WTF!? Waiting For The GF1...

On May 24, 2010 I ordered the Panasonic GF1 with a 20mm f/1.7 lens from Amazon for $812 (excluding NY tax), which listed it as being in stock. I chose the Super Saver shipping discount so I was charged nothing for shipping.

Not a bad deal cost-wise since it saves me a little money, except for this: on receiving my order, Amazon emailed me its confirmation that the shipping date was estimated June 1, or a full 8 days after its being ordered.

Why? Does it take 8 days for an Amazon employee to locate the camera? Is it hiding behind stocked books? Is there a game of hide & seek going on? Would paying expedited shipping costs make the employee look any faster? Perhaps run instead of walk?

It's in stock and it's shipped from Amazon itself, so it's not from another Amazon affiliate or whatever they're called these days. And why not alert me to that "estimated shipping date" when I clicked on the Super Saver shipping discount?

Assuming that it will be shipped on June 1, it may be delivered a full two weeks from my order...a whole two weeks! I would understand if the camera wasn't immediately in stock, but it is...so what's going on, Amazon?

Ah, well...I hope I can test it in the streets of Istanbul in less than 3 weeks!

WTF Department: Ridiculous Bling

Here's a piece of ridiculous bling which ought to be filed in The Travel Photographer's WTF Department's compost heap, along with the Leica Hermes.

Found in this week's The New York Time's T-Magazine is a Yves Saint-Laurent travel adapter, which will cost $450 whoever is silly enough to buy it.

Mind you, the blurb tells us that fashion has come to the rescue of the stylish travelers who have had to use the "less-than-beautiful electrical doohickeys", especially since these come in cute fuchsia, black and violet leather bags.

A suggestion for the "stylish travelers": why don't you buy this doohickey from Kensington for $29 instead, and give the difference to a worthwhile charity? It does exactly the same thing and even looks the same. I realize it'll be tough without a colored leather case, but try all the same.

I have this Kensington adapter which I use everywhere I travel. Along with a locally-bought power strip, it's priceless. And if I need a pouch for it, I'll find one at the nearest Army Surplus store...it ain't gonna be in fuchsia though.

POV: New Luggage Rules For Photogs?

The news media are reporting that the incident on the Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit was certainly an attempted terrorist attack. This is causing extra security measures being implemented on all flights destined to the United States, which include body searches of all US bound travelers.

As I mostly fly Virgin Atlantic, I visited its website and it now (as of December 26) advises its passengers of additional security measures, which will cause traveling photographers considerable difficulties, especially regarding their camera bags.

The new regulations include restrictive hand baggage allowances for all passengers flying into all US airports, and have now been reduced to only one item of hand baggage.

According to Virgin, This item should not exceed 23 x 36 x 56cm, (approx 9 x 14 x 22 inches) and 13lb/6kg in weight, and should only contain the items needed during the flight.

Knowing the herd mentality of airlines, it won't be long before this restriction may be applied to all flights, in order to either economize on fuel or to generate fees on additional (or heavy) check-in luggage.

And here's the worst part of the regulations: "...should only contain items needed during the flight". This is not good news for us, folks.

Is the way forward to dump all our expensive gear in a Pelican hard case(s), check it in (and pay for it), and spend the flight praying that the case(s) and contents make it back to the US from wherever we are flying from???

And the coup de grace? From CNN's website: "There were no reported delays from Heathrow Saturday, but passengers boarding a U.S.-bound Virgin Atlantic aircraft were told there would be no in-flight electronic entertainment in the wake of the incident."

WTF Department: Do I Look Stupid To You?

I recently got this rather terse but pseudo friendly email the other day (it'll remain anonymous because I'm a nice guy) from presumably a very busy person who cannot find the time to type full sentences:

wd apprec. recg detailed itinerary info (hotels, meals, transportation, etc.) on your India tour.
excellent website.
thanks

What's wrong with this request, you ask? Nothing...except here's the deal. The person who emailed me this is married to a well-known photographer, and they both periodically lead photo tours themselves...and have been to India (and to that specific area) a number of times. That's what Google is for, isn't it?

So this is a rather lame (and arguably unethical) attempt to get the full itinerary I spend a long time researching, so they could either set one just like it (and charge double or triple what I do), or compare it to their own...refine theirs, re-price their costs, etc. A sort of industrial espionage!!!!

Note that the fellow is not asking for just the itinerary...oh no, it's an in-my-face request for details on hotels, meals, transportation and even the etc (just in case he forgot something). In other words, the whole friggin' enchilada.

He doesn't even mention that he's interested in joining my trip, which is what people on the level normally do.

I savored the drafting of my response, and then emailed it to him saying that (1) the Tribes of Rajasthan & Gujarat Photo~Expedition™ had been sold out for over 4 months (with a long waiting list), and (2) I screen who joins my Photo~Expeditions™, and finally that his request didn't pass the stench test.

I am disinclined to withhold information from peers and friends if and when they ask for it frontally and honestly...and I try to help whenever I can. There's a number of photographers in the photo tour business who can attest to that.

However, that doesn't mean that I will share the one-of-a-kind itineraries and other stuff that I worked very hard to research and develop. Get that, Mr. Husband-Of-Well-Known-Photographer?

WTF Department: Leica M7 Hermès

From the British Journal of Photography comes the news that Leica M7 Hermès edition has just been announced representing a collaboration between Leica and Hermès Paris. My readers may be interested to know that only 200 units will be available...and to make it even more exclusive, only 100 will be in orange and 100 in a green.

The Leica M7 Edition Hermès will be available in the UK from December 2009 from authorized Leica dealers at the suggested retail price of £8550 (or $14,000).

I really (I mean really as in seriously) hope to come face to face with whoever has such a camera dangling around his or her neck. It's not about the jaw-dropping price (although that's a stunner), but about the crass ostentation that it exudes. I'm reasonably certain that Leica has done some market research, and knows that there is a minuscule number of people who may be attracted to the Leica M7 Edition Hermès.

I have some ideas as to what demographics these people may belong to...but I still would like to see one, and then roll on the floor laughing.

On a more sober note, I suppose that this is more of a collector's item, like a great vintage wine or whatever it is that people collect these days. It's not really a camera that'll be used much. After all, the leather cover might get scratched!

Rant: Email Newsletters

I use Campaign Monitor to send my (almost) monthly newsletter, which informs my subscribers of my new photo galleries and forthcoming The Travel Photographer's Photo~Expeditions™. Although these newsletters are only sent to those who subscribe through my sign-in box on this blog, I still get a spam notice, or even two, once in a while.

So here's the rant:

1. The mailing list for my newsletter is by subscription only. In other words, the person wanting to subscribe has to fill in his/her email address and his/her name in the sign-in box.

2. Upon doing so, each subscriber gets an auto-rely from me thanking them for subscribing, and saying that they can unsubscribe at any time by clicking a clearly marked link on the newsletters.

3. So why report my newsletter as spam? Even though I have a minuscule spam rate, it's annoying. Sending a newsletter costs me money, and if subscribers change their minds, the unsubscribe option is there! So use it, for heaven's sake!

The definition of spam from Wikipedia is this: "Spam is the abuse of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately."

Obviously, my newsletters are neither unsolicited or indiscriminate.

So is it illiteracy? Confusion? I'm mystified.

The Purge: The Travel Photographer's Newsletters

I've sent out my June newsletter yesterday, and realized that it was about time to purge my ever-growing mailing list of subscribers that no longer open my newsletters with regularity. Through my email marketing service, I get an update as to which emails do not open my newsletters, and I've already started to remove them from my list.

The criteria is simple. Subscribers who haven't opened any of my four newsletters of 2009 are either not interested any more, or have moved their email addresses or haven't opened them in that length of time. Consequently, they are being removed from the list.

What triggered this review and purge is an expanding list which costs me money to send, and I have no intention of keep sending newsletters to recipients who no longer open them. Because of the number of subscribers, this purge is a laborious task which I may not complete before I travel to Morocco in a few days, but it'll be done.

I use Campaign Monitor for my newsletters, and it's a pay as you send system. I found them to super dependable, responsive and they don't tolerate spammers.

By the way, if any recipients no longer wish to receive my newsletters, all they they have to do is click on an unsubscribe link in each newsletter. I prefer you unsubscribe than not read them.

POV: White Judges Only?

Here's an issue that came to my attention via the excellent blog Duckrabbit, which in turn noticed it on the Reciprocity Failure blog.

PDN (Photo District News) has recently announced the results of its Photo Annual 2009 Contest, and also introduced its readers to the 24 judges who adjudicated this hard fought contest. So far so good...however here's the rub: all 24 judges are white. Yes, you've read correctly....all of them are white persons.

Stan Banos at Reciprocity Failure continues his criticism by suggesting that the reasons behind this range from indifference to blatant passive racism. I don't know if I would go as far as to describe it as passive racism...perhaps it is, but my gut feel is that it's principally because of pervasive cronyism in the photography industry...a sort of comfortable "you scratched my back so i'll scratch yours" kind of thing. Of course, it may well be that only whites can scratch white backs.

Anyway, enough about what I think, and let's get someone make serious money by entering duckrabbit's competition and be the first who comes to PDN’s defense and answer Stan Banos' question as to ‘what possible, plausible excuse could exist for an all white jury from a publication of such influence?’.

A tough question to answer. Will Holly Stuart Hughes, the editor of PDN be that first responder? I hope so.

Note (June 10): Well, Holly Stuart Hughes did respond on June 9 to the various bloggers who raised this issue. Her reply is elegant and gracious and I believe is genuine. It can be read in full here, but here's an excerpt:

Yesterday some blogs circulated a note about the fact that of the 24 judges of the 2009 PDN Photo Annual contest, all of them are white. It's a valid point ,and one that everyone who works on PDN’s contests has given a lot of thought. While the lack of any judges of color wasn’t intentional, it is regrettable. Thanks to the huge number of entries it draws from around the world, the Photo Annual offers us our best opportunity to see a wide range of work from different perspectives. We should make sure our judges represent a wide range of perspectives as well.

POV: NYT & Its Posed Photo

©Zackary Canepari/The New York Times-All Rights Reserved
The New York Times's editors published an unusual apology on Friday. The apology relates to a picture appearing in a May 5 front-page article about the porous Afghanistan-Pakistan border, which showed a silhouetted Taliban logistics tactician, holding a rifle (above). The Times subsequently learned from the photographer that the rifle the Taliban tactician held was not his, and claims that had it known this information at the time of publication, it would not have used the photograph to illustrate the article.

PDN Pulse asks if its readers think this is over the line?

I don't think this is a major issue at all, especially since Canepari seems to have clarified the situation. Frankly, had the editors of The New York Times been half (nay, just one-hundredth) as meticulous with the blatant lies and obfuscations propagated by the Bush Administration which led to the Iraq fisaco as they are now with Canepari's photograph, as a nation we would have been the better for it, and we wouldn't be where we are now.

We all recall The New York Times published lies about the Iraqi's non-existent WMD program as fed to it by members of the previous Administration and their newspaper cronies, and subsequently "apologized" for it.

Update: For another take on the story of the staged picture, read Daniel Sheehan's post on his Photo Blog. He quotes Washington DC photographer John Harrington's view that Canepari "is likely to be persona non-grata at the New York Times, and his journalistic ethics will also likely give other editorial publications pause to hire him."

Of course, the editors of The New York Times who sold us sordid lies about the reasons for our occupation of Iraq are (with the exception of Judith Miller) not personae non gratae. Go figure.

Another Update: I knew my friend Asim Rafiqui would write of the New York Times' silliness in his The Spinning Head blog. He writes this:

"We are supposed to forget that this is also one of a number of American newspapers whose journalists failed to ask even the most basic of questions and failed to examine even the most public of facts during the build up to the invasion of Iraq. Their ethical reporters were on the front lines of journalistic jingoism, helping sell the war to the American public."