I shall shoot more film, process more film, share more film images, help more people get into to film, write detailed articles about film, perform several nutty film experiments, modify some film, and make, my own god damn film.

The file you will need to edit for this is element-artboard.php

Find the line //Image scale function, below it is a function called FullScreenBackground.

You will need to modify this function, and that will do the trick.

First off , find the line

var winHeight=$(window).height();

And change it to

var winHeight=$(window).height()-105; //adjust for bars

The 105 pixel value is for the default top (both) and bottom bars, more or less from what I measured in photoshop off a screenshot. Previously had 132 pixels in there which included admin bar..

Next underneath the following two lines

var picHeight = imageHeight / imageWidth;
var picWidth = imageWidth / imageHeight;

Add the follow lines

		//what we need to do is compare aspect ratios
		var imageAR = imageWidth / imageHeight;
		var winAR = winWidth / winHeight;

		if(imageAR<winAR){
			var danWidth = (winHeight / imageHeight) * imageWidth;
			var danHeight = winHeight; //subtracted top and bottom bars already, if we did it here, image would not maintain aspect ratio.
		}else{
			var danWidth = winWidth;
			var danHeight = ((winWidth / imageWidth) * imageHeight);
		}

Change the following block

		if($toolbar.data("imageViewMode")=="full"){ //fullscreen size image mode
			if ((winHeight / winWidth) < picHeight) {
				$(theItem).attr("width",winWidth);
				$(theItem).attr("height",picHeight*winWidth);
			} else {
				$(theItem).attr("height",winHeight);
				$(theItem).attr("width",picWidth*winHeight);
			};
		} else { //normal size image mode

To

if($toolbar.data("imageViewMode")=="full"){ //fullscreen size image mode
			$(theItem).attr("width",danWidth);
			$(theItem).attr("height",danHeight);
		} else { //normal size image mode

I’ve included the else statement in the quote, as otherwise it appears as if we were removing a closing bracket and leaving the if block open, but it is closed by the following else statement.

The last thing you’ll need to chnage is this

		$(theItem).css("margin-left",(winWidth-$(theItem).width())/2);
		$(theItem).css("margin-top",((winHeight-$(theItem).height())/2));

To this

		$(theItem).css("margin-left",(winWidth-$(theItem).width())/2);
		$(theItem).css("margin-top",((winHeight-$(theItem).height())/2)+65);

And you’re done.

The error (on v5.1 of the plugin) is on line 21 of the flickrrss.php file.

You need to change

function get_and_delete_option($setting) { $v = get_option($setting); delete_option($setting); return $v; }

to

if (function_exists('get_and_delete_option')==false){function get_and_delete_option($setting) { $v = get_option($setting); delete_option($setting); return $v; }}

I did get follow up responses to my inquiries about it, all stating to follow the “pubic hair is restricted” guideline.

“You must follow the guidelines below at all times. If you feel you are not able to follow the guidelines, Flickr might not be a good website for your purposes. We have a limited amount of staff resources to keep going back and forth on this issue so this is the final E-mail response you will be receiving on this matter.”

They sure don’t like putting effort into doing things properly.. like having their actual rules publicly displayed, or actually responding to the content of messages, instead just regurgitating the same answer to a question I never asked. Or generating links to the offending images in automatic account restriction.

Anyway, onto the main attraction;

Guess what happened now? After just over 24 hours of receiving this message:

“At present, all of your images are correctly moderated. You’re always welcome to add your thoughts about the Flickr guidelines to the Flickr ideas forum.”

I get my account restricted, stating my images are in the wrong categories (again doesn’t state which images) – which means they are not correctly moderated (according to someone).

I just complained about it,  and got a response stating my account status has been set to safe from flickr staff.

“Your account status is set as “safe”.”

Still a bunch of wankers in my eyes.

But every now and then, there is just that special someone with that special sparkle to them that just takes the entire cake, and the smears it all over their face like a retarded fat kid.

Given the drama I’ve had lately with people jumping at the chance to try and tear me a new one metaphorically speaking.. I have to wonder if it’s something I’m doing and I’m just imagining everything and that it’s all in my head. However at least in this case, I posted a forum thread on a topic about flickr and it’s rules, referring to my flickr blog post where I got caught out by a rule not really in the guidelines (<– link to blog post, click if you want see what that’s about)(which I posted in order to tell others about the rule and to be more careful than just logically reading the guidelines).

The forum thread was about the topic about flickr and it’s rules and my experience with them as mentioned above, not an open invitation to come and criticise my work that I was talking about in the above link blog post.. honestly.

It’s not hard to track down all of Gary’s personal information by googling him and other information associated with him, my advice to Gary would be not to be an outright wanker towards other people online when his information is readily available, especially in the same state within a relatively short distance away. While I don’t enough patience (or enough screws lose) to do more than in other words say “fuck off” and write a blog post about it, I’m betting other people do, knowing the diversity of people online that don’t normally get a chance to communicate with each other in person.

Anyway, he calls himself “Poisson Du Jour” on APUG, you can read his autobiography on his flickr stream - http://www.flickr.com/people/silent-street/

I don’t think I need to explain this one too much, other than my post above the dashed line is a play on his post, on the off chance he’ll see how someone else might see his post when it’s directed at him. Below the dashed line is a bit more serious. In one sweeping comment, this guy bugs me more than The Brother’s Wright. That’s a high concentration of condescending negativity right there to be possible, very impressive.

Anyway, on with the screen shot (you’ll need to click to enlarge this one to make it readable given the layout of my blog I think)

Gary Rowan Higgins or "Poisson Du Jour" showing the highest concentrated levels of smug arrogance I've ever detected.

Flickr staff decided to lock my account and set it to restricted, they do not say any reason why when they do this, at least not to me, so I am left scratching my head, I had thought I had content filtered all my nudes on flickr according to their guidelines listed at (http://www.flickr.com/help/filters/#258). So of course I sigh and go into the organiser, load all the nude images I’ve got and reset the content filter incase it didn’t work when I uploaded them or I accidentally missed some.

After I did that I asked for a review of my account.

This is the response I have gotten;

Flickr Being Awesome

I like how they leave you in the dark until to try and figure out the problem yourself. Then ask for a review. Apparently the below photo (same as the one quoted above) is the problem:

Portra 400 pushed to 1600.

Apparently this should be restricted and not moderate. The flickr guidelines on content filtering are quite vague.

These are them here:

There are 2 types of filters that you need to use for your content.

1. Safety Level

• Safe - Content suitable for a global, public audience
• Moderate - If you’re not sure whether your content is suitable for a global, public audience but you think that it doesn’t need to be restricted per se, this category is for you
• Restricted - This is content you probably wouldn’t show to your mum, and definitely shouldn’t be seen by kids

A good rule of thumb is, bare breasts and bottoms are “moderate.” Full frontal nudity is “restricted.”

No I don’t think it needs to be restricted, and there is bare breasts, but no frontal nudity. So my only conclusion is they are counting that tiny patch of orange hair as frontal nudity, if I just healed it out to look like skin, there would be no problem. Which I think is damn stupid.

When did hair become obscene? So my only thought is that either the person making the decision doesn’t have the slightest clue about female anatomy or where it is even located as they would be mistaking a vague orange stripe as vagina, or is conservative valued and believes in censoring this filth for it’s “frontal nudity”. I do not think hair constitutes nudity, as from this angle nothing is hiding under it, and I am sure removal of said hair would make the image fly under their radar.

In any case, there is at least an argument or grey area to argue this against a conservative point (although it should be blindingly obvious that it fits into moderate imho, which it was marked).

So I am quite annoyed and frustrated at this, and at a flickr. I’ve never had real problems with flickr or anything until I started uploading nude photography. Obviously some users  (probably from the U.S. all my drama originates from the U.S. it seems) on flickr feel that they are adults and therefore don’t need to set their flickr browsing filter to safe-only, even though moderate and restricted offends them.

I would definately say every nude shooter on flickr has had several reports from users made against them, browsing the stream, seeing something pop up and getting angry. You don’t get flickr-staff attention so fast unless someone reports it.

In any case I think it’s reprehensible of the flickr staff to threaten to lock my account forever as restricted if I “mis-moderate” my content again. Well I acted within good faith of what I could see from the guidelines. If they wan’t to impose non-standard ideas of “frontal nudity” perhaps they should say so in the guidelines.

Because I believe I acted within the guidelines perfectly fine. So now if I “fuck up” again (if someone complains and some conservative reviewer looks for some very long stretch of the bow interpretation of restricted) then my whole account will be restricted – head shots, landscapes, nature, etc. So how am I supposed to upload any content without being in a state of fear my entire account will be locked down and censored from public view (probably because of conservatives imposing their own values that fly in the face of given definitions – though I am making that assumption, it just seems so likely and plausible)?

It is basically my opinion they are holding contempt for their users by doing this, that and it’s illogical and unfair.

I did send them a follow up email similar to what I have explained above.  I will see what their response.  I have asked they either rescind the threat, or update the content filter guidelines to make it more clear if my photo belongs in restricted (which I argued it doesn’t according to their current guidelines), otherwise it’s simply unavoidable for many to make such “mistakes”.

Anuyusa is a model from model mayhem in Melbourne, she is very suited to the art nude in my opinion and I got very pleasing results shooting with her.

I must same I am very impressed with Portra 160, it is incredible, I resigned to having a lack of background/shadow detail due to low exposure of the background details and having off-camera flash lit subjects in some of the shots, the background wasn’t recoverable by the looks of the dSLR test shots to confirm with my light meter, yet there they fell on Portra 160.

Enough talk, more images.

Deep shadow detail that just disappeared on the dSLR test exposure for metering, just renders beautifully.

Just for fun.. Portra 160 again delivers absolutely beautiful tones and pierces into shadows even with a lack of exposure.

When pushing Portra 400 to 1600, I do find sometimes the colour is difficult to correct, this is usually a result of further underexposure and the difficult situations that have problematic lighting and are quite far from 5600K that occur when you need to reach for 1600. Also I do not tend to try and make my images look the same or consistent, I simply strive to be happy/like the image on it’s own individually.

Portra 400 pushed to 1600, accidental double exposure.

Portra 400 pushed to 1600.

Portra 400 pushed to 1600

Portra 400 pushed to 1600

Portra 400 pushed to 1600

Tri-X pushed to 1600, plenty of shadow detail to be had, but I like the long scale of highlights to midtones, so I set the contrast this way.

]]> http://www.photodan.com.au/2011/09/a-nude-shoot-with-anuyusa-part-1/feed/ 0 http://www.photodan.com.au/2011/09/organ-pipes-in-black-and-white/ http://www.photodan.com.au/2011/09/organ-pipes-in-black-and-white/#comments Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:23:29 +0000 Athiril http://www.photodan.com.au/?p=163 Went out on a landscape trip with Ben Jensz  on the 18th of September 2011, went out to Brisbane Ranges, didn’t see anything taking our fancy along the way, so we headed into Organ Pipes National Park on the way back towards the city, I managed to shoot a roll of Delta 400 Professional, which I shot at E.I. 100 instead of 400, as I find it gives some kind of ‘shine’ to the image I find.

Here are five from that roll of 10 that I like.

I have some other random work on my flickr stream http://www.flickr.com/photos/athiril/

Let me start this post by stating making a post like I am now is a dick thing to do, I am temporarily willing to be a dick to deal with this headache that has occasionally irritated me with his douce baggery over the past half a year.

Generally you should attack an idea, and not the person behind the idea (though I have had to put up with having my character constantly attacked and derided). In this case I am attacking his character, or at the least describing how I see it with some examples. Not going to make excuses for doing this other than he has pissed me off one too many times. That may seem like high school playground politics to you, then well, that’s fair enough.

“Brothers Wright” runs the blog twinslenslife.com and the flickr account http://www.flickr.com/photos/bwrightphoto/.

There is a new website that has been posted on the “Film Is Fun” group on facebook called ECN-2. This website is a for-profit service for bulk-rolling ECN-2 motion picture film into 35mm still canisters, offering processing in ECN-2 chemistry and scanning, when I checked it was $150 for 5 rolls for this service (including film, processing and scanning).

Bit on the steep side, but I do not have a problem with that, that is their prerogative (I also think the scans they offer are not large enough for archival/full quality off the neg). I commented on the thread saying something like “This website has misinformation on it.” and left it at that, as when I checked the website I saw Brothers Wright associated with it in some way, and I knew he would be his usual self in response to anything that disagrees with what he has stated. Sure I could have elaborated, but the before stated reason is why I did not.

The post was erased and I was private messaged on facebook by Scott Shepherd, I summarised one of the problems with stating flash can simply be used by putting a gel on it with ECN-2 film.

I went back to the thread posted some reasons why the information on the site is incorrect and incomplete (the information on the site stating one-shot “fresh” developer is better than replenished – bollocks that is, they state they mix it up fresh every day right before usage, it is more like they do not know to run the process properly and find the developer is dying on them overnight and haven’t figured out why). I posted the response below which I made a screen shot below, the following post was also deleted very shortly after I made the screen shot.

ecn-2.com thread screenshot

My post was erased then followed up with a response from Scott Shepherd.

What a class act. Clearly I do not know the work involved in the ECN-2 process, when I was the one telling those guys how to actually do it (more on that later) several months ago.

I would like to share the previous discussion I had with Brothers Wright a few months back, before showing the current.

The following is a screen taken from the same group in which The Brothers Wright joined in the discussion

After this, he pestered me in private, which turned into talking down to me, insulting me, and basically telling me to shut up and do not throw my 2 cents into any discussion, and that I’m an idiot.

Screen shot for that below.

Obviously he cannot make up his mind whether they are different exposures or the same exposure.  Clearly I’m the idiot for having the consistent viewpoint that the background landscape is a different subeject to the human portrait and that you would choose to expose for your subject – ie; excessive contrast isn’t over or underexposure it is excessive contrast that your medium can’t handle, and in this case the medium can handle it. He obviously want’s to sound like he is top dog.

The more recent ‘discussion’ with him should illustrate this point, which came shortly after my posting on the Film Is Fun group on facebook.

Here is that discussion below, the tinypic link is just the same screenshot as above.

Yes, clearly I am some newbie without manners and with no comprehension of English. Oh, and my photography sucks too (I do manage to create a couple good images among the pile of disappointments).

In one of the above screen shots after my post was deleted Scott Shepherd says how much work is involved in the ECN-2 process – there’s only as much work as you make for yourself, that is also a bunch of bollocks, they delete my post (which would be helpful to their business to address said issues on their website) and post that rubbish in the best interest of their business, certainly not in the best interest of the group, or in the best interest of open discussion, it appears open discussion is simply not allowed and overridden by their new business interests – in other words petty censorship in the interest of money.

No free thinking there if you cannot question things or point out inaccuracies, it is not in the best interest of the group members to do such a thing. It is reprehensible.

They want to claim higher quality and more consistency than a replenished system, yet are most likely not running control strips, especially since they are mixing it up fresh every day right before usage (according to their site). Obviously you cannot achieve more consistency or even as great consistency without control strips and confirming Laboratory Aim Density (it’s in the Kodak manuals guys, which they probably haven’t read fully) then a process that doesn’t. The peak quality is being able to achieve Laboratory Aim Density. These guys are obviously fully of shit.

The reason they mix up one shot fresh on the day is because their developer most likely has iron contamination (or another contaminant) that kills the developer which immedietly drops quality the longer you leave the developer sit to simply no image at all (in a matter of a few hours), so of course they would think that one-shot is better than replenished. Because they don’t know how run ECN-2, yes it is different to running C-41 and E-6 and B&W – but it is not so difficult as they make it out to be – contamination is a real problem in ECN-2 due to the design, which has a simply easily solution, which I’m not going to post here for their benefit.

I know they don’t know the ECN-2 process in-depth because only less than half a year ago, Brothers Wright was asking me about the process, I’ve answered numerous times on various bits and pieces of the ECN-2 process, how it is done, and how easy you can make remjet removal for yourself, and I was actually able to find one piece of one of the private conversations on that (with Brothers Wright), though I don’t see to be able to go further back in time on my facebook private messages.

Here is below what I could find. And yes, from what I remember he did even talk down to me then even at that point, though back on the group. It’s implied in his apology to me in that message.

Do not believe these fuckers that go around labelling themselves as experts in such a thing. These guys are literally calling themselves “Master Artisan Craftsmen” (oh please, there is nothing to be a master artisan craftsman about in a fully standardised process as there is no choice for you to make to insert the magic of your master artisan craftsmanship into), they are most certainly not. They are newbies. They are like that hot chick with a camera that’s all friendly and eager to learn, and a few months later think’s she is full pro, surrounds herself with yes-man and white knights, and gets extremely agitated at any realistic critique that may be interpreted as an attack on her ego.

I know more than the vast majority people, even those in the in-circle for this type of thing on this process, in that there would be very few people with more knowledge than I on the subject, and I can tell you that I am no expert, in fact, my knowledge is absolutely wafer thin to what would be required to be considered having an expert intimate knowledge of the process.

To simplify that, I have enough knowledge to see the gap in difference to where I am and being an expert, what there is still to learn. These guys do not. I think many of you can relate to that in fields you have heavy interest in, then watching someone come along who has little dog syndrome.

I honestly feel like these guys are like modern day Thomas Edisons (jerkface) – except far less brilliant (I think Thomas Edison is a real jerk, thief, and not brilliant at all, but his level of knowledge is still very impressive, the level of knowledge of these guys are simply not).

The level of douce baggery here pisses me off.