Karim D. Ghantous

I, for one, welcome our new digital overlords. That is not a fact. Not in the film industry (or any industry I know of), not in politics, and not in society.

No, not at all. If gays are more celebrated than straight people, it doesn't take anything away from straight people. If women are celebrated, it doesn't take away anything from men. It might be pointless but if people are having fun doing it, it's fine. However, if you start issuing quotas, like how many women must be present on film sets, or how many female DPs must be nominated at awards ceremonies, then we are going to have a very real problem.

I don't agree with that. I would go so far as to say that some groups of people are actually celebrated more than others. That's not a bad thing as long as you aren't taking anything away from me. Celebrate all you like, it's all good. All I know for a fact is that I do my best to treat all persons fairly.

Slavery is what happens when the free market is not allowed to operate. In any case, the side effect of this deprivation of liberty is that slavery only gets the slave owner so far. Even if you agreed with slavery, it isn't very useful. Segregation was allowed by the Supreme Court under the pretext of "separate but equal". Well, the "equal" part of that didn't last very long. But, involuntary segregation is antithetical to a free market. Sometimes, producers interfere too much in the practical choices of a DP or a director, and in some cases, the end result is not optimal. The free market is not a force that can rush in and save the day if it isn't allowed to function. If it were a force, there would have been no Soviet Union, no Nazi Germany, no Cultural Revolution, etc, etc, etc. If your primary focus is your victimhood, you will be a victim forever. We have all been on the receiving end of injustice. We can either complain and sulk, or we can rise above it. Pick one.

Hold up. Hold up. I didn't say "unrestrained". I said, "free market economics". Everything works better with at least some boundaries. Those boundaries prevent extremes. This is about choice, not chaos. Let's not get nuts here. You should not shut up about injustice. But you should never allow yourself to be a victim.

Yes, but as far as I can understand, legitimate discrimination goes in one direction only. I can't discriminate against you for your faith, but I can for the sake of mine, so to speak. One of Jehovah's Witnesses can refuse to make you a custom birthday cake, because Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in birthdays, as they see it as an artefact of paganism (but then, much of the world is, so what can you do). But they can't refuse to sell you a can of beans if they were a cashier at a supermarket if you were openly pagan. At the end of the day, free market economics makes all this redundant, and provides a bottom-up solution. If one baker won't bake you a cake, another one will, and they will probably get free and positive publicity for it. My personal take is for people to stop making themselves victims. Of course now I'm going beyond the OP.

I propose that there is a difference between products offered and requests for special products. I don't have to make you a cake. But if I do make one that is offered to the public, I certainly should not have the right to refuse you that cake. Your $10 is as green as the next man's. I have photos on Unsplash, for example. Anyone can use them. Private citizens or billion dollar corporations can take them and use them as they please. (In fact, one billion dollar corporation did use one of my photos, and it made my day!) It would be illegal and immoral to refuse someone that licence for any reason. However, if you asked me to take a photo of a cupcake with a candle on it, I could legally and morally refuse, and I don't have to give you a reason.

"Very droll, Humphrey."

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.

That would be mean. But refusing to cater to a same-sex wedding is a matter of principle. I would happily cater to a same-sex wedding, but I wouldn't expect you to. Keep in mind that in the past, there were quite a few conventional weddings where one of the partners was gay, and it was usually the groom. Nowadays, maybe not so much. But, I'd like to know if any photographer then or now would refuse a job where only one of the couple was gay. I really don't care. Nobody has a right to my labour. It is a human right to withhold labour, not to demand it. I'll repeat this, because it bears repeating: either take the cash or decline and say nothing. This specific problem then goes away.

Yes, DPs do choose. That's the point. Photography does not separate the product from the person. You're not rocking up in some drive-through ordering a full day session with fries. Photography is also not an essential business, and in addition to that, there are lots of them about. If one photographer doesn't want to take the job, ten others will. It is absolutely different. The photographer did not refuse because of sexuality. I think his lawyer messed up this one, perhaps. Or, the photographer wrote or said something egregious. 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'm on the side of the photographer - only because the wedding was same-sex. I affirm same-sex unions personally, but I would never demand that others must. I respect the photographer's stance, as there are good arguments against same-sex marriage. I just have a different opinion, and I don't think I should rant about why. The photographer could be more shrewd, though. He could have not have given a reason for refusing. Or just charged a higher price. I was once asked for a quote by a non-Christian couple. I didn't get the job, but I never once thought that they weren't worthy of my work. But, the OP's point is still valid: can I be forced to do a job I don't want to do? Isn't there a word for that?

I'm interested!

Because high resolution images can provide law enforcement useful data when it comes to solving cases. Recall the recent story about Gabby Petito. A couple, on their road trip, captured Gabby's van, parked by the side of the road, on their dash cam. That helped LE find Gabby's body more quickly than they otherwise would have. If the dash cam footage were of higher quality, it could have yielded perhaps more clues.

There is nothing wrong with that at all - in fact I think about cameras, lenses, lighting and stuff all the time. But I respectfully suggest that you read carefully what David wrote in response. Your understanding of optics and so on is not accurate. I'm not having a go, I'm just saying, keep learning, keep questioning.

I'm no lighting expert. And I haven't seen either film you mention. But I did a search for frames from Little Miss Sunshine (which isn't yet on film-grab.com). Seems to me the following are true: - Natural light when out of doors - Well lit interiors that still provide some kind of contrast - Everything, save for a car interior shot, was properly exposed or even slightly overexposed, but still disciplined - Nothing dark or moody as per The Batman - No affectations like pointless color grading - everything looks natural, mostly clean but not always - No apparent use of haze - Deep focus over shallow focus as much as possible, except for close-ups - The film seems to be never over-lit, and in some places you could argue it was under-lit

I just had a thought. The closest we have to this is cross-processed C-41. In fact, I'd like to try an experiment: shoot C41 with a colour chart, cross process in E6, then correct the colour. Could be interesting?

Right now, there are two choices: negative film with high DR and low contrast; and positive film with low DR and high contrast. Why is there not a third option: a positive film with low contrast, and DR just as high as with negative film? You might wonder what the point would be with such a stock. Well, I am not totally sure myself. But imagine having a positive stock, which does not need to have an orange mask, that would be much easier to scan. Transparency film is its own reference - at least in theory. The other bonus is that positive film is more human readable than negative film is.

I do, yes. I also remember how they wanted to bring back Kodachrome. Well, I appreciate the fact that they had those intentions. But hey, miracles can and do happen!

I joined RedUser because of the cameras, and I stayed because of the people.

I think a psychologist could explain it better. But, it's easier to quit than to create. It's easier to slide down a hill than to climb it. It's easier to make yourself into a victim than to fix your life. Etc.

Actually, for some it is just an exercise. Kind of like running a marathon. It's a pretty big challenge. Some are delusional, of course, but you can't help that. I've recently heard of two stories about film makers who are, or have been, in huge debt. Ironically, the one who had to sell his house was in less debt than the one who went to film school. The former pointed out that his exercise in futility was his "film school". I wish this on nobody, of course. Learn from the mistakes of others.

That makes me think a little bit. If Fuji doesn't want to make film anymore, then I'm not sure why Sony would want to. Fuji is doing terrific business with Instax, though. I hear that they were just about to give up on it when sales spiked, and the rest is history. It's quite amazing what has happened to 35mm SLR and RF cameras, too. The price for a Leica M6 is not far off that of a new Fuji GFX 50R. Think about that!

If only there was a Kodak ColorPlus 200 of movie stocks. It's less than half the price of Portra. A pack of ten rolls of ColorPlus costs AU$80. A pack of five rolls of Portra 160 costs $100. $8 vs $20.

AFAIK, RedScale film has a slightly lower ASA rating. In addition to that, the Remjet is even more dense than regular film (I think?), and if you shot through the Remjet, you'd be noticeably underexposed. So obviously you threaded the film the correct way.