Karim D. Ghantous

I don't know much about semiconductors. Except that they went from TTL to CMOS ages ago. And we are now approaching hitting the 'quantum limit' where the gates can't get any smaller. However... you have made an assumption about semiconductor manufacturing. I would posit that CPUs take up less surface area than in the past, so that one wafer can hold more CPUs. I could not say if this process per se has become cheaper. Now, film formats have a constant surface area. You could argue that a future emulsion technology will let you use a smaller gauge for the same quality. But film doesn't follow the progress curve of semiconductors.

By "people" I just meant photographers. Don't get me wrong: there are more photographers using M10's than M8's. I'd be very happy with an M8 or M9, but for one single factor: the shutter mechanism is obnoxious. Otherwise I can live with the limited buffer, or the slow transfer speeds, or the slow frame rate, or the slow image review, or the low res LCD. I'm a fan of the Mamiyas, but more so the Hasselblad H series, as they are not quite as noisy. If I were a wildlife pro, I'd be trying to make the GFX work for that. I think it can be done.

20Mpx is easily enough. People are still using the M8 today. And the D4, and so on. If I want high image quality, I will have to go to medium format. A GFX 50 is the best buy in digital cameras today if image quality is the priority. Having said that, modular MF systems are also good value. They're just bigger and have a flappy mirror. And that's without taking film into account, which does muddy the equation, as I think you might agree. 50mm on an SLR is way too short for a headshot, but long enough for a full body shot. Headshots need over 100mm, probably 135mm. Some portrait photographers like 300mm. If you think an iPhone is a serious alternative to a mirrorless camera... hoo boy! Even with an optical zoom, no, I don't think so. ? Matthew, I also like the Fuji XT system. I am still tempted by it. They are better than any 36mm system for most tasks. I love their philosophy and their colour science.

Interesting take, Tyler. I have four mirrorless bodies, the best being an E-M5 II and an E-M1 II. The 5 is compact and has okay ergonomics. The 1 is just the right size for a pro camera, and has near-perfect ergonomics. So mirrorless systems let you choose your size-ergonomics balance. I'd prefer to shoot a 300mm on an Olympus than a 600mm on a Sony. And yes, quietness matters. I can see a future where the press will not be allowed to use cameras that make noises. If your'e shooting golf, you will get better images with an A9 than with any DSLR.

I moved to mirrorless years ago - maybe 2012, 2013. I will have to check. Of course in those days, they weren't suitable for everything. But I could see the future already. There was denial, of course, but I have seen that script before. Remember Macromedia Flash? The DSLR finally died completely with the introduction of the Sony A9. The A9 isn't an ideal choice for anything except the subjects it was designed for. That's a fact. But, it can do things that even the D6 cannot, and the D6 is a newer camera.

My opinion, not being an expert in economics: it's better to just buy the product and use it. This is what I want to do, starting this year, if the budget allows - which it should. There's also Gresham's Law: "Bad money drives out good money." IOW, you're going to spend your fiat dollar but conserve your silver dollar, even though both have the same legal value.

Phil, thank you for doing that. That was very illuminating. It shows us that the price of silver is not a significant cost. But now let's go to Matthew's post where he proposes that the price of silver might go as high as 450% from here. So roughly that's a four times increase in the price. So, let's assume that the cost of silver is now 4 x $15.853, which equals 63.412. We already have $15.853 worth of silver in that 400ft roll, so let's add (63.412 - 15.853) to that, the difference being $47.559, which comes to $375 or so. The price increase is 14.5%, rounding it up to 15%. Not stupidly huge, but it will add up to lots of dollars over time. AFAIK they all have either gold or copper or both.

I really like the 'raw' look of the frame you posted. It has that 1980s/90s look to it. That's a clue for those who wish to replicate that look & feel. Just for the sake of a casual comparison, Eyes Wide Shut was shot on 5298 (that hasn't been made for 20 years). Beautiful stuff. 5219 is technically better but otherwise I don't have a preference. You have my undivided attention.

In a recent thread, there was talk of film prices rising by as much as 30%. Keep in mind that a turnkey Red Scarlet kit can be had for under $5,000. And on the very low end, a BMPCC can be had for something like $500. And those old cameras put out a lovely image. Never mind the hybrid cameras like the GH5S etc. Take your pick. This price increase will be due solely to the potential rising price of silver. Back in the '90s I wanted to be an industrial chemist (and before that, a mechanical engineer). My school grades and lack of motivation eventually made both of those dead ends. But it was photography which was the hook. And although I had no money to speak of, I already gotten into photography by about year 9 or so. I had read about something called aniline dye (see: GAF corp.), and I thought, maybe there is a technology that can replace silver with something that you can make cheaply. So far, I don't know of any potential silver replacements. If we don't find an alternative to silver, I don't think that film is going to last as long as it should. And I don't like that idea.

That begs the question. I'm not saying anything about the ACLU, I'm just saying that their existence isn't evidence of anything. IOW, it's not an argument. Wow, I had no idea about this case. I wonder, though... was the plaintiff in this case lawsuit shopping, do you think? It looks like it. Either way I think the Supreme Court ruled on common sense. It should not have needed to go that far though. The victory was important because it upheld the principle that a person may withhold their labour. The actual decision was for other reasons, but I'm surprised that they didn't go further. Then again, maybe the bakers' lawyer mentioned the principle that I am holding to. That principle is, as far as I'm concerned, the whole premise of this thread. Footnote: there is no such thing as gay marriage, there is only same-sex marriage. This means that I can marry another straight man purely for tax purposes. Actually that would have been a fantastic premise for a Seinfeld episode...

I have misunderstood. I thought you meant today, not the past. But, regarding slavery, I celebrate its demise in the West, and I also anticipate is eradication worldwide. It seems, though, that some people still wallow in grievance and regret. Thankfully, they are the minority. As for women voting, there was a good reason why they couldn't vote: the draft. So much so that women were afraid that if they got voting rights, they would be eligible for selective service. Thankfully that did not happen. My knowledge on that subject is limited and the laws in some American states may have been different. In any case, there were female politicians, AFAIK. Maybe I'm wrong about that? Where did you get the idea that trans people have fewer legal protections than others? If that is true, please bring this to the attention of the Supreme Court immediately. As for the priesthood, so what? I don't care and I suspect that most RCs don't care either. You are aware that there are women's and men's only private clubs, I assume. Same difference.

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.