Wednesday, February 19, 2020 Adobe releases substantial update to the desktop and mobile versions of Photoshop for its 30th birthday

via Articles: Digital Photography Review (

PetaPixel: The NONS SL42 is an Interchangeable Lens Camera that Shoots Instax Film

A Hong Kong-based company called “NONS” has created a M42-mount ILC that can be used to shoot Fujifilm Instax Mini film. They’re calling it the world’s first M42 mount SLR instant camera, and it allows shooters to pair easy-to-find Fuji Instax film with much-beloved (and often very cheap) classic M42 lenses.

The NONS SL42 camera is pretty self-explanatory. It’s a rudimentary SLR with an M42 mount and a few basic features like a shutter speed dial, the ability to shoot multiple exposures, support for a cable release, and a hot shoe for using external flash.

The camera runs off of 2 AA batteries, and taking a picture is as easy as loading up some Instax Mini film, choosing your shutter speed, pressing the shutter button (as many times as you’d like), and then pressing the eject film button when you’re ready. Since the M42 mount was made for 35mm film that’s much smaller than an Instax Mini frame, the resulting photos will have a circular vignette of varying size and intensity depending on the lens that you’re using.

Here’s a closer look at the camera in action:

And some sample images captured with the current prototype:

The NONS SL42 SLR is seeking funding through Kickstarter, where it’s already raised over $15,000 on a goal of $25,750, with 21 days to go in the campaign. If they raise the necessary funding and all goes according to plan, the goal is to begin shipping cameras to backers in August of 2020.

Securing a NONS SL42 will cost you at least $200 (early-bird pledge) for the body only, $220 for the camera plus two 10-shot packs of Instax film, or $230 for the NONS SL42 and an 50mm f/1.8 “M42 lens for beginners.” Prices go up from there for additional cameras and film.

To learn more about this quirky camera or take a chance by pledging your support, head over to the Kickstarter campaign page. As with all crowdfunded products, we’ll throw out the standard warning: this is not a pre-order, and any money you throw at this thing could very well disappear if the NONS SL42 becomes vaporware.

from PetaPixel

PetaPixel: Is Street Photography a Fad that Has Run Its Course?

Fourteen years ago I took an interest in Street Photography. I went looking for resources and information on this amazing genre, unfortunately to no avail, until I came across a great free ebook in 2006 called “Street Photography for the purist” by Chris Weeks.

I downloaded and printed and read every page, but still, no good books were available in the coming years explaining in layman’s terms how to take good street shots, what settings to use, etc. until James Maher published the “The Essentials of Street Photography” in 2012.

This, for me, was a game changer, as was the introduction of the Fuji X100.

Photo by Des Byrne

Since then, street photography has become increasingly “mainstream” and highly commercialized. We have more books than ever, and there are street photography festivals worldwide—from London, to Rome, Miami, Luxembourg, San Francisco, Brussels, and L.A.

Cheap and overpriced workshops alike promise to make you invisible on the Streets, like Harry Potter with his cloak of Invisibility. These courses with the unknown Masters of Street Photography will gladly part you from your money, costing anywhere between $50 and $1,000 per course. One such course advertised four one-hour Skype sessions for a “reduced” price: now $450, down from $850.

“Classic” street photography style has also seeped into other genres. Wedding Photographers have now turned candid and black-and-white.

Photo by Des Byrne

Photography competitions are popping up every week charging anywhere between $20 and $50 per image to enter. There are now hundreds of influencers on Instagram and YouTube, too many collectives, and far too many inexperienced “expert” moderators in Facebook groups critiquing photos and giving advice.

Photographers who never considered themselves street photographers jumped on the gravy train. But now, it seems that many of these photographers are moving away from calling themselves street photographers at all. Well-known international photographers who earn money from street photography have started to disassociate themselves from the genre.

Is it a purist thing, or was the very term “street photography” just a fad? Are they jumping off the bandwagon because they’ve found the next photography fad?

Photo by Des Byrne

I recently started working on a project idea about street photography, and in the course of this project I contacted a well-known, famous photographer that most of the world immediately classify as a street photographer.

I messaged him about the project and made the mistake of referring to him as a street photographer, only for him to reply that “it is a misnomer to say this is what I am.” When I reached out to another well-known street photographer friend of mine and mentioned this, he agreed. He would not consider himself a “street photographer” either.

Am I missing something?

Photo by Des Byrne

All of this back and forth—the vast commercialization of the genre, and people’s attempts to get away from it—has made me question my “identity” as a street photographer. Is it all just a fad? Are they right? Did the greats who we considered to be street photographers even think of themselves in this way? Has it run its course, or has the money dried up? Have all the shots been taken? How many more umbrella, puddle jumping, pigeon shots can we even take?

A fad is defined as “an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived; a craze.”

By that definition, I’m not sure that street photography counts. But as more and more photographers identify as something else—even as they practice what most of us would instantly recognize as “street photography”—I have a feeling the classification, if not the genre itself, won’t last forever.

About the author: Des Byrne is the Founder of the Irish Street Photography Group, a Miami Finalist 2019, curator for International Street Photography Exhibitions in Dublin Ireland, and part of the multi-award winning Insight Photography Project for the Dublin homeless community. You can find more of his work on Instagram.

from PetaPixel
via IFTTT Sony reportedly cuts planned mirrorless camera features to free up hardware for PS5

via Articles: Digital Photography Review ( Lomography releases Simple Use Camera preloaded with LomoChrome Metropolis film

via Articles: Digital Photography Review (

PetaPixel: Golden Gate Bridge Officials Go After Photographer for Photo Taken from ‘Illegal Angle’

A San Francisco-based photographer is facing some legal backlash from the Golden Gate Bridge District over a photo that they claim he took from a restricted area. The photographer says the District is simply “hunting for money” by searching the Internet for pictures that they believe were taken from restricted areas.

Bruce Getty is a passionate San Francisco photographer who credits photography with helping to save his life. Shortly after moving to San Francisco with his family in 1979, he became addicted to cocaine and alcohol. He was just 13 years old. He spent the next 28 years of his life struggling against the demons of substance abuse and alcoholism, endured multiple meth-induced psychotic episodes, and finally got clean in 2008 when he was sent to Atascadero State Hospital.

When he was released in 2011, he used an insurance check to buy a Nikon D600 and a computer from FireSide Camera. That’s when his fascination with the Golden Gate bridge began. “I started interacting with local photographers and went on to Instagram,” Getty tells PetaPixel. “We were always fascinated with that area of the Golden Gate Bridge, trying to find new creative angles.”

It’s one of these creative angles that got him in trouble, captured from what the Golden Gate Bridge District’s lawyers claim was non-public land, while trespassing.

The photo is a composite—a combination of the bridge photo taken in 2014 with a supermoon shot that Getty says he captured in either 2018 or 2016. He was actually given a $150 ticket in 2014 for being on the rocks photographing the bridge, but Getty maintains that this “restricted” area isn’t actually off-limit.

“I’ve always accessed that place during low tide and the coast line is not supposed to be off-limits unless it’s specified by the military,” says Getty. “There is an elevated road that’s off-limits, but the coast is not supposed to be off-limits. I’ve been there many times. It’s not a sensitive area and it’s not any more dangerous than any other area around the Golden Gate.”

You can see an outline of the area in question in the screenshot below, provided by Mr. Getty:

The letter Getty received from the Golden Gate District disagrees with Getty’s assertion that he was not doing anything wrong. It claims that Getty was on restricted, “non-public” property on January 31st, 2018—because that is the date of the last super moon—and that the photographer’s presence on this land constitutes “an actionable trespass.”

The District goes on to claim any profits that Getty has made selling the photo, which is still available for purchase as a print through his website.

You can read the full letter below:

The more information you have, the more convoluted the situation quickly becomes. If Mr. Getty took the photo from actual non-public, restricted property then the District is within its rights to send the cease and desist. However, the date of the alleged trespass is based on the image of the moon, which wasn’t even taken from that spot and may have been taken in 2016.

Getty, meanwhile, maintains that he wasn’t trespassing in the first place.

“Here are two photos taken with my camera positioned just on the other side of the sign that says where you cannot go,” says Getty. “So are these illegal angles because I’m pointing past the sign, but I’m not on the other side of the sign?”

You can see the sign in question in the video below:

Ultimately, Getty sees this as an attempt by the District to make money from photographers like himself. On its website, the Bridge District makes it clear that it “does not have the authority to levy taxes,” and so the district operates entirely off of bridge tolls, transit fares, and government subsidies.

“I’m not just some punk kid breaking the rules. I represent the San Francisco Bay area and promote it like nobody’s business. I don’t disrespected it in any way, especially the bridge—people come from all over the world to see the bridge because of me and other people like me.” Getty tells PetaPixel. “They’re just hurting for money.”

In addition to a very strongly worded warning about ever “trespassing” on the District’s non-public land again, the Golden Gate District’s letter demands that Getty pull down the photo in question. Thus far, he has refused to do so, though he says that he’s not made any money selling prints of this particular shot.

We’ve reached out to a representative at the Golden Gate Bridge District for comment, and will update this piece if and when we hear back.

(via ABC News via Fstoppers)

Image credits: Photos by Bruce Getty, used with permission.

from PetaPixel
via IFTTT Moment introduces 67mm filter mounts that works with any phone

via Articles: Digital Photography Review (