Ektachrome film comming back !

Raindog said:

Not a license for anyone to take photos but as a way for professional photographers to be policed by requiring a minimal amount of training. But since you have shown such respect with your reply, and this isn't a photography forum, I will end my involvement here and now.

Click to expand...

Wait wait... I think you are arguing this from a consumer protection perspective. But how many people would hire a photographer to document a once in a lifetime event without a referral or a review of his/her portfolio? I don't think its all the photographer's fault if the client didn't due his due diligence.

Aye. see...

Now this has clearly delved too far into politics..I give it a few minutes before it is either locked or gone forever..

I have seen professional photographers shoot absolute rubbish. My wedding photos are are a great example. I have been a photographer at friends weddings and got better photos than the "professionals". Policing will not work. Being a member of a professional organisation is no guarantee either. For many these organisations are just to raise money for the people peddling them. Just pay the money and get a rubber-stamp approval.

Wallace said:

Now this has clearly delved too far into politics..I give it a few minutes before it is either locked or gone forever..

Click to expand...

Fixed it.

gldknght said:

I don't accept that photographers, either professional or otherwise, need to be "policed". We DO NOT LIVE IN A POLICE STATE!!! I have been asked to do some professional photography on occasion. I made it clear to my clients that I am not a professional, and don't have the same equipment that most professionals do. I also made it clear I would not charge them the same prices a professional would. ( By the way, this was way before digital cameras were available like they are now).
I showed my clients some of my work, and they thought I could do the job well enough. Every one was happy. Why would the government need to get involved in this?

Click to expand...

I don't think Raindog is "nuts". He's on the right track, though government licensing is probably not what he's looking for here. Professional associations and accreditations, which if done right so that they have weight and consumers trust them, probably what he's looking for. Consumers do want to be protected from charlatans.

Government licensing is for professions where there are laws that regulate them. License simply means a licensed person can prove knowledge of those regulations, and has minimum skills required by law. Examples are doctors, some engineering fields, plumbers, pilots etc. They apply to non-professionals too. E.g. we all have driver license; you had to take a test to get it, on that test you proved knowledge of the law and skills. Non-commercial pilots is another example.

Plumbers and electricians need to follow regulations (the code), hence they have to be licensed. I'm not aware of any legal requirements the photographers need to follow. There's no law titled "photography code". There's no law that requires or prohibits bouncing the flash off the ceiling in particular application of photography. Hence government licensing doesn't apply to photographers. But as I said someplace far above, it doesn't prevent photographers from establishing their own association with power to issue certificates.

tightwad said:

My wife didn't like the idea of sharing a laundry room with chemicals. Now that we have moved I have a shop where I have set up a dark room. Sometimes you things to keep the household peaceable.

Click to expand...

Have you seen this thing?

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/192897-ARS-IMAGO-LAB-BOX-135-Orange

I saw the kickstarter and immediately forgot about it -- until I got the emailed sales flier from freestyle.

Raindog said:

Good news for photographers but nothing like the shouts of hosanna that you would hear if Kodachrome 25 was reintroduced. I've been both an avid and professional photographer since 1974 and there is NO WAY that I'm going back to film

Click to expand...

Yup. Film died. And for good reasons. No matter how nostalgic we are about it, digital is much more practical. With film, we didn't have Photoshop. We had different types of film optimized for this and that. Most common Photoshop adjustments are simply what you'd get if you used this or that type of film back in the day.

I used to shoot a lot Fuji film back in the day. These days I have Fuji digital camera. If I want quick and good out-of-camera shot with no (or with minimal) editing later, I simply select appropriate film emulation mode. But that requires you to know what Velvia is good for, what Astia is good for, and what they are not good for (never ever shoot kids with Velvia). Etc.

IMO, reintroducing old films in physical format make sense only for the very few wizard artists that have their own darkrooms. For the rest of us, reintroducing them in digital format, like Fuji did in their digital cameras, is what makes sense. Here's the raw sensor data, this is how Kodachrome reacted to light, produce JPEG that is indistinguishable from the Kodachrome 25 shot.