david_hoya
-
Posts
8 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by david_hoya
-
-
<blockquote>
<p><strong><em>Keith Aldrich, Jun 23, 2009; 05:53 p.m.<br /></em></strong><em>[ ] <br /></em><em>....</em><em>I assure you, that no children will starve to death because the price of K64 has gone up do to it being discontinued.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Gosh Keith, you make it all so simple! But why so many poor examples?<br /><br />The high retail price of limited luxury goods generally reflect high prices at which those goods are being supplied <em>to</em> the retailer. The producer/manufacturer/wholesaler's price rises, therefore the retailer's costs rise, so the retailer's prices rise.<br /><br />If gasoline was being discontinued tomorrow, the people that sell gasoline to the public would be facing a collapse, or major shrinkage, of their businesses. They would therefore predictably, perhaps with some justification, try to earn as much as they could with the last of their supplies. Again, a price rise is related to a cost to the retailer.<br /><br />A retailer selling Kodachrome, as one of 10,000 product lines, is not going to suffer materially when that product is discontinued. To significantly raise their price overnight in response to an announcement of discontinuance is profiteering. It is not suddenly costing them more from Kodak. It may be a relatively small sum of money involved, but the principle is the same. (Petty shoplifting is not as bad as massive fraud, but they should both be discouraged.)<br /><br />Imagine an isolated community ravaged by a hurricane. The only local supplier of building materials can triple his normal (already profitable) prices because people want those materials badly. That is supply and demand at work. But it is not admirable conduct.<br /><br />Pretty much everyone understands how supply and demand work, Keith. But not enough people appreciate that this particular piece of economic dogma is not really a satisfactory justification for every decision that a business takes. It may <em>explain</em> some decisions, but it does not necessarily make them right. Do you understand the distinction between explanation and justification?</p>
-
<p>Ryan, I am not accusing anyone of profiteering. I don't know what B&H are charging, as I do not need to buy any Kodachrome and have not looked. I am simply saying that Larry's (much repeated) view of the world seems to be an unfortunate one. (And if B&H are in fact gouging, perhaps they are not as great a business as you think.)<br /><br />Not sure what Marx has to do with what I posted... The world is not a black and white place, Ryan. It is possible to embrace a profitable business model without profiteering. Believe it or not, some profitable businesses used to run that way. Some still do, probably even in the good ol' US! It does not involve embracing a socialist economy. It just involves an ethical stance that does not place the dollar above <em>every</em> other consideration.<br /><br />You are right that most people don't complain until they personally are affected. That's why businesses continue to get away with this sort of thing... because Joe public doesn't care much until he finally works out that he personally is being screwed. Film is just one of many commodities. You may not understand it, but business practices regarding commodity pricing are a significant matter. Do you ever buy anything, Ryan?<br /><br />I can certainly afford Kodachrome, but I rarely use the stuff.</p>
-
<blockquote>
<p><em><strong>Posted by Larry Dressler , Jun 22, 2009; 10:23 p.m.</strong></em> <br /><em>Rich... I have Stock in Fiat... Want some of that PT Cruser they just got on Fire Sale? Rich.... If you had something like the last glass of clean water after you just drank 3 of them and another man needed water... you did not give it to him you were not only evil but a gouger. If he had muddy water to drink then you are not a gouger just evil. Nothing bad here ... Why did you not buy it Friday?</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Larry - I think everyone understands your POV. You have posted it above about 4 times now: "the law of supply and demand makes everything OK". From a purely economic perspective, what you say about price gouging is right. In the same way that, for example, from a purely economic perspective selling toxic waste to poor countries who will take if off your hands cheap is fine. However, from a human perspective, both practices are disreputable.<br />Your example of the glass of water is of course BS. The last rolls of Kodachrome that a retailer has in stock are not remotely the same as the last glass of water that a man holds. If a retailer was making a good profit from selling Kodachrome at $X yesterday, they will still make a good profit from selling their last rolls at $X today. Life goes on. Pushing up the price simply because they can is profiteering pure and simple. It is greed. It is true that businesses need to make a profit to survive, but that profit is already built into the normal retail price of Kodachrome.<br />The time will eventually come when people will realise that the creed of economics can no longer be the answer to everything. I hope to be around when they do. It will mean a lot of economists out of work and quite a few greedy a-holes having to adjust to a slightly different way of life. Both good things.</p>
-
<p>For my purposes (slow fine art, landscape, still life, travel, portrait), the V system (503 + 50, 80, 150) has been superb. It is actually really light for a MF system and very comfortable to handhold. I have never found any of the problems mentioned in the other posts above to be a concern for me.<br /> It has only ever jammed on me once, because I tried to put a cocked lens on an uncocked body (or possibly vice versa). I have since carried a small screwdriver in my bag for the easy fix, but have never needed it. As QG says, it only really happens if you cock-up.<br /> There is a very tiny amount of play between the body and the back, but who cares? It can be adjusted if you are obsessive about these things but it makes absolutely no difference to how the camera performs. It is part of the beauty of a robust, simple, manual system.<br /> As for the tinny looks, well I guess that is all in the eye of the beholder. Some people think that a nice new Canon digital is gorgeous, but I think it looks crap. I think the chrome Blad is a beautiful, and unquestionably iconic, design. It is hard to go past the Swedes for stylish product design. The sound of the mirror and film wind is loud and distinctive, but I love it. If you are a street shooter, you may only get one candid shot though before everyone knows you are there!<br /> If I could only keep one camera system, I would hang onto the Blad. Maybe not your thing if you need to shoot 1000 images before sundown, but I am in no hurry.<br /> That's just my honest <em>personal</em> experience. Good luck with whatever you go for!</p>
-
<p>I agree with a lot of what you say Stephen. But I think the extent to which there seems to be a war going on depends to some extent on the sort of places/subjects you want to shoot. Try hanging around on the beach at Bronte or Bondi one afternoon and photographing "under the radar". Or anywhere where there are lots of kids around... If you want/need to document the typical Australian summer afternoon on a Sydney beach, who do you approach for permission beforehand? Even assuming someone purports to give you that go-ahead, what do you do with it when some bloke on the sand decides you looked the wrong way at his girlfriend or son? Even if you ultimately decide just to back off, it is pretty handy to know what your legal position is beforehand.</p>
-
<p><em><Stephen Asprey
- That website is for anachists, or people who have a bad attitude. Boy, you must have had some bad experiences.></em><br><em><br /> </em><br>
What a bizarre view of a very sober and informative website! The information on the website is very useful, and the advice given is very reasonable. It is good that Sydney City Council gave you the thumbs-up, Stephen, (to the extent that the issue comes within the Council's powers anyway). However, the danger of asking permission when it is not required is that you instead get a negative response from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. What would you have done then?<br>
I agree that one should be polite, courteous, careful etc, but sometimes that just isn't enough. I will be surprised if you never encounter an over-zealous policeman, security guard or busybody while very politely going about your legitimate business. It may be worthwhile bookmarking the website about photographers' rights in case you need it one day...</p>
-
<p>Hi Ty<br /> Why are you being so defensive? In your first post you asked for feedback and opinions, and asked whether you were missing something. A large number of posters here have offered the opinion that you were in fact missing something. You now seem to be complaining that these opinions are not constructive or supportive... And Jim suggests that this is "just getting stupid". Huh? What did you want? Seems like maybe what you really wanted was vindication, and to hear only from those who thought you got a raw deal. I hope not.<br /> I have read all the posts from start to finish, including all of your own posts. I really do have some sympathy for you, but I agree with those who feel you gave mixed messages. The general public are not pro photographers. They see copyright notices and logos, and think "commercial" and "advertising". If you are really doing something for free as a good deed for a neighbor, forget about putting your name out there, forget about the copyright logo, forget about model releases, and politely decline to put the photos on the web. Take as many photos as you wish, burn them a CD and forget about it. No strings attached - no misunderstandings. In the later unlikely event that someone pirates your photos for commercial purposes, you can still pursue it (if you think it is worth pursuing) in the absence of any copyright logo.<br /> The other thing to remember about Joe Public (including doctors, lawyers, and pro photographers) is that they like free stuff and will try to get as much of it as they can (often without any awareness of being a bit cheeky). You do a good deed, and people will often ask for more. Often they do not know what extra work is entailed, or just don't think very hard about it. You need to know this before you offer free services, and decide what approach to take. At the end of the day, how much you do is up to you - it is not impossible to politely decline to go further than you wish.<br /> Good luck with everything, and don't get too stressed that not everyone here sees your situation in exactly the same way you do!</p>
Set film lower than rating?
in Black & White Practice
Posted