jodys
-
Posts
920 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by jodys
-
-
<p>From having read the article, no.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Well, that wasn't much. Some dude provokes a member of the police force by continuing to take photos of a fatal crash scene and wow - he must be so proud - he gets his reaction.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He wasn't close enough to the crash site to see the actual crash, and he was there taking pictures before the crash and the police presence. For that matter, he wasn't taking pictures of the police, either. He was an amateur photographer, not a rubbernecker.</p>
-
<p>Really?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>while the government surveillance issue mostly rears its ugly head under extraordinary circumstances (e.g. when martial law might be imposed).</p>
</blockquote>
-
<p>Really?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I see. So the grid you are talking about are a couple of minimum wage security officers following you around (via cameras) for 60 minutes as you walk around their store. I can live with that. What is going to happen in 20 yrs from now, idk.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The new NSA center in Utah is having problems with infrastructure, such as securing enough electricity from the grid to run it's computers, and getting enough water for cooling. FWIW, what they've admitted to doing (collecting telephone metadata) could be done with a small setup of a couple of desktop servers with RAID storage (just for an idea of scale).</p>
<p>Still, this risks devolving into politics completely divorced from artistic or commercial photography. One must not lose sight of the fact that this ubiquitous spying is done with a public/private partnership that includes not only government, but the manufacturers of all of the hardware we use (if they don't cooperate, they don't sell in the USA), the developers of all of the software we use (if they don't cooperate, they get squeezed out), and the companies that run the infrastructure all of this is operating on (the Internet).</p>
<p>There are increasingly complex legal issues behind this as well. You may buy and own your latest Canon or Nikon, but it's a computer, and you don't own the software that came with it. You license it. They can pull that license at any time, leaving you with an expensive paperweight. They can craft their license so as to restrict photography to pre-approved subjects or locations, and they are legally (perhaps not yet physically) able to remotely disable your camera if you violate their terms of service. As with the latest generations of home gaming systems, the spying can be built-in and you won't know about it even if you read the legalese in the TOS you're agreeing to every time you press the shutter button.</p>
<p>I read up on <a href="http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/dmg-mori-gildemeister-maho-cnc/mori-ellison-gyroscope-unlocking-273841/">this </a>lately, if you're wondering where cameras and cell phones are headed (IMHO). Briefly, companies that have purchased (own outright) high-end CNC machines can't even move them inside their shop because the machine will lock up if it's built-in GPS and/or gyro detect that it has been moved. They then have to wait for the manufacturer to unlock them or send them a code before they can resume using them. If you don't think this is coming to consumer electronics, next time you're out of range with your smartphone, try all your apps to see which ones won't work without network access. Does your flashlight app really need to be connected to the Internet to work?</p>
-
<blockquote>
<p>Good points! However, let's say the person next to you takes a selfie, and you're in the background with your view camera. That means your geotagged image is but an upload away from the cloud. An app that this person has given permission to access the camera might upload the photo to a data network. Or perhaps the person posts the photo to facebook or some other social media, and the image is digested for useful info from there. Either way, you and your view camera are tracked through no fault of your own. And thus you could become part of the 100% that is tracked.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Possibly. Or not, if I were wearing a hoodie and made sure to look sideways and down when that person took their selfie. </p>
<p>Those who have reason to be anonymous can defeat most of the modern technological surveillance state, if they're mindful of what they do. I seem to remember that OBL gave such directives to his operatives as to make sure they lived in areas with trees, because this would defeat satellite recognition. And while OBL was eventually found and killed, the team that killed him were possibly no more than 50% sure that it was him living in that compound. And this after a decade of the most intense manhunt the US gov't could mount (I don't want to get political, this is just a comment on the state of tracking abilities built into our technology, and the possibility of defeating them).</p>
<p>I can't escape the conclusion that the purpose of the surveillance state and the spying built into our technology (including our cameras) is not 'security', but rather 'control'. For 'control', it is not necessary to track every single person; it is enough to merely give the impression of doing so. Hence the semi-secrecy, the fact that we know our cameras have GPSs built into them, but we're not sure what they do.</p>
-
<p>They are indeed able to follow & build dossiers on many people, perhaps now on a majority of law-abiding people. I do believe that with a minimum of training, smart non- law-abiding people are able to defeat many of these tracking methods. Stealing license plates, wearing a hat or a hoodie & looking down (!) in public, not using cell phones, etc.</p>
<p>AS someone who has deliberately unplugged from all social networks, refuses 'permissions' to share as a matter of routine, has never signed up for a 'loyalty' card or even used a credit/debit card for routine purchases, etc., the argument that business can track us all legally anyway so why worry rings a little hollow in my ears. No, business cannot track us legally if we do not sign all those permissions and tick all those little boxes and play their games. And no, the gov't cannot track us legally either, which is why they play around with contractors and reciprocal agreements with friendly gov'ts to skirt the laws. </p>
<p>How does this relate to photography? Well, I've heard persistent rumors that all new cameras are fitted with GPS chips and geotag photos (possibly outside of the metadata we are able to edit?), and there are also rumors of building in software to prevent cameras from taking photos in certain locations. I heard that scanner/printer combos were already configured to prevent people from photocopying currency (don't know if this is true, because I've never personally tried), however I believe the technology permitted this to be done years ago, so the others are not so far-fetched. One can argue that there are legitimate gov't reasons to require all of these technological implementations on security grounds; however there is no legitimate reason to do all of this in secret. The needs of the citizens to know what their gov't is up to override, IMHO, whatever 'security' gains the gov't expects to have by keeping it all secret.</p>
<p>I think 'cloud computing' was supposed to be what was going to tie all of this in to something gov't/industry (increasingly the same thing) would be able to do what Sarah posited. I think the current backlash against it is only a minor setback, future technologies will have cloud computing built in and we will have no choice but to use it, or remain technological Luddites.</p>
<p>Speaking of which, I'm pretty sure none of these technological bugs/features are built into my 1888 view camera. Nor is my film or developer technically enabled to prevent me from doing whatever I want with them (or trying, at least). They will never reach 100% of the population, except by force.</p>
-
<p>I have all manner of expensive, professional gear sitting in camera bags. I still take better photos with a $5 flea market 35mm p&s and some expired film.</p>
<p>I suppose it depends on 1) your creative process, and 2) your bank account. If 1) requires that you periodically buy new gear, and 2) you can afford it, then go for the Sony.</p>
-
<p>I don't think anyone in their right mind would attempt to switch out shutters in a Topcon Unirex. Considering that the camera has very little value even working, and the amount of time it would take to swap the shutters, the idea is far-fetched.</p>
<p>That doesn't mean he didn't steal a part or two under the top plate, but even that is unlikely. If he had done so it would most likely be for cosmetic reasons, and you would spot the damaged part. I think it's most likely just bad luck, and it happens when you sell old cameras on fleabay.</p>
-
<p>I have had both of these in the FD version, far as I know the optics haven't changed. The 600 was noticeably sharper.</p>
-
<p>I've had one, it works fine with alkaline cells. Takes excellent photos, the lens is great and the rangefinder quite pleasant to use. It's not a toy camera.</p>
-
<p>For some reason the video reminded me of Leni Riefenstahl's People of Kau. Specifically the photograph of the naked black man walking behind her <a href="/leica-rangefinders-forum/0078CL">carrying her camera bag</a>.</p>
-
<p>There is anonymity in the trillions of photos posted online, as well. I do believe the internet has fundamentally changed how we form social groups, in that we can be members of a community without ever meeting face-to-face or even knowing the gender of the people we consider 'friends'. And having many worlds just a google search away, we can find niches or subcultures galore.</p>
<p>It's pointless to speculate on the value of this change, whether the world was a better place when you learned about a new, raw band in a club toilet sharing a bag of cocaine, or through the comments on your favorite tattoo or white supremacy discussion board. The change is here, there's no going back. It remains to be seen how the NSA and every damn government in the world spying on every citizen of every country will change the internet's role in creating subcultures, whether we will see a proliferation of off-the-net sites, encryption, juvenile codes, or a return to face-to-face human interaction.</p>
-
<p>No thanks on the audible warnings. I did a wedding once with a Metz flash that had a beep for when the flash was charged enough for another shot, and another beep (actually, 4!) to indicate the auto circuit had received enough light to cut off the flash (therefore exposure was probably ok). Useful features, yes, but during the ceremony I couldn't remember how to turn them off. The switch is hidden under the head, you have to lift it to 'bounce' position and pull out the wide angle diffuser to access the switch. 20 years later, I remember, but not during the ceremony.</p>
<p>It's bad enough having people with ipads and whatnot blocking everyone's view, can you imagine the chaos if everyone's P&S was 'warning' at the same time that their camera's flash could not possibly illuminate the couple in the front of the church being married?</p>
-
<p>I am perfectly willing to wait as long as it takes for the forum to come back online, but I really hope they haven't lost the last x years worth of posts. There was/is a wealth of information on the forum.</p>
-
<p>There's an old Chinese curse, apparently, that goes like this: "May you live in interesting times."</p>
<p>Like it or not, we do now live in interesting times, and there are a lot of frustrated people who do not have any sort of outlet to discuss politics and the like. For what it's worth, the discussion on pnet has not been dominated by professional trolls (I have met many, in a previous forum life), and discussion has been positively civilized compared to the 'open' internet. I hope the mods take this into account when they decide what to do with the off topic forum.</p>
-
<blockquote>
<p>It dramatically demonstrates one of the advantages of smaller film formats.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm pretty sure you could enlarge that 5x7 neg from the article to show the expression on the player's face, the stitches on his glove, and possibly individual blades of grass on the field (assuming the photographer was competent). So tell me again about the advantages of small formats?</p>
-
<p>They actually turn on/off 120 (or 100) times per second (each cycle has one +ve and one -ve peak, during which the lamp is on). Try lowering your shutter speed to ensure you get, say, 2 complete cycles of AC power (1/30s). But far as I know, there is little difference in the tubes themselves between manufacturers that would affect flicker. The real difference is in going from older, magnetic ballast fixtures to newer, electronic ballasts, with T8 or T5 lamps.</p>
<p>See the section in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_ballast">Wiki </a> on electronic ballasts for an explanation of why this reduces flicker and should stabilize color output.</p>
-
<p>An attempt to prevent arguing parties from continuing closed threads by simply opening new ones with the same subject?</p>
<p>I would be sad to see the off-topic forum closed completely, I value reading the opinions posted there.</p>
-
<p>It's a paperweight, overpriced by about $880.00</p>
-
<p>I lived through one major catastrophe, the Quebec Ice Storm of '98. We lost electricity for 13 days, as I remember, and being dependent on a well we had no water. Fortunately we had a wood stove and lots of wood, we survived by collecting fragments of ice that fell off trees and such and melting in a pot on the stove. It took several hours to get enough to flush the toilet, or do a cursory sponge bath. Plus, the stove had to be fed every few hours, plus both my wife and I were essential workers 1) for getting the electricity back on and 2) for caring for a large number of seniors in a shelter. I took a total of 2 photographs during this ordeal.</p>
<p>Assuming some catastrophe that left me with free time, I don't know what else I would do but take photos. I assume I have enough crap in the house to manage something, I have hundreds of sheets of large format film, lots of roll film and graphic arts film, hundreds of sheets of paper, and enough chemicals to last several months of shooting. I have enough know-how to rig a LED/battery source for my enlarger, and I have the materials on-hand. If I lost all of this, for instance I was displaced, I would have to make do with a P&S digital, phones, and a solar charger (which I have). But I think the desire to document the event would be quite strong, and the OP's question is not trivial nor is it a waste of time. Beyond the ubiquitous iPhone video footage we're getting of every world event, there is a need to document events in a more thorough manner so that we may, some day, make sense of the unthinkable.</p>
-
<p>I for one am grateful to those who choose to share their camera-related knowledge on the great big Internets so that others may enjoy, and perhaps even cultivate an obsession of their own. </p>
<p>While I do enjoy the feeling of holding a classic camera in my hands (like the first SLR with auto-exposure, the Konica Autoreflex of 1965, with the full/half frame capability), I have to say that cameras are, for me, tools to make pictures. I have very few 'shelf queens'. But the question "why?", on such a subject, is irrelevant. Why do we collect, compile, investigate, create, share? Because when we stop doing so, we die. You might as well ask why we are human.</p>
-
<p>He would be in Guantanamo, Tasered and arrested by an overly zealous rent-a-cop who thought his French accent was Arabic, and that he must be a terrorist because why else would he be wandering around at night with a camera.</p>
-
<p>I skimmed it up until the 3rd or 4th mention of Google Street View. I have nothing further to say.</p>
-
<p>Yes. Below: Periflex 1, unaltered, and Periflex Gold Star with red snakeskin covering.</p>
<div>
</div> -
<p>I have no idea what you all are talking about.</p>
Photographing or Shooting?
in Casual Photo Conversations
Posted