That's a question I got a lot when I sold photo gear and I'm still getting it now. Last night, a lady was comparing the regular glossy screen to the anti-glare one on the laptops. They do look different but she was distressed because she didn't know which one was "right."

*PISH* Give me a color slide any day:-) Seriously, there is something satisfying about making a physical object that actually exists. Making a string of numbers whose appearance varies considerably depending on how it is rendered just doesn't feel the same. Or maybe I'm just old fashioned.

I do think that the analog still has a place in this world, even if it's only in the way people think about stuff. Are we hard wired to think in an analog fashion about certain things or is it just the way we were taught?

This came from the website of the Yemen Observer, one of the English language newspapers in Yemen.



Her name is Boushra Almutawakel and she is a photographer in Yemen. Needless to say, a female photographer in Yemen is a rather unusual thing. You can read the article via the link above to read more about her. I want to say a few things about this picture.

There's no way to know what she meant by it but I find it quite powerful. Many people in the US and Europe see the hijab as a repressive aspect of Arab culture. Of course those people have probably never asked one of those women why they cover up. Part of it is simply dressing appropriately in that culture. A woman here in the US might have a reason to go topless, but she would have to think about it long and hard before she did so. It just isn't done for the most part.

A more important part of the hijab is its religious importance for those women. By wearing the hijab, they reaffirm what they believe. Here in the US and in Europe, it is also a marker of her faith. Women who wear hijab here know that they are in some senses representing Islam so they better act accordingly. I wish more people that wore a cross would remember that as well.

The hijab is very powerful symbolism when taken in context of faith. Women are quite literally taking refuge under it and by extension Islam. That is why, in my opinion, wearing the American flag as hijab is so powerful. It is not just a religious statement, it is political.

Of course, it is the kind of politics that I like. She is free to do this, the US constitution guarantees her freedom to not only make this statement but to be a Muslim as well. It is everything that makes this nation great.

She may have been making an "in your face" statement to Americans with it. She might have targeted those people that conflate Christianity and being American or it may have been some sort of statement about the so called War on Terror. I have no idea, but that's one of the great things about art, the artist does their thing and we are left to makes sense of it. What I love about it is going to piss some others off. How an American acts will probably be different than someone living in the middle east. The many different responses that can come from this is what makes it a great work in my opinion.

You go girl!

Technorati Tags:
freedom, gitmo, islam, middle east, politics, religious freedom, yemen, art

I continue to dig through the archives... Here's a type of work I did in school but really haven't done since. Working in a studio is a lot of fun, it's a totally different type of workflow. The models hated working with me, I would give them very little direction. I usually found the best expressions and poses when they were bored to tears. I got some decent shots, but I rarely got people to sit for me more than once... Anyway, as usual, you can find them here.

Some new scans. Turns out that not only was their chemistry off, it was very different the days I took it in. That means a lot more work than there should be. I've also notices more pinks than the original scans. After a more careful look, I think that they had routinely clipped the red channel making most pinkish things just red... Anyway, I'll continue to go through this as I can...

I started rescanning some of the pictures I had developed in Yemen last night. I wondered why I had so many problems trying to correct those initial scans. Turns out that not only did their scanner suck, but they didn't seem to keep their chemistry in balance either. The negs are much less contrasty than they should be. With just a little bit of work, and a better scanner, I getting more detail and the colors are much much better. This will be slow going for me, I'm still trying to scan that large batch of negs. So I will do my own stuff after I've done the days alloted scanning for profit. Still, there aren't a lot of images, and it is certainly worth the effort. This is my first real attempt at scanning color negs. It would have been nice to have properly developed ones, but oh well...

As you may know, I still prefer shooting on film when "it matters." There are a variety of reasons, but there is no denying the connivence of digital. I have a little thing from Sony that has really come in handy, but there are some big problems with it. Framing in the sun is mostly a guessing game due to the wildly inaccurate viewfinder and the lcd getting blown out in the sun. There is also the problem of speed, it takes a little time to focus. Of course the itty, bitty sensor in it means that you are going to have pretty noisy pictures unless you use a flash or shoot in the sun (see above).

You can get around all of that by using a digital SLR. Yes, they are larger, but the usual complaint about them is that they are so expensive. Well, that used to be a real complaint, but I'll let you in on a little secret. The technology has come so far so fast that even SLRs that are a couple of generations back are just fine for fun shooting. Here's the other thing, digital cameras depreciate like computers.

I'm thinking about getting one of the Olympus SLRs before I go on my next trip. They have some issues, and compared to some of the new cameras, I'm not sure I'd get one. This works in your favor when you look at used ones though. They seem to sell for less than the "big" boys like Canon and Nikon. Here's the other thing I like about used Olympus cameras, they all have an anti-dust filter in front of the sensor. Not only will this keep dust out of your pictures, it also precludes idiots screwing up the sensor when they try to clean it. For all of you lens geeks out there, there are adaptors that allow you to put damn near any SLR lens on the Oly cameras as well. You can pick up an E-300 kit for about $250, probably even less if you're patient. That's pretty freaking cheap for that kind of picture quality.

Yes, the new cameras are better. Yes, the olympus system is a little more limiting than the other brands. But at $250, who cares? It's a disposable camera (and lens). You get a big step up in image quality for the price of a middling point and shoot. Digital finally makes some sense for me. It's not going to replace my film cameras for everything (My medium format folders are still smaller and have a unique look) but for a lot of stuff it will... Go take some pictures!

I finally got the film developed from Beth's wedding and there were even some decent pictures on it. It was shot with my Konica Hexar camera. I haven't put too much film through it, so I'm still figuring it out. I need to figure out the framing when I'm wearing my glasses, I don't seem to notice the top frameline in a vertical position. Need more practice...

You can see them here