SHORT EXPOSURES: September 23

Smartphone snappers are losers…Selfie destruction…Ilford Photo in new hands…Vet signs on as ‘Canon Ambassador’…Cheap at half the price…

Smartphone snappers are losers

logo

Fifteen percent of respondents felt that getting images from smartphone to printer was too hard.

A recent study of UK smartphone users by Kodak Alaris found that 44 per cent of those surveyed have lost photos because of a broken/corrupt device, and one in 10 people lost photos from a phone as a result of dropping it down the toilet or the like.

However, ninety percent make some attempt to protect their photos, whether it be printing, backing-up on a PC, or posting to social media, the report said. This indicates a far greater awareness of the ‘digital wasteland’ dilemma than in previous surveys of this kind.

More than three in four would print photos taken on a smartphone to put on display, but they are deterred from doing so either due to a perception photos taken on mobile devices aren’t good enough quality (31 percent); are difficult to get from a mobile to a printer (15 percent – they must have tried with that flaky Kodak app!); or because they simply don’t know how to print from a mobile phone (19 percent).

There are many billions of rejects among the trillions of images we are constantly told represent some kind of golden opportunity, ‘if only we could..’: One-third of respondents take anywhere between four and 10 images of the same thing in an attempt to capture the best picture.

The research also showed half of 25-34 year-olds use a cloud storage service to protect their photos compared to just 28 percent of those who are 55 years or older.

One-third of respondents have lost photos through defunct technology such as floppy discs or Zip discs. (Preumably in the 55 or older age group!)

Almost half of people surveyed are worried about being able to access their photos in the future while just over half are worried about technological change, while 30 percent worry they won’t be able to find their images.

Selfie destruction
More people died last year around the world via mishaps with a selfie stick than by shark attack, according to London newspaper, The Telegraph.

The range of activities the Russian Government doesn't want its citizens to be involved in while armed with a selfie stick.

The range of activities the Russian Government doesn’t want its citizens to be involved in while armed with a selfie stick.

On average, shark attacks reduce the world’s population by five people a year. But this year sharks have been a bit more aggro, taking out eight of us. By comparison, there are 12 confirmed cases of death by selfie already in 2015.

Most deaths have been due to people falling off things like mountains while smiling for their cameras. The second most common problem is being slammed into by a moving vehicle. Apparently it can also be damaging to your health to take a selfie when you are posing with a loaded gun.

Other instances of selfie misadventure include getting bitten by rattlesnakes while trying to take a selfie with them, and getting flipped into the air by wild bison at Yellowstone National Park. Then there was the man who was electrocuted while climbing on a train and the pilot who crashed a light aircraft, killing himself and a passenger.

Russia launched a ‘Safe Selfie’ campaign earlier this year to warn of the threat.

Most of the people involved were between 18 and 22 years old. Yet they keep telling us they are the most gifted, well-educated and just all-round superior generation of humans the world has ever seen.

(Here’s a tip: Avoid the temptation to take a selfie while surfing around Byron Bay.)

Ilford Photo in new hands
Harman Technology, manufacturers of the Ilford Photo range of monochrome photographic products, has been purchased by UK based investment company Pemberstone Ventures Ltd for an undisclosed amount

‘We are very excited by the potential of the analog photography movement and believe that Harman is uniquely placed to drive the resurgent film market into the future,’ said Mark Anslow, CEO of Pemberstone Ventures (while sipping on a soy chai).

‘Film has become an interesting medium for young photographers to work with again. We are seeing this very clearly. Our new owners will assist us to connect more effectively to this younger generation in the future, and we will prioritise this as our main goal over the next five years,’ said Peter Elton, managing director of Harman concurred.

‘We remain totally committed to analog photography, and… we can assure all of our customers that we will continue to support them in our customary way for the foreseeable future.’

The Ilford Photo brand was acquired by Harman Technology in a management buyout 10 years ago, follow­ing the bankruptcy of Ilford Imaging UK in 2004.

This acquisition is totally separate from last years’ joint CR Kennedy/Chugai Photo Chemical bid (from joint entity Ilford Imaging Europe GMBH) for the Ilford, Galerie, Prestige and Omnijet brands and associated assets.

Celebrity vet signs on as ‘Canon Ambassador’

(Source: Canon/YouTube)

(Source: Canon/YouTube)

Joining the ranks of Australian personalities Steve Waugh, Lisa Wilkinson, and Guy Sebastian, Canon has appointed celebrity vetinarian Dr Chris Brown (pictured right), as an official brand ambassador.

‘Besides being an esteemed veterinarian and highly-regarded TV personality, Chris is great with a camera and has an incredible dedication to capturing moments in new and creative ways,’ says Jason McLean, director, Consumer Imaging, Canon Australia.

 

Cheap at half the price
Photography website Petapixel is in danger of being crossed off Canon’s Christmas Card list (join the club!) after publishing a shootout comparing the Sigma Art 35mm f1.4 against the recently released Canon 35mm f1.4L II. Prices for the two lenses in the US are US$1800 for the Canon and US$900 for the Sigma.

With about 5000 readers voting, 11 percent thought the Sigma lens was better and 26 percent couldn’t tell the difference.

About 55 percent thought the twice-as-expensive Canon was better, but not worth double the price. Less than 8 percent thought the Canon lens was both better and worth paying twice as much for…

 

 

 


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Related Posts