 8mm analogue camera and in the process, makes the film camera from a bygone era usable again.

The specifications are as follows:

Features

• 720p HD video capture in 4:3 format
• Frame rate automatically adjusts to camera settings (up to 60 fps)
• Integrated Film Look options
• Unlimited storage via removable SD card
• Battery and recording status light

Specifications

• Image Sensor:  5 megapixel Omni Vision OV5600 series
• Video Encoding: 720p HD H.264 (4:3)
• Memory:  Removable high capacity SD card
• Connections:  One mini USB port (primarily for charging)
• Battery:  Rechargeable LiPo battery providing up to 3 hours of continuous recording
• Housing:  Machined aluminum, color anodized and laser etched
• Height:   70mm
• Width:    75mm
• Depth:    24mm
• Weight:   160g

Once the technical problems have been sorted out, this project will go to Kickstarter or Indiegogo for funding. Right now, it is still in the tweaking stage.

Should Digital be the Way Forward?

 

I have my doubts but then again it's not for me to decide. It's just like GMO foods, if you are fine with it, then let's go all the way. 

For me, such a project isn't exactly innovative. There has been attempts to revitalize analog cameras in the past by replacing the film intake with a digital back. NoLab is taking on this same approach and let's say you do get the camera working again with a digital Super 8mm, what then? Would you rather shoot with such restrictive features such as 720p? People these days are already yelling for 4K video capture. 

Then you have the stalwarts who buy analogue for the sake of shooting film.Why would they go digital? Your iPhone probably has better video quality than a Super 8mm camera running a digital cartridge. 

In the end, it makes no sense at all to continue maintaining a digital feed on a analogue device. It just doesn't quite cut it. 

Why We Shoot Film

The whole concept of analogue is to have something you can hold onto, a moment in history that is not vaporous in nature. That's why people shoot film. People do not shoot film to convert to silky smooth digital videos for fun. It makes no sense. If you want a final digital feed, you can always shoot the footage digitally and put in the analogue effects during post production. People are not sharp enough to tell the difference. Some say that it is not genuine but only experts can tell the difference if the footage is shot on film as the majority of people have lost their eye and appreciation of anything analogue.

Though I applaud the spirit of such a venture, I do feel that such products are doomed to commercial obscurity. In the end, it is all about creative license versus cost. The reason why people are shooting so much digital videos and image is because of cost. It cost you next to nothing to have a moment ingrained on Facebook. Having a film roll shot, process and projected on screen has become a creative endeavour. The artist and the art isn't about cost, it is about the approach to showcase your creative excellence. Cost is never a concern when it comes to such artistic expressions.

So please continue to shoot film and if you feel the urgent need to go digital, there is always the iPhone which does it all. 

There is an increasing number of photos being made public domain and that's not a bad thing. The bad thing is when artist use these photos from public domain and turn it into a piece of art for commercial use.

Creative commons licensing was created to allow for people to use pictures legally for non commercial means. Some public domain pictures are free to use for everything and these can be found in on sites like Pexel and Unsplash. This narrow definition of what is public domain and what is not is a very fine line. One can easily miss this.

Petapixel recently reported that a photographer got his picture lifted for use in a Kenneth Cole commercial product and got paid with a US$500 gift card after making a complaint. Kenneth Cole's reasoning was that the artist made a mistake but refuses to give cash as payment. For one, a gift card is NOT cash. You can't buy gas or burgers with it on the street.

Why Photographers get Ripped Off

The most simple answer is due to ignorance. If you think that by adding your picture to creative commons that your image will be respected, then think again. Here are some common misconceptions.

The Law will Protect my Images from being Misused

You can't dial the police and tell them your rights as a photographer has been abused. So don't get the idea that the Police are behind your back when it comes to such rights. You are responsible for policing the use of your image and no one else will care unless you do.

I can sue the party who misuse my images

This is a fucktard assumption that you can afford to have a lawyer represent you. Lawyers get paid by the day, and you can of course try to hire one and pay them part of the proceeds from any monetary award you get from a judge but if you look at the price of stock photos and rights managed licensing, you'd be happy to walk away from the court room with a few thousand dollars at most. That won't even pay your lawyer fees! And no, you cannot expect the court to award you the 'cost' of the law suit.


Rights Managed Photos are no Better

Here is a case with Joshua Resnick, who claimed in a Petapixel post that he was being sued by a model who saw her images being used in far more creative ways than allowed. Now he sold the images through Shutterstock, and because shutter stock did not police the photos they sold, it ended up in places where it shouldn't be, like an ad for Playboy or a social escort services agency. The photographer is getting sued along with Shutter stock to the tune of 50 grand. 

According to Joshua,

"Defending yourself against even completely false accusations will cost almost anyone a huge amount of money. A common misconception is that when you win in court, you get your attorneys fees paid. That’s not always the case. Even if I do win, this case will likely be financially devastating either way."

Two points come to mind, would you shoot a risque image just to sell it on stock agencies or would you prefer to have a commissioned photo shoot where all the due diligence with client contract is fulfilled? Having a business where you shoot when assigned is probably going to cost you lost opportunity if you didn't have the money to market yourself. 

Never believe what the Stock Agencies Tell You

Everyone wants to be a photographer because the stock image business is booming. It is just like developing an iPhone app, which could make you lots of money if it was successful. Of the few iPhone developers who make money from apps, thousands of others fail. And this is where you have to make the distinction between payday and hard work. 

Nobody likes hard work. To put together your portfolio takes effort and time, and time is money. Photographers wanting to go professional will resort to taking on cheap assignments. Stock photos is the only one option to sell quickly, the other route to building your reputation is to give those photos away on Unsplash or Pexel.com. Both are easy gambles which may or may not work in your favour. 

Photographers who concentrate on industry specific verticals like say wedding photography, marine or industrial and architectural can't afford to spend time with stock image agencies. They take only assignments and they don't shoot for cheap. This need not be the case if every photographer holds their ground and shoot only when assigned. Stock image photography isn't a long term business. There will always be some upstart who can take better pictures than you and sell it for cheaper. 

In this day and age, more photos are being shot in a day than the whole of the 1960s combined. Digital photography has brought down the cost of entry into this field and with it, a decreasing return on investment. Corel was one of the first in the 90s to sell royalty free images on a CD and I remember buying them. Since then, you can virtually buy any type of image online. Stock image agencies do not own the content you give to them but you have volunteered that image to them in hope of a sale. They will sell the photos as you have dictated but they never put in the clause to say that they will police those rights like the Taliban. They also did not say that they will bear the cost of the court room proceeding if they fail to police those statutory rights. 

To start off, you must know the risk of being sued even if you have rights managed photos put into stock image agencies. You can assume that models in those images don't really care but yes, they do. Stock image agencies these days want photos with models that sell for a dollar. They don't care how you con your way into having a model in your picture. That's not their problem. It is also not their problem if the buyer does not respect the bounds of the image license. That is your problem too. 

The moral of the story is that if you can't afford to hire a lawyer, then don't start with stock photos as a business initiative. It makes no sense to earn so little and get sued out of your home. 

Photographers from the digital age may want to experiment with film cameras but buying an old film camera has its own unique challenges. For one, it might not work out of the box, the second is that it has to be serviced as the lenses and viewfinder are totally fucked up. Buying a new analogue camera sounds like a good idea but who makes new analogue cameras besides Leica and Voigtlander? 

If you want a camera to play with, just double down on a pinhole camera. There is one that you can buy online from the Popup Pinhole Company. They were responsible for the Videre, a cardboard copy of a TLR camera. Now the TLR looks great. But the viewfinder is not functional. Infact, no viewfinder on Pinhole cameras ever worked so much of it relies on guessing how much distance is between you and the subject. The rule of thumb is always 50mm angle of view.

So with this in mind, expect the Viddy to be the same. A Pinhole camera is the most basic principle of a camera and would come in real handy in a nuclear devastation scenario where all the batteries and electrical stuff will fail to work.

You need film for the viddy, thankfully only readily available 35mm. Throw in some glue, crocodile clips and finger dexterity and you're ready to assemble it.

The whole idea behind exposure is that you pull a cardboard piece to expose the film and the pinhole is your lens. How long should you expose it for is up to you. It's a 'may the force be with you' sort of feeling where you think that it is properly exposed. And because it is a pinhole...meaning a very small aperture opening...you can afford to expose it a second or more based on the low ASA film. Never ever use fast ASA film with a pinhole camera as it is a waste of money.

Now Viddy isn't cheap. Costing a ballpark of US$35, it could well be the most expensive analogue camera you could buy as it isn't built to last. Exposed to high humidity environments, the cardbox paper will warp. Left on its own, it will be a termite magnet.

In hindsight, it probably will be the greatest introduction to analogue film photography you would ever get for that price.

In the past, photographers were often mistaken for film makers as the stock film that used to capture images were the same type used in capturing motion pictures and home movies were the stuff of legends as portrayed in the JJ Abrams movie, Super 8mm. Analogue film came in several varieties in the 70s and it was the success of the 35mm film that gave birth to the motion picture industry (and the porn film industry in the US). But let's not go the 35mm route. For people who are nostalgic about analogue film, the best place to start is with the 8mm stock.

Today, we have Pro8mm as the only surviving cult cine-cam maker which still extols the value of analogue capture. The best example for us is their version of the Canon 310 XL Super 8mm camera sold by them on the site (and on photojojo.com) called the Rhonda Cam.

Rhonda cam is in essence Lomography for the motion picture film enthusiast. Selling for US$395, it is probably one of the best value for money analogue motion picture cameras you can buy on the market right now. The Canon 310 XL was a legendary name in Super 8mm capture as it had a much better lens and an aperture of f1/0. This means that it can be made to work in low light conditions with the right analogue film. Super 8mm comes in a fixed cartridge for quick release and change so you can continue shooting as long as you have enough film stocks in your back pocket.

Now there are plenty of Canon 310XL film cameras being advertised on eBay for less than US$50. Apparently no one is keen to keep shooting expensive film so it has to find a new owner. We all know that film isn't cheap. A roll of Super 8 will last you up to 4.5 mins of shooting and there is no such thing as digital storage. Pro8mm offers a film package similar to what the folks in Kodak use to and offers free processing of the film for US$80 a roll inclusive of scanning in SD digital video. Now that is expensive if you were only able to shoot roughly 4 min of film WITHOUT sound. Yep. It's silent and there is no way to add sound unless you sync that in during post production telecine. The term telecine refers to film media transferred to a digital medium. Most of the film stocks are color negs, so unless you use color reversal film, you won't be able to project it. So think of the film with processing costing 40 bucks but with a further 45 bucks thrown it for the whole telecine package.

How is shooting film is all the same?

Pro8mm Super 8mm film stocks come rated from ASA64 to ASA500. Most of them have a exposure latitude of only 6 stops, while the 160ASA has 9 stops. This might not make sense to you as a digital photographer but it says a lot about the film. The motion picture capture process is the same as analogue film photography. You need to note the ASA speed of the film, that best suits the scene you wish to capture and fire away. Even though exposure can be set automatically, you can never be too sure about high contrast or low light situations so a light meter can be handy.

There are two types of film stocks for the Super 8mm. The negative film can't be projected but the color reverals film can only be experienced with the use of a projector. You also need to ante up on a projector, which can be had for roughly US$600 to US$800 refurbished. There are only two film stock for color reversal film so shooting rated at ASA200, one in color and the other in b/w.

Why Super8mm is Beautiful

I don't have children and for that I have no use for archival quality but for those of you who have, it makes perfect sense to shoot the best moments on analogue film.

Film is forever. Still images are nice but moving ones are better. The LomoKino achieves this to some extent with 35mm film used in photography but hand cranking the device for a 5fps capture harks back to the 19th Century. A roll of 36 exposure 35mm film will only gives you roughly 6 seconds of motion capture. That's probably just enough to film your self in a new car backing out of the garage.

Rhonda Cam's Super 8mm gives you up to 4.5mins depending on the chosen frame rate so you have this leeway to play with (with pro spec Super 8 cameras, you can shoot at 24fps for up to 2 mins of footage). However with the postage and processing included, you could well end up paying up to US$100 per reel (shipping your film from worldwide that is).

Comparatively, you can shoot all your want, share it online till the cows come home and gets plenty more likes online if you shot digitally on your iPhone. Total cost? Well how much did your iPhone cost without contract?

The beauty of the analogue medium has to be experienced to be appreciated. It is a lot harder to shoot, takes effort to process and there is a learning curve. Shooting analogue is a hardskill learnt through time and effort. The surviving film will outlive you and in time your own great grandchildren can appreciate what life was in the time you lived.

Digital is vaporware. It is gone the moment a service closes down. You might think that Instagram and Facebook would be forever but that's taking it too lightly. I remember a time when Netscape Communications was the unstoppable force on the Internet, look where they are now. What about the hard disk crash that wiped out all your holiday photos? Ditto.

What Pro8mm has done is to make analogue motion capture cool again. The retro movie camera is just plain kick ass and it feels good to hold one with the collapsable stock folded in. But all these experiences comes at a price, and only you can decide if you can afford it. The Rhonda Cam is probably the best analogue experience that can be had in a overtly digital world.

It is a costly hobby if you want to shoot solely on this medium but this is why it is so cool. The limited shooting time gets you thinking about what you shoot all the time as you will be assembling the scenes as you go along and capture what you feel makes beautiful memories. That alone is priceless.

Rhonda Cam Specifications

Focal Length: 8-5 – 25.5mm f/1.0 Macro Zoom

Speed: 18 FPS plus Single Frame

Auto Exposure

Power/Manual Zoom

Power = 2-AA

So what will you remember about 2014 that was worth reviewing? Was it the Drone craze where people ante up to a flying camera or was it that you should never let monkeys take a selfie?

The drone photography business has taken off in such a way that the US National Parks have banned them forever from their midst.

A Geeky Drone Pilot gets roughed up at the Beach

Bad pilots who fly them in public have blood in their hands after crashing them into pedestrians. The craze has gone so far that even GoPro have announced they will come out with a flying camera as soon as their R&D engineers get back from their Christmas Holidays. Meanwhile frustrated single and bow legged women have gotten brave enough to beat up geeky drone pilots who fly their wares in public. That said, aerial photography in 2014 hasn't been all that good.

On another note, David Slater's predicament echoes some of the pain felt by photographers around the world when his monkey pix was made public domain. Technically, and this by legal definition, Slater should not have released it as a selfie because an animal can legally be the rights holder and not the human that owns the camera. His pictures went viral and made it to the top ten list of stories in 2014 in regard to the photography profession that went wrong.

Photography as a Profession

Being a photographer in 2014 has gotten more difficult. There are loads of photographers who cringe on admitting this one true fact that they lack the financial means to prepare for retirement. The successful ones (which are only a handful) gloat at their peers who can't seem to get ahead in the cut throat world of photography.

True. There are plenty of corporates in this world who hire photographers to do work. But these jobs hardly constitute a viable means to earn a living wage judging from the equipment and business savvy one needs in this world.

Remember that in the old world of analog film, photographers co-existed with color lab technicians who developed the prints needed for real world use. Today, everything is online and the onus is on the photographer to process, capture and edit photos all on their own for the same amount of fees—which does not take into consideration the amount of camera equipment, software and computers you need these days to conduct your business. Color lab technicians in the good old days were the go-to guys whenever you needed something done to your positive or negative film. Some even went as far as to manually touch up the negatives or positives to remove blemishes and such from actual film. Photography in its heyday supported a long string of down line jobs, from print makers, color labs and the printing press. Today, with the Internet Disruption model, this is no longer possible. It is basically you and your equipment that decides the way you conduct a business. As for digital prints for hanging on your wall, you can upload them to Flickr and order one online.

Photography went from becoming a hard skill to the Performing Arts where photographers had to suffer for their art without clients ever taking them seriously. Everyone is a photographer thanks to the iPhone and as long as you have 1,000 followers on Instagram, you're a pro. This is not expected to change in the near future and in 2014, I would like to say a silent prayer to all those photographers who have abandoned their dream for a stable monthly income in light of the demands of the real world.

Keeping up with the Joneses

So we have more megapixels in 2014 but camera companies are not making more money from it. So you have more more cameras with the same megapixel count. This has been one of the stories for 2014 and if you were one to fall for this old Jedi mindtrick, then you've been had.

Each time a sensor is created, millions are spent pouring into the research and development process. To think they will be able to give you more pixels for cheaper is a defeatist strategy. People are taking more photos but not with actual digital SLR cameras or DCCs.

The Lumia 1020 still ranks on top of my list for a camera even though it's not really a camera in the first place.

Even though the Apple iPhone 6 ranks on top for color reproduction and low light performance, I'd rather have DNG files of scene I take to work them in post production for a better fit. Who cares if the iPhone can post to FB and Instagram all at the same time? Good pictures have to be edited in some way unless you were using a Leica camera with those expensive glasses for lenses.

Behold! the MA!

Speaking of Leica, they will take the headline for the only company to have come out with a top spec analogue camera! Yes! Film lives! Then again you need to check the price tag before you jump for joy. The new Leica MA weighs in at just over US$4700. It is totally manual, no light meter, nada. When you consider the Leica MP, a pro spec manual camera that sells for just over U$4900, that 200 dollar difference starts to look shady.

Compare the MP

The MP was built for professionals, namely press people who love winding each frame mechanically to capture a picture. It has the same flash x-sync and shutter speed as the MA. Either Leica has a wicked sense of humor or they are just removing old unsold MPs by cannibalizing their parts to make a new budget model (though the term budget may not necessarily apply in this case).

Regardless of where you stand these days. I would like to wish you all a great year ahead shooting can capturing moments that truly matters instead of trying to take a dozen selfies each time you chance across a bathroom mirror.

Photography will still be around and for better of worst, your best bet is to not to buy into the hype and use only what you need to get a good picture.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to All!

Yes, it has finally happened. The fiasco regarding Flickr offering Creative Common images for paid Wall Art prints has come to a conclusion. Below is the excerpt of the farce...and apology. In all rational, why would CC type images be offered up as Wall Art in the first place?

We’re sorry we let some of you down.

About a month ago, we introduced Flickr Wall Art to allow our members to order printed photos on wood or canvas. Over the past few weeks, we’ve received a lot of feedback from the community and beyond — while some expressed their excitement about the new photography marketplace and the value it would bring, many felt that including Creative Commons-licensed work in this service wasn’t within the spirit of the Commons and our sharing community.
We hear and understand your concerns, and we always want to ensure that we’re acting within the spirit with which the community has contributed. Given the varied reactions, as a first step, we’ve decided to remove the pool of Creative Commons-licensed images from Flickr Wall Art, effective immediately. We’ll also be refunding all sales of Creative Commons-licensed images made to date through this service.
Subsequently, we’ll work closely with Creative Commons to come back with programs that align better with our community values.
The Wall Art service will continue to be available, but will not tap into Creative Commons-licensed images. You’ll still be able to order Wall Art from your own photostream, as well as the work of Flickr’s licensed artists, who are part of the Flickr Marketplace. If you want your work to appear in the Flickr Marketplace, you can sign up here to be considered and a member of the Flickr curation team will reach out if your work is a good fit.
From the beginning, we’ve worked hard to foster a community of creators. It’s our deep commitment to the Flickr community that inspires us everyday. Please continue to share your ideas and feedback.Bernardo HernandezVP of Flickr