Matthew W. Phillips

12 minutes ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

I propose that there is a difference between products offered and requests for special products.

This is what Chance doesn't seem to get. When I was a teenager, I worked at McDonalds. We had this 39 cent cheeseburger day and we would offset the cost of the cheap cheeseburgers by making them up in huge batches when things were slow so we could quickly get them out when things were busy.

Some savvy customers figured out that the cheeseburgers were not "made to order" and started to request special orders to get fresh ones made. Things like cheeseburger with no cheese, or no onions were common. Thing is, the manager said "no, we wont do that." Customers were angry as though they had a right to exactly what they wanted. That is when the manager said "this isn't Burger King; you don't get it your way. You take the cheeseburger as we made it or you go somewhere else"

53 minutes ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

It's a human right to be able to access a path to employment, not to demand a job. It's not relevant to me whether there was or wasn't a lawsuit. It's the principle of the matter, which is that nobody has a right to your labour.

This times one million. No one has given a compelling reason for why anyone is entitled to anything from another person. 

2 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

...other than that religion in general is a bad idea that doesn't help anyone. In most first-world countries, people in general are becoming less religious, and that can only be a good thing.

P

The first half of your comment was great and I agree completely. This part; not so much. Imagine taking all of the teachings of all world religions and reducing them to this ridiculous comment. It comes off as exceptionally arrogant but not surprising.

Edit: Most "first-world countries" wouldn't even be civilized the way they are today without the influence of religion over time. It is fashionable these days to talk about systems of oppression, intolerance, and injustice from the comfy confines of countries with due process and some level of freedom of speech. Do you think the non-religious regime in North Korea provides the same outlets?

2 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

In which case you are running the risk of being called intolerant towards the beliefs of the intolerant for wishing that people were more tolerant.

I imagine this line sounded better in your head.

7 minutes ago, Uli Meyer said:

Apparently there wasn't a law suit. It was the photographer who went out of his way to sue for something that hasn't happened.

HER way. Since you like to be precise, I thought you would not want to misgender the photographer.

4 minutes ago, Uli Meyer said:

You are digressing. Nobody has forced anyone to take pornographic pictures.

You were making a reductionist argument and I refuted it. Homosexual weddings are just as forbidden in some faiths as pornography is. You are making a qualitative judgment based on your ethics; not the beliefs of others.

4 minutes ago, Uli Meyer said:

But that is exactly what is happening here. Not sure what your argument is.

My argument is that people who offer services should have some level of autonomy to determine what they are comfortable with. Despite the fact that this case was photography, the law is broad and will affect all industries. If such a thing were at the federal level, can you imagine a woman in a brothel being compelled to have sex with a man she didn't feel comfortable sharing her body with? So much for my body, my choice. The law sounds far too broad and sweeping. That is my argument.

1 minute ago, Uli Meyer said:

Matthew, taking photographs is not a forbidden action in anyone's religion.

 

Using that logic, it would not be against any religion to photograph pornographic images. That is not the prevailing opinion in most interpretations. Obviously, most religions predate modern photography so these philosophical questions are subject to some level of judgment.

I am not defending using religion as a crutch to not serve someone. I am more in the camp that, religion or not, people should have the freedom to work on projects that they feel like working on. I don't care if you refuse someone just because you think they look like a jerk, why would anyone have the right to force someone until penalty of law to work with people who they don't want to?

Imagine Hollywood studios being sued if they discriminated against certain body type, etc. It sets a bad precedent but I guess some people have to go down the rabbit hole to see where it leads.

5 minutes ago, Chance Shirley said:

Yeah, a Jewish catering business won’t offer shellfish to anybody. Just like I imagine there are vegan catering companies that don’t prepare meat dishes for anybody.

Cool...so does that means that photographers can take "gay wedding" off the menu?

8 minutes ago, Uli Meyer said:

Sorry Matthew, but that argument doesn't work. A Jewish catering business won't offer shellfish.

I see that you completely missed the point. The point isnt whether they offer shellfish or not. The point is that there is a difference between the person asking you to do something and the action they are asking you to perform.

Most of the "big three" religions in the world have things that are forbidden for the adherents to partake in; sometimes even being associated with the forbidden act is deemed as partly culpable. 

Just now, Chance Shirley said:

But it is fine if the independent caterer refuses to serve a gay man?

I don't believe it is fine to refuse to serve a person because they are gay. But I have no idea why you cannot separate the concept of person vs action. The only way to explain to you the difference is in using a stark example...

Say you had an atheist come into an Orthodox Jewish catering business and demand shellfish for their gathering. The caterer refuses...not because the guy is an atheist but because the action of working with, touching, and preparing shellfish violates Torah. Are they being discriminatory because the guy happens to be atheist?

3 minutes ago, Chance Shirley said:

So you are saying if you run a restaurant, you can refuse to serve a meal to people of color? Like they used to do back in the segregation days?

I am not saying that. I am saying that the rules that apply to businesses apply to work for hire also. An independent caterer cannot refuse to serve a black man, for instance, either. (Assuming that the only reason for not serving them is because they are black)

1 minute ago, Chance Shirley said:

But, again, am I hiring a photographer, or am I paying a business that provides a service (wedding photography) to provide that service?

One would hope that a large scale wedding photography business would have at least one person on staff who wouldn't mind offering services for a gay wedding. Maybe that is a good job interview question?

2 minutes ago, Chance Shirley said:

If there is only one bakery in town and they refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, does a gay couple have to order a cake from out of town? Do they have to go to a different town to get married if none of the wedding venues will rent to a gay wedding?

I don't know anyone who gets married without having all of their "ducks in a row" months ahead of time. Discrimination aside, it could be as easy to foil a last minute wedding as realizing that the venues are all booked, the caterer got the flu, supply chain issues with fabric for the wedding garments, etc, etc. I cannot imagine that any serious wedding would not plan an important event like this well ahead of time.

4 minutes ago, Chance Shirley said:

So, again, the photographer case boils down (to me, at least) to whether the photographer is a worker-for-hire or whether he is a business providing a service to customers.

I don't think the law works like that.

3 minutes ago, Uli Meyer said:

I very much doubt that the photographer who lost the case was forced to do any work. This is about discrimination not about forcing anyone to work against their will.

 

From reading the article, it was more of a "presumptive" lawsuit from the photographer against the law but there was no actual same-sex couple that asked for work. However, the striking down of the photographer's lawsuit is telling other service-based providers that if you deny a potential customer based on these facts that you can be fined $100,000. That is essentially forcing people into taking the work (and it is unclear from the article what standard the photographer would have for denying work; if any)

I am concerned that this will turn into a situation where the burden of proof is on the photographer to establish that what they did was not discrimination as opposed to the burden being on the potential client to prove that it is.

2 minutes ago, Chance Shirley said:

Regardless, it’s easy enough to say “just hire a different photographer.” I just wonder at what point that approach puts an undue burden on people who want photos of their wedding. Probably not a big deal in a big city with hundreds of photographers. But maybe a problem in a small town with only a handful of photographers.

I have a question for you...would you want to hire someone for something important who didnt really want to be there? Would you want to eat a cake prepared by someone who dislikes your lifestyle?

Who in the hell are these people who want to pay for services from people who don't want to serve them? It seems like you will not like the results.

42 minutes ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

But, as I said, my philosophy is simple: STFU and take the cash. Or, decline the job if you must, and don't say why. 

I agree with this completely. If I don't want to do something, I wont do it. But I will not tell you the reason why. I can simply make up any excuse to circumvent the situation. If people don't believe my reasons, that is their business. Never give anyone anything that they can use to cause a problem for you.

58 minutes ago, Chance Shirley said:

DPs, actors, etc. choosing what work to go out for... that’s different than a business refusing to serve someone.

It sounds to me like you are making qualitative judgments that give yourself an out while making others do something they arent comfortable with. It isn't "different." People either have the right to perform their job in a way that they can live with or they don't.

I hope this doesn't get me in trouble for saying but Hollywood has shown in recent years that many in power are hypocrites and preach a certain standard that they cannot live by. I am not "part of the industry" down there so I can view it from the eyes of the average American. People are tired of being preached to about certain progressive causes only to find out that the same industry that has been shoving it down their throats cannot live up to their own standard.

26 minutes ago, Chance Shirley said:

I don’t see how the photography business is any different.

I think the difference lies in what you are forced to be a part of vs who you are serving. What if, as a photographer, you were forced to photograph porn because the client asked it of you? Do you not get the right to a moral (or occupational) objection?

Anyone has the right to service based on who they are; but not all content should be compelled. 

Had the gay couple came in asking for a cake that reads "Happy 5th birthday, Timothy" for their younger brother, I doubt anyone would refuse service to them because they are gay. By making the content of the cake related to the same sex marriage, some may feel that they are endorsing the union by participating in the process. I, personally, wouldn't care about a cake even if I were against same sex marriages as a cake seems harmless to me but everyone has their line they don't wish to cross.

I do wish to ask you if you believe DPs, Actors, etc should be forced to take any work that they are offered provided the rate is paid? Do you think that they have no right to refuse based on morality or ethics? Do female actors have a right to refuse nude roles even? Or does being in a service industry mean that we sell our autonomy and freedom?

1 hour ago, Robin Phillips said:

I'd also say I've been a big fan of the dehancer plugin for resolve, the variable grain size per exposure is great and its halation tool generally sells quite well. 

To counter balance your point, I played around extensively with Dehancer during my trial and I decided not to buy it. I do not believe the tools are worth the money and nothing there cannot be done with plan Resolve and using a few built in plugins (glow, film grain, etc.)

Grading can do a lot for a look if you are shooting raw and can "push the grade" without everything falling apart.

For my own projects, I wanted to shoot 16mm until my camera sitch took a dump. My next favorite is the Bmpcc4k (since I cannot afford an Alexa Mini to play around with) and I have been trying to get the S16 look from the footage I have seen online (until I get my camera to test for myself)

The hardest part about getting the 16mm look right is the softness. It has a certain softness that cannot (or at least I haven't been able to) emulate using any sort of blur. Neither normal blur, Gaussian blur, lens blur, or radial blurs work to get the look. Not sure what it is (maybe the unique DOF?)

For my project, I am shooting BW since I want a retro horror/thriller feel.

Below is a test of the raw sample (from BMD website) and then my BW grade to emulate film (no plugins; just Davinci Resolve and toil). I imagine an Alexa Mini could get raw footage that is much better than a p4k so you have that advantage.

1 hour ago, aapo lettinen said:

would the Eclairs work if you don't want to continue with the CP line cameras?

Not sure...never tried one.

8 minutes ago, aapo lettinen said:

if S16 is needed then the bowtie CP16R is not a good camera choice. But the Cinema Products platform has still has lots of advantages compared to the other alternatives in the approx. same price point:

- very easy to install a basic video tap to even if you have to do it by yourself. This is because the viewfinder prism already works as a beamsplitter so that additional expensive custom optics don't need to be made

- relatively easy to service and maintain. Most other cameras are a mess if you try to repair or replace something but most of the stuff on CP16R is easily accessible 

- easy to customise compared to most other cameras. I guess it is because Cinema Products offered so many customisation options for the cameras by default and thus they had to make it easy to add on features by customers needs and there is some extra room inside the camera for these add ons 

- one can get cheap spare bodies for scavenging mechanical parts and some parts can be even replaced with non original stuff if needed. Arris and especially Aatons are crazy expensive for both the spare bodies and parts but one can easily get one or two spare bodies for parts if using a CP16

- it is possible to do some types of lens mount conversions by yourself if having even basic machining skills and some time to figure it out. On most cameras this is much more difficult but the short ffd of the cp16 mount allows easier modifications

- when I get my electronics update finished and available for order, the camera has better crystal framerate options and counters etc. capabilities than most sub 10K cameras available for purchase at the moment

Maybe your experience differs but having shot film through 3 of these cameras, I have never had rock steady footage. I can always see some wobble or gate weave in all of them. Granted, some might be slight but not completely stable. This is another issue I have had with the camera. I haven't even seen footage online from one of these cameras where the footage was completely stable.

5 minutes ago, Chance Shirley said:

All that said, if someone is going to run a business that discriminates against a group of people based on arbitrary “religious beliefs,” I don’t see how that is any different from white-people-only business policies of the mid-1900s in the U.S.

In the USA, religious beliefs are protected; bigotry is not. Granted, there are some that may see overlap between the two (depending on how you view things). The true test could be what the prevailing view (and tradition) of a certain religious belief is. This is tricky with new belief systems or the "personal code" style of beliefs. For Christianity specifically, this is an easy test. Homosexuality has been condemned pretty much forever in that belief so it really isn't likely to be considered modern bigotry. Whereas, if someone tried to claim that their belief causes them to only serve white people and not people of color, that would be a hard one to justify under any religious system.

7 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

If the only issue with the OP's camera seems to be the soundproofing and it works otherwise OK and the electronics are ok, then it would probably make sense to ask for apartial refund to keep the camera and send it to visual products for an overhaul and repairs. It would need the overhaul anyway if wanting to shoot feature films with it and they can resolve the soundproofing issue at the same time.  

Thanks for the heads up but I will eat the cost of that purchase and probably turn around the camera for a loss when I get the charger. I am done with the Cinema Products platform. It is a mess and there just isnt enough in the way of lens selection. I don't want to invest in a PL mount conversion for this one because I would also want S16 conversion on a PL mount camera and mine 1) was already converted to U16 and 2) Has the bowtie shutter which I heard is not eligible for S16.

I'm going to shoot my short on a BMPCC 4K sadly but I will save my pennies long term to purchase a proper S16 camera package if the opportunity presents itself (Arri SR3, for instance)

1 hour ago, Giray Izcan said:

Or just shoot it on s16. I don't think digital looks anything like 16mm at all. 

Nothing really looks like 16mm...not even other gauges of film. I still stand behind it being the most unique look in existence.

Regardless of a person's political views, I would think that most people in service based industries would wish to retain autonomy over who/what they are associated with. Even those on the liberal end of things may not wish to be forced to, say, shoot a project for a religious group promoting "pray your gay away" or something like that. This is a lose-lose for all involved IMO.

I cannot help but wonder if this type of ruling would also apply to services of a more "personal" nature in areas were they are legal? Would an escort in a legal brothel be required to service any client regardless of how they feel about it? Yikes.