mark_gatehouse

depends exactly which 150mm you have

http://members.aol.com/subgallery/byfl.htm

measuring with a ruler gets you pretty close though

Can anyone translate this article on the issue.

http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=113&a=185270

paraphrase:

"60 more people are being laid off and the classical Hasselblad is being

phased out

The new danish management is cutting back activities in

Gothenburg significantly. It's the new strategy after merging Imacon and

Hasselblad.

30 white-collar and 30 production line people go. Management and

administration is now run from Kopenhagen.

Production of camera parts is out-sourced.

These 60 are over and above the 175 from earlier this year.

In the big new house that was built there will be about 70 left. Product

development (delicate mechanics) and assembly. Most assembly in the future

will require less people since Hasselblad is concentrating on wholly

digital cameras.

The digital part of production is taken care of in Copenhagen. All

electronic components are out sourced to Asia.

According to the new stategy plan the film models of Hasselblad will be

phased out (cf their FAQ my comment). The dramatic collapse of this market

has been accentuated the last few months. Hasselblad is losing money on

every camera sold.

Therefore management is taking action to lower sales. The rebates, up to

20% at the moment, will cease. The price will go up in order to compensate

for the exchange rate losses on the North American market

All taken together this means the time is out for the classic Hasselblad

model.

After merging with Imacon a digital camera has been produced in record

time (Imacon + H1).

The camera is sold for 165.000 SEK (divide by 7.36 to get USD) which is

half as much as the H1 with a separate digital back.

Hasselblad is looking for a profitable position in the segment for digital

MF.

The first version of H1D has 22 million px. The product is compared to the

another for professional users, the Canon EOS 1Ds that has 16,7 mp, but

costs half as much (the Canon).

Hasselblad is entering a whole new product cycle. Up until the recent H1

Hasselblad had essential been making and selling the same camera system

since the 60's. The product line of digital models will have to be

renewed

as often as every few months."

Following was part of a LF report on Photokina:

"Nothing really new. Sinar is now almost all digital; in one corner

there was some film stuff. Talking to the Sinar guy, he mentioned

that they had a warehouse full of 5x7, 8x10 and 4x5 backs and

accessories. I asked when they were going to sell all that, and he

said something like 'when the price of aluminum goes up'."....

Scott,

Sounds like you failed economics 101. I'm also assuming you are a hobbyist and don't actually know much about the photography business from the way you write?

First there is a big difference in business model between say a high street studio pumping out portraits and baby shots or a commercial studio doing catalogue shoots and say an editorial photographer working for business magazines whichis different again compared to an architectural photographer working for architectural offices and industry clients. To compare the two is like comparing chalk and cheese, like trying to compare the business model of being a lawyer with that of being an accountant - just because they both use pencils (or cameras) doesn't mean there are major similarities in the the way they do business.

Then lets just focus in this case on the architecural photographer, and narrow that down to one major aspect of doing the business and compare the old and new models (forgetting hybrid digital/film set-ups for now).

Before you can begin to make any profit on your creative fees you have to take into account your basic cost of doing business - the cost of your capital assets, their lifecycle, overheads etc etc.

In both models, your basic costs of office, licenses, transportation and so on will remain basically the same.

But:

Simplifying somewhat for the sake of comparison

Old model - LF film camera and lenses, film holders, accessories, a purely fictional cost of lets say $20,000 to set yourself up properly.

All film and processing costs and later printing usually outsourced and charged to the client.

Lifespan of that equipment, with regular servicing costs, lets say 20-25 years.

New Model - LF (MF?) digital camera set-up, scanning back, 2-3 basic computer set-up, RAID array for long term archiving (compared to a filing cabinet), Software licensing costs and so on. Lets say another fictional cost of $50,000

All post production work done by the photographer or their studio - colour adjustment, burn to CD (often prints made in-house - though obviously can be outsourced). Required skills for this (at which a large number of photographers are very bad - their digital management skills have been learnt on the fly and often cause problems down the road) means extra training courses (= extra costs).

Lifespan of say 60% of that equipment and software - 3-5 years at best.

So - in the above cases, your basic cost of business with the new digital model is significantly higher than with the old "analog" model so your profit margin has just shrunk significantly. You either make much less profit or charge higher basic creative fees.

In addition you are faced with the problem of how to bill the client for the additional post-production fees (digital "lab" fees if you like). First, the base cost of this work is usually higher per image than just the processing and contact printing lab costs in the old model - usually you aren't paying some minimum wage lab monkey to do the work - it's the photographer or a skilled assistant. Secondly there is the intangible issue of the clients perceptions - they can understand charging expenses for "film and processing" but because of the equation digital = no film = cheaper, it's much harder to sell the concept of post-production fees.

Digital may be faster, it may be more convenient. It is rarely, at present, cheaper. The business skill comes in marketing that added value and making money from it, rather than taking a cut in profits. Which is what I see many high street studios doing (or conversely, a cut in quality and value to the customer, which is another option). This is especially so in the case of clients such as architectural or engineering offices where the move from hand made drawings to digital CAD has led to big savings in terms of effeciency and improved creativity. Digital, in this case has usually = better and cheaper.

(as for getting your nose bent out of shape because photographers view materials being a profit centre - it's the same in virtually every business from construction to hairdressers to car mechanics to aircraft manufacturers to lawyers ad infinitum - anyone who doesn't follow that model is a fool)

No, what to do if there is no film anymore is another issue. Personally I have no problem yet both finding film or getting it processed and printed doing work as an architectural photographer.

"The fuji quickchange holder is different than the quick load. The quickchange is a 8 sheet film holder that operates like a graphmatic. It is available in Japan and from robertwhite.co.uk"

Robert White hasn't had the quickchange for some time now - can't get hold of them nor the reloadable packs of film, of which they only have a few left. Badger hasn't stocked them for even longer. Last time I was in Japan I had a hard time finding a spare one there - not even sure if Fuji is still making them now. They are rather thick - I doubt there is much point making the back so it will take them (unless it does already) as there are so few around, and they aren't as likely to last as long as the venerable grafmatic.

Tracy,

Is that the same setup as Timothy Greenfield-Saunders used/uses?

Michael,

I've never come across that - with regard to the requirement to defend against copyright infringement or lose it.

I know of many copyrighight infirngement cases which are not persued after legal advice - either for legal reasons or because the cost would be too great. In none of those did copyright lapse as a result.

Also, while there are similarities in terms of intellectual property, the are signicant differences between tradmark and copyright law.

Could you point out where the section in qustion is in the statute?:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

(I am 99% certain it is not a part of the Berne Convention - to which national copyright law must conform)

"You actually visualize it when you see the final print in all its glory."

Er no - that's seeing. Visualize: "to form a mental image of" or "to make visible to the mind a thing not visible to the eye" (when you can actually see it, you don't need to form a mental image of it - that's the whole point).

So, when you visualize the photograph, you form a mental image beforehand of how you imagine it will look like.

So, back to my original question - At what point before you visualize it do you "pre-visualize" it and what the heck does it mean? How do you "pre" form a mental imgae of something - what is the stage before you form a mental image of the photograph?

"and making art out of industrial structures with a

camera is not an inalienable right as far as I know."

Silly me - and here I always thought it was (a right that has only generally been suspended by Congress when balanced against the extreme measures required during a period of declared war - which is not currently the case):

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Commonly known as the freedom of expression

("The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment's protection of artistic expression very broadly. It extends not only to books, theatrical works and paintings, but also to posters, television, music videos and comic books -- whatever the human creative impulse produces... etc"

"I did not understand

"previsualization" until I started shooting LF. Now I do."

So help me out here - if you "pre-visualize" something, at what point to you actually visualize it?

"Good point that somebody made about being able to shoot with a small digital camera and not looking suspicious but get a medium or large

format camera out there and all Hell breaks loose. As I mentioned before, it's all window dressing. The Gov. wants to look like they're doing

something to help protect us from future attacks so they go after photographers. Stooopid! Why not start paying attention to who comes and

goes across our wannabe borders and find out what why they want into our country? At least this article mentioned the photographer was a

white guy. This should quite down some of the dolts who cry out everytime a middle eastern looking person is strip searched at the airport."

Following is a good example of there the sort of "man with a big camera near an oil refinery" leads:

"14 suspicious Syrian musicians fly on American plane

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2004/07/21/askthepilot95/index.html

The hysterical skies

She survived a flight with 14 harmless Syrian musicians -- then spread 3,000 bigoted and paranoid words across the Internet.

The piece in question, "Terror in the Skies, Again?" is the work of Annie Jacobsen, a writer for WomensWallStreet.com. Jacobsen shares the account of the emotional meltdown she and her fellow passengers experienced when, aboard a Northwest Airlines flight from Detroit to Los Angeles, a group of Middle Eastern passengers proceeded to act "suspiciously." I'll invite you to experience "Terror" yourself, but be warned it's quite long. It needs to be, I suppose, since ultimately it's a story about nothing, puffed and aggrandized to appear important.

Fourteen dark-skinned men from Syria board Northwest's flight 327, seated in two separate groups. Some are carrying oddly shaped bags and wearing track suits with Arabic script across the back. During the flight the men socialize, gesture to one another, move about the cabin with pieces of their luggage, and, most ominous of all, repeatedly make trips to the bathroom. The author links the men's apparently irritable bladders to a report published in the Observer (U.K.) warning of terrorist plots to smuggle bomb components onto airplanes one piece at a time, to be secretly assembled in lavatories.

"What I experienced during that flight," breathes Jacobsen, "has caused me to question whether the United States of America can realistically uphold the civil liberties of every individual, even non-citizens, and protect its citizens from terrorist threats."

Intriguing, no? I, for one, fully admit that certain acts of airborne crime and treachery may indeed open the channels to a debate on civil liberties. Pray tell, what happened? Gunfight at 37,000 feet? Valiant passengers wrestle a grenade from a suicidal operative? Hero pilots beat back a cockpit takeover?

Well, no. As a matter of fact, nothing happened. Turns out the Syrians are part of a musical ensemble hired to play at a hotel. The men talk to one another. They glance around. They pee.

That's it?

That's it....

Jacobsen's sequel is peppered with incendiary quotes from industry sources. Says an airline pilot: "The terrorists are probing us all the time." Another confides a maddeningly baseless belief that Jacobsen had been "likely on a dry run," while another states, "The incident you wrote about, and incidents like it, occur more than you like to think. It is a 'dirty little secret' that all of us, as crew members, have known about for quite some time."

Which dirty little secret, exactly, are we talking about? That foreigners ride on airplanes?..." the link above gives more on the story

Set up by Photographer Kevin Bjorke

> I've set up a non-commercial forum and links site on the topic

of > freedom for photography -- still in its infant state, but

hopefully > it will be a useful

resource, especially for street photographers who > are often

among the most-hassled by security guards, overzealous > "child

protectors," and the like.

Check it out, contribute stories > and opinions if you can, and

let me know what you think. > http://www.photopermit.org/

Set up by Street Photographer Kevin Bjorke

> I've set up a non-commercial forum and links site on the topic of

> freedom for photography -- still in its infant state, but hopefully

> it will be a useful resource, especially for street photographers

who

> are often among the most-hassled by security guards, overzealous

> "child protectors," and the like. Check it out, contribute stories

> and opinions if you can, and let me know what you think.

>

http://www.photopermit.org/

Forwarded from another list:

"See Ian Spiers' account of his interation with several local and

federal law enforcement

agents while trying to complete his 'motion' assignment for his

photography class. Scary

disgusting.

http://www.brownequalsterrorist.com/artiststatement/ "

Markus,

I was just looking for some info on terminology for a stock sale to the OUP for a textbook and dug out an old book I have - Business and Legal Forms for Photogorpahers by Tad Crawford.

Not sure if there is an updated edtion (mine is 1991), but as well as having forms, it goes into detail on the legal terms and what rights to negotiate for each kind of contract - assignment , stock, fine art etc

The section on negotiating a book contract for a photographer should answer all your questions - there are ten pages of notes on the terms you need to go over and what rights to negotiate and what it means (+ a 4 page contract) - very clearly set out and easy to understand

You really need to at least look at somethign like this if you don't hire a lawyer. Realsie that these days especially, any publisher is likely to be going after as much in terms of extra rights for free as they can - even if they can only benefit from those rights some years down the road. The culture from top floors and the corporate counsels offices is "grab everything you can" - we can make money off it down the road.

If you don't believe me - read this - The War Against Photographers:

http://www.editorialphoto.com/education/wap.pdf

Actually - here you go - it was updated in 2002 I think + you now get all the contract forms on disk - best $20.00 you will ever spend on the business side...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/158115206X/qid=1089305057/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-2899205-5268842?v=glance&s=books

Brandon,

You seem to miss a couple of points.

In your (not the greatest) movie analogy Jessop and his "I for one sleep better

knowing that there are people looking out for "us." " - are the bad guys - the ones whove missed to point about freedom and justice - to which they prefer the fascistic "law & order"

Secondly - "Seems your title should be a little more factual, something

like "Two men busted for laws they didn't violate" or "Two men busted for

taking pictures of young girls." I think that any real photographer, or even

someone interested in photography as I am, should make a distinction between

someone interested in the art, and two unknown, random, men with a camera."

You might not like it, but their rights (as photogorpahers - which is what they are if they take photogorpahs - you might dislike the reasons you believe they take photogorpahs) are exactly the same as yours - rights which have then been violated.

"Since these two guys didn't break any laws, it's possible that whoever called the police will say their presence made them uncomfortable thereby interfering with their constitutional right to pursue happiness."

which, however, isn't in the US Constitution...

SOme of us seem to know our law as well as the cops :-)

Not sure about the porn industry in Turkey, but the fascinating thing about it in the US is that is the most wonderful the American way - with the US as both the biggest consumer and the biggest producer of porn worldwide, it is pure capitalism at work

The Big Mac becomes the Big Cock - and it makes a fascinating documentary study

(talking of partaking - I enjoy the stories about how Ferrato and her assistants had to become part of the swingers scene for the work - BTW - there is also an excellent film documentary about swingers in the US - called just that I think? - one very telling section was filmed in Columbine shortly before the school shooting. Turns out - probably like most places - Columbine really was not exactly a quiet, white picket fences, Truman Show suburb after all - there was a lot more going on behind closed doors than most would admit to - which again, makes for fascinating documentaries...)

I imagine it was probably a 47mm super angulon or SA- XL. Neither the original poster, nor Daniel actually said the lens had to cover the whole negative...

I know of folks who use some of the very wide S Angulons - 47mm 56mm etc on 8x10 Hobos and other cameras to get a nice circular image - which, of course, has along tradition in photography. After all, there is no really calid reason why a photogorpah needs to be rectangular (unless one is possesed of a completely linear and anal retentive outlook on life....)

George,

Some info was just posted here:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008b1X

apart from that actual increase in "legal" impediments to photography (more municipalities requiring permits etc) there have been a significant number of cases over the last two years of photographers being prevented from taking photographs, threatened with arrest or actually arrested - all for photographing in perfectly legal situations - photographs of an industrial plant from a public road, Photograph of a Bus Depot, photographs of bridges or public buildings, photographing on the Coney Island boardwalk and so on. In all the cases law enforcement have cited a general 'photography of this isn't permitted by law". Eventually, when pushed to explain what law (and this has sometime required media to do a story on it and actually ask the highest supervisors - "what law") they have been unable to come up with one.

This spate of occurances seems merely to be increasing

This also applies on National Park Service land (which can be in a city) - where their regulations and Laws from Congress specifically permit (even commercial + a tripod....) still photography - yet there are regular reports of rangers or Park Service Police trying to prevent photography

From The Mercury News

N.Y. subway cops enforce proposed ban on cameras

NEW YORK - Seconds after Stephen McCurry hoisted his video camera onto his shoulder Friday afternoon in the Times Square subway station, two police officers rushed to his side and sternly told him to stop taping.

McCurry, it seems, was nearly breaking the law.

The police officers, who would not give their names, said they had been ordered to enforce a spate of proposed changes to subway rules, which include no taking pictures with still or video cameras.

This even though the proposals, announced Thursday, will not be voted on by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority until fall.

McCurry, 33, an independent filmmaker from Los Angeles who had heard about New York City Transit's proposed rule changes earlier in the day, said he was unfazed.

``I'm just going to go elsewhere in the city,'' he said. ``You just get chased out of one place, and you go to the next.''

Police officers at subway stations around the city said Friday that they had been closely monitoring shutterbugs since Sept. 11, 2001. A police official said Friday night that officers have the right to stop people ``impeding the flow of the transit system''; for example, taking a flash photograph of an incoming train or setting up a tripod in a station.

Sometimes, the officers said, they ask picture takers and home videographers to stop, particularly if they appear to be photographing subway tunnels or other infrastructure. But if the subject of the photo is a group of tourists or a smiling police officer, ``it's no big deal,'' an officer at Grand Central said.

Unlike McCurry, many tourists seeking a photographic keepsake of New York City's subways Friday afternoon were unaware that the price of taking pictures on the city's trains and buses might soon include a $25 fine. Few tourists said they would be willing to break the law to take home photographs of New York City's transportation system.

``If it's for safety reasons, I would not object too much even though it may sound a bit silly,'' said Jack Melcher-Claesson, 33, an online sales manager from Sweden. His girlfriend, Cilla Holm, stood nearby and eagerly snapped pictures of Julio Diaz and Lupita, his mannequin, doing their salsa dance routine in the Times Square station.

``Typical America,'' Holm said when she heard that she had nearly committed a violation. ``We're from Sweden, where everything is allowed.''

Cory Cisler, a professional drummer, vowed to stop taking pictures in the subway if it meant that he would be breaking the law. But, he said, the police would probably have a difficult time enforcing the rule.

``I don't think it's going to stop all these people,'' he said. ``Aren't there more important things to keep an eye on?''

For Robert and Lilian Chambers, natives of Dublin, Ireland, who have spent much of the week photographing popular tourist attractions, a signpost in the Chambers Street subway station was their brass ring. The station, after all, shares their name.

But the couple, who had just finished taking pictures inside the station when told of the proposed changes, said they felt entitled to take the photographs

"Roland Barthes wrote about this idea in Camera Lucida (I haven't had a chance to read it yet but I have read The Photograph, part of the Oxford History of Art series, which has a chapter that applies Barthes' theory to documentary photography).

Barthes uses two terms to describe any photograph: studium and punctum... Punctum is the much more important part of the picture. It is the part that is not under the control of the photographer. It is the puncture in presentation of the photograph that allows you to enter the photograph and get more out of it.

Punctum is that deeper part that S. LIU talks about. He even says that he sees more than a staged photograph, because it is the unintended parts of the picture that open it up to interpretation."

An idea and a term (punctum) developed somewhat earlier by Berenice Abbott in her writings on Atget. Writing which Barthes was certainly aware of, but lets say he never obviosuly bothered to attributed this to Abbott in his own writings. That is to say the concept and term punctum was never Barthes own - even if he failed to say so....