Which one is better?

“Can you tell which camera takes better pictures?” Camera Showdown greets their visitors with this question. After that you select two different cameras and vote for the best ten pictures out of 20 and now you know which camera is the best. Despite the way the question is posed, it helps raising a good point.

With digital photography, the popularization of DSLRs and camera phones, people seem worried about your gear, how many megapixels, what brand of camera, what is the size of your memory card. All valid, but not very important questions. Back in the day where people were shooting film, except for some gear fanatics, no one really cared if you used a Olympus Trip 35, a Pentax K1000 or a Leica R4 or if you shot using Fuji, Kodak or Ilford. What mattered was that you took nice pictures regardless of the tools.

On the other hand, tools can indeed help (and specific tools will be needed for certain tasks). If you’re photographing a high speed event a phone or compact camera with huge shutter lag you will lose that moment or it is very likely your photo will be blurry and/or noisy under low light conditions, so a DSLR (or at least a mirrorless body) may be necessary to get the job done. If have ever tried to photograph an event using a bridge camera with no hot shoe, odds are the quality was pretty bad. I did it with the camera provided by employer and although there were usable photos, most of them were shaky and taken too late. But if the tool limitations are minimized or eliminated (shooting a slow moving subject on a sunny day, for example) and all that counts is the artistic vision, a crappy photographer will still be crappy whether they’re using an LG Easyshot or a Hasselblad H4D-60.

And if you run your showdowns with high-end DSLRs against camera phones and compacts, it is very likely that the more expensive the system the better chances it has on winning, not because it takes better pictures, simply because occasional photographers will probably never invest $1,500+ on a camera body plus the lenses, but will just get just about anything that is at hand or a cheap compact on sale. Also, it is more probable that people who spent more money on gear will spend more time on post-production.

A Man pushed to Death and Ethics

I have read several articles today on the cover the New York Post ran of Ki-Suck Han about to be hit by a subway train in New York. The debate is whether or not the photographer, R. Umar Abbasi, was ethical in snapping the shots.

On his version, he used the camera flash to try to alert the conductor of the train. It is likely that was the only thing he could do, assuming that everything developed very quickly and he wouldn’t be able to pull the victim off the tracks without risking his own life. Even if he snapped the shots just out of photographic instinct, it is still a valid explanation.

The photo itself is not unethical, it shocking just like photos of people being burned alive in South Africa, men being shot in the war (Robert Capra did one), children dying of starvation (Kevin Carter did one) or drug dealers and passer-bys being hit by gunshots in the favelas of Rio. What it lacks is a sense of urgency. It is not bringing attention to a serious situation going on in New York without public knowledge. There was simply a photographer coming back from an assignment and an unfortunate situation in which someone was killed. Unethical was the use The New York Post made of the image, putting it on the cover with a headline aiming at selling more to the contemporary arena audience.

Had I been in the place of the photographer I don’t know what I would do, but if I were the editor of the newspaper, I would never run a cover like that.

How Brazilians embrace new Technology

A couple of years ago, while working as a journalist for the government of São Paulo, I took on the role of social media manager. By then, I hardly ever used my Flickr account, didn’t have a Twitter and was just starting on Facebook with 20 or so friends. But I accepted the challenge and created a Twitter account on the same day, to see how that thing worked.

Shortly after I had started, I went to see an employer-sponsored lecture on social media by the good folks of Google (even though all attempts by Google in this field have failed miserably on a global scale, but that’s another story). So there I went to a room crowded with journalists and other people who had been selected to manage this field in their respective areas for a whole day on how to use them, what is the importance and, of course, how social media relates to public services.

And I remember something they said there just the other day while browsing through my Facebook feed. They mentioned that Brazilians embrace these technologies with a lot of ease, that was the reason Orkut (who?) got so big in Brazil. People decided to take the service over and so they did. I once had an account there, but due to the lack of interesting things and postings, I ended up given up and killing my virtual me there to dedicate more time to Facebook, Flickr, Twitter and, oh yeah, Google Reader.

But something happened in Brazil and people started fleeing Orkut (now considered something that only poor people will use to post their photos of barbecues by inflatable swimming pools) and embracing Facebook. And on Facebook, you can just write what’s in your mind and publish on your wall for all your friends to see. Beautiful, eh?

Keep all these ideas in mind to know what, like a high tech spam jesus christ, is being resurrected from the dead on my wall due to former co-workers (mostly) or school/college colleagues: chain letters.

When I had my hotmail account (still have it – don’t use it), back in 1996, it was fun to send these kind of things around. I had time, was a teenager and could count on my fingers how many people I knew had emails. Fuck, I wanted to add my dentist’s email to my contacts just so I could have yet another person. I would send a chain letter to my friends, someone would send me one (without bloody BCC so I would receive each and every reply as well) and within 1 month it was not fun anymore.

But now people who didn’t live this stage are pasting interesting and cryptic stuff on their walls (and in my feed), such as “If you love jesus, paste this on your wall. Only 3% of people will do that. I did, will you?” (no, I don’t love him and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t give a shit about me) or “If you know someone who had cancer, post this on your wall” (and who doesn’t know someone who had cancer?) or even silly stuff that were cool when I received them via email 15 years ago (message with letters changed by numbers). Those people will publish just about anything without any filter or judgment.

Until Facebook gives me the alternative of blocking posts by keywords (like I can do on my email services), I have one solution for all that: Block ‘em all before start receiving anything asking to help a Somali millionaire who can’t open a bank account.

Apparently Brazilian do really enjoy to embrace new technology, using it is a whole different story.

Getting things done

Today I photographed the Défi Sportif, an annual paralympic event that gathers athletes from many countries. I wanted to photograph it for my personal portfolio, but I ended up being called to make official photographs by the communication team, without any interview or anything, which made me extremely happy when I got the news, but made me extremely nervous and anxious as I approached the date.

By last Tuesday I took care of everything I needed to feel more comfortable to deliver a good job: bought a new memory card (just to be sure) and reserved a 70-200 mm f/2.8 lens, both at this great shop in Vieux Montréal, Photo Service.

Woke up today without the aid of an alarm clock, had breakfast and prepared my itenarary, since I had to go to three competition places: École Joseph-Charbonneau, Aréna Howie Morenz and Complexe sportif Claude-Robillard to deliver some of the photos for immediate publication.

I arrived at the first place and went straight to the goalball competition, snapped some shots and during a break decided to have a look at the swimming competition, even though it wasn’t in my duties. I had photographed goalball before (I have previous experience of two years working within the field of disabilities) and I knew it was a difficult sport to photograph, but I was happy with my previous results, so I thought I could handle it.

When I got Howie Morenz to shoot sledge hockey, I have to confess that I panicked. I am in Montreal for seven months now, but have never seen a hockey game (not even on TV – well, I saw some parts of it while hanging out with friends at a pub), so I didn’t know what to expect. And I definetely didn’t expect that amount of glass protecting the audience from being hit in the head (luckly, I didn’t rent a 14-24mm as well). I started photographing and trying to find an angle, but wasn’t happy. I was disappointed and crushing under the pressure of having to deliver the photos (and good pictures, most important. To deliver a crappy job I prefer not to take it) at the end of day.

So I sat in a warm place (it’s painfully cold not to wear a jacket to photograph hockey where there’s no protection glass – and I think that this is the hockey equivalent of war photographers going for the land mines) and put my brain to work. I tried to remember everything I have ever seen from hockey, looked at their photos from previous years and decided that this thing had to work. Fuck pressure, fuck the lack of experience in hockey. I got the job, this is the hardest part, I couldn’t screw up because of insecurity.

And so I went back there and tried different approaches (the wonders of digital photography): panning, extreme close ups on players faces, wide angle (using a Diana 20mm fisheye) and I shot a lot for the first match I saw. For the second match I was more comfortable regarding which techniques to use, so I saved my shutter, hitting it with more precision, not like a machine gun.

Overall, I liked my results and was really happy with the photographs I delivered to the client. Now I need to get back to Lightroom (not before noticing the @Defi_sportif just retweeted two of my messages  ) and this might be a long night. Anyway, I’m adding some of the photos on my Flickr account in the album for the Défi Sportif.

The World’s worst Song

I admit that I have not been following social media trends lately, but yesterday was reading an article at Mashable about this week’s Twitter trends and read about Rebecca Black and what some are calling the worst song ever (I am not putting a link to her video here, sorry. If you have not heard her, I’m actually doing you a favor).

Today, I read another article on the 13-year “singer” and her hit Friday, which hit 22 million views on YouTube in 9 days and decided to torture myself, turning off what I was listening on Rdio (David Bowie or Stevie Wonder,  don’t remember right now) and going for the video.

First, the lyrics are terrible, but nothing different that I would expect to come from a 13-year old girl. The only thing that really bothered me was the part “We we we so excited”. She could’ve traded those two we’s for a “are” and not sound like Borat. But then again, who remembers who the hell Borat is?

Musically speaking, the song is extremely poor and it kept reminding me of a Christopher Walken’s carachter on SNL, but instead of cowbells, I could hear the producer saying: “More vocoder girl!”. And I would not expect anything complex (or good) coming from such a hit.

The video is really silly and low-budget, without complex efects (which saves it from being too embarrasing, it’s better not to use effects than to go for the crappy ones, I guess). The interpretation is simple, but the girl has already written the song and sang, can we really ask for more?

Can we call it the worst song ever by the worst singer ever? If we want to be unfair and go with the hype, yes, we can. But if we want to be fair, we shouldn’t say that about it. A Brazilian singer called Stefhany has just realease the video to her song “Menino Sexy” (“Sexy Boy”, but in no way related to Air’s song) and this is much closer to top that list than poor Rebecca.

The problem with anti-religious comedy

Let me get one thing clear from the beginning: I am all in favour of using comedy as a form of criticism of government, social situations, religion and so on.

And today I discovered, thanks to the Friendly Atheist, the Jesusophile’s channel on youtube. And, even though I can’t stop watching his videos (they are hilarious), this channel creeps me out a little bit the same this website (content in Portuguese) scares me while it amuses me.

Cleycianne – the Brazilian blogger, a supposed model, former prostitute and born-again Christian who doesn’t know how to write a proper plural – and Jesusophile, a Dutch Christian (sorry, don’t have too much information on him) – have the same argument: It’s ok to have prejudice (specially against homosexuals and atheists) if it’s in the name of god, because it’s not prejudice, it’s the truth.

The situations they present are absurd and, if you’re not into this kind of thinking, the text is hilarious, but also it is the kind of thing the insanely religious people really think when it comes to these things: Homosexuality can be cured by religion; evolution is not true; or that women are the property of the man after the marriage (I heard that at a wedding once).

What comforts me with this kind of comedy is that ultra-religious people will not change their minds no matter what argument you present them with, so we might as well have some fun and maybe, just maybe, someone in this situation can look at these stories from another perspective and see how ridicolous some things are and develop some critical thinking about it.

What is my sign? Who am I?

Today, there has been a big fuzz in the astrology world after The Star Tribune published a story with astronomer Parke Kunkle about some proposed changes on the zodiac went viral and has been published everywhere. While this is an old thing (when I was maybe 12 or 13 a Brazilian TV station featured the subject a little, but it ended up restricted to that one show).

Let’s go to the subject and what realy matters: what difference does it make?

Derek C. Araujo, vice president and general counsel for the Center for Inquiry, explains in an article: “Due to wobbles of Earth’s axis of rotation (an effect known to astronomers as “precession”), the calendar dates corresponding to the various Zodiac signs have shifted by about a month since they were set by the ancient Babylonians.” This led to some proposed changes in the zodiac, changing signs and even adding one, the “ophiocus”, which was presented in that third-world TV show I mentioned above as the “serpent”.

If you are like me and was born on September 15, you have been promoted (or not) from Virgo to Leo. What want to know what does that mean.

I really want to know if I will, beggining today, stop being an ‘analyst’, ‘perfectionist’ and ‘frequently depressed’ to become ‘extroverted’, ‘creative’ and ‘arrogant’. Should I plan a new career and give up on accounting (oh, now I understand the depression part up there) or personal assistant to go to managerial positions or visual arts?

What about relationships? At home, being a Leo, I’d get along well with my Aries girlfriend (something unthinkable as a Virgo, they say, even though we’re together for 8 years). The problem is that she’s now Pisces. And my friends?! My life is shattered with all these changes, I don’t know what to do, but still I have to be confident, since that’s what the stars tell me. Thank you science for screwing my life.

But there’s still hope. Astrologers say that it doesn’t matter for their predictions or whatever it is that they do, since they operate on another level and once a Scorpio, always a Scorpio to them. To hell with science. What do they know anyway?