'Pro' camera labs

This week I have had the pleasure of shooting my very first 5x4” shots – naturally that meant getting them developed as soon as possible of course. So a trip back to one of Brisbane’s pro labs was in order. Now 5x4 is pretty advanced stuff in this day and age – the cameras have no automation whatsoever, and the user generally loads the negatives themselves. That would tend to imply the use has to know what they are shooting!
Well it wasn’t good enough for the people at the pro lab. First I was asked if they were colour. Then I was asked a second time to confirm that they were black and white – madness – yet the woman didn’t seem to care what film it was at all – and of course every black and white film requires a different developing time.
So next, simply out of curiosity I enquired about which developer the labs use. Of course the woman had no clue and it must have caused her the greatest inconvenience to ask the lab tech.

It was kind of surprising to find out that the lab uses Kodak HC110 for everything. Now I can see why, looking at some of the push processed films I have had done at this lab that they are really much grainier than they could be if using specific speed increasing chemistry. Want an example? Well here it is. Home developed HP5 @ISO 1600 using Ilford Microphen (shot in Briabane), compared with lab developed HP5@ 800 (Top of Alpe d'Huez). Click for full size!

Kuripla Bridge, Brisbane

Lifts, Alpe D'Huez - summer

I know it is not an entirely accurate comparison, since they are at different speeds on different days, but I think the film shot in Brisbane is clearly the winner, with less grain, and more shadow / highlight detail than the shot at Alpe d’Huez. I guess it is also accentuated by the fact that the light in Brisbane has a larger brightness range– meaning more problems with shadow and highlight details with push processing. At the end of the day I think , given the general vibe of the situation, id rather be using the correct chemistry for the correct situation.

So the question I pose is this. Why, when you can buy a full 5 L of any Kodak developer, capable of developing up to 50 films for between $8 and $15 would you insist on using one developer for all films? Even if you only developed 2-3 films per 5L, you would still be ahead at the kind of prices these places charge. Clearly each film or situation has its own suitable developer – and particularly when your lab advertises services such as push and pull processing - you need to have some different chemisty on hand to do this to a ‘pro’ standard.

The solution I propose to all the students this so called ‘pro lab’ is targeting is this – spend a couple of bucks getting developing equipment – it will pay for itself soon enough, you can have specialized chemistry, and you don’t have to deal with people who clearly hate their job and know squat about it.

Rogue Cylcists

Right im going to dedicate this one to Brisbane’s Courier Mail. It seems the Courier has been on a bit of a cycling smear campaign of late with a series of articles, highlighting the latest string of the ever-present war of cars vs. cyclists in this city. This inflammatory journalism takes aim at ‘rogue cyclists’ who are ‘out of control’. Apparently, according to the article’s author, the articles came as a response to police pressure to raise road awareness, but end up toting one key line – cyclists should get registered.

A bit of background; Brisbane is already a fairly intolerant place as far as cycling is concerned (and many other things too!), where as a cyclist I have already experienced being run off the road “because you don’t pay registration!”. Articles such as these do everything to reinforce this and fuel motorists’ rage. But lets take 2 steps back here. Why is there even a discussion on bike registration and cyclists apparently flouting the law?

The arguments presented in these articles are those that cyclists are flouting laws by running red lights, and riding 2 abrest (for which the latter is legal!), and not wearing helmets. Result? Registration must be introduced to curb these problems, not to mention fund road building!

Its pretty obvious that the facts used in these sorties are rather dubious, so I wont spend too long chewing on that. the first article states that “85% of RACQ’s 1.2 million members thinking that cyclists are a danger”. If that was the case, myself and quite a few of my cycling buddies would love to see the survey that we would have had to complete as part of that 1.2 million! But if that isn’t enough they quote similar figures from insurer AAMI in their on Monday – again no actual reference to the survey. Further to not providing a skerrick of evidence there, they attempted to outline road rules for cyclists in their Sunday article – well one could call it that had it come from Queensland transport, but clearly if you were to actually read the rules, the rule that you must ‘ride in single file’ is about as worthwhile as the rest of the article – yet it is left as fact in the angry motorists mind. Well while they did get the facts wrong their, it is interesting at least to see that their online poll goes massively against their own ‘facts’

Next in the line of misguided information the article attempts to describe the ‘nuissance’ that cyclists are; a staggering 168 cyclists were caught running red lights in 2009. Ok but lets put that in perspective. Department of transport figures show 35,5000 motorists caught doing the same. Put facts in perspective people!
So essentially the Courier Mail’s wants to push for cyclist registration to make riders more accountable for offences, and also suggest that riders ‘pay for what they use’ . Lets see if this is a valid claim. Where does the money come from that funds our roads the misinformed public crys? Well vehicle registration! - lets do the numbers shall we?

Firstly lets look at the impact a cyclist has on the road. 80 kg or so of bike +rider on 2.3 cm tyres hardly packs a dent in bitumen compared with a 1.5 tonne + car – which is significantly more if they are used for the same number of distance. But wait, in a city such as this the daily number of Km ridden on bikes would pail into insignificance where the public is focused madly on driving all across town. So clearly bicycle traffic does not place significant wear on our roadways, and even if it did, how many cyclists own cars, pay registration and use their bicycles in lieu of their cars? Interestingly though - both these arguments are completely useless given that roads are taxpayer funded – registration is merely collected and polled with other taxes – of which income tax pays the largest portion in road funding.

So if cyclists were to pay rego, lets look at how rego should charged then – just for the hell of it. In Queensland and most Australian states Rego is charged by GVM, - so a 10kg bike should be registered for roughly .05-1% of the rego price for the average car. Perhaps if your feeling more zealous we could consider the case where in more advanced places than Queensland vehicle registration s charged based on tailpipe emissions – a clear win for the bike there with zero CO2.

So I think that takes care of the ‘user pays’ side of the registering bikes argument - but what about cyclist identification. Sure rego can be handy in tracking down traffic offenders, such as those god awful red light louts. But really Who cares Australia!! Do you care if a tree falls in a distant forest? No. If a cyclists wants to run a red light - let them –does it affect you directly as a motorist – aside from pissing you off that a cyclist can do it? No. Yes there are laws against it – but here is a novel idea - don’t waste your precious time worrying – let the police deal with it (they sure do manage ok without rego, even overzealously from personal experience). And why not let the cyclist suffer the consequences if they crash? It never ceases to amaze me why we as Australians worry so much about things that have no direct influence and make it our own problem. How about we look after our own backyards hey?

So another one for those who think cyclists need to be held accountable for offences – I propose this question - what possible damage a cyclist can inflict on a motor vehicle that is significantly greater than that of a pedestrian? Do skateboarders require licences too? Is it a legal requirement then that pedestrians carry ID so they can be identified if they are involved in a traffic incident? Well Australia has already answered the question on ID, and the answer was overwhelming – we don’t want national ID. And who is honestly going to give licenses and registration to children to ride to the park?

Then comes the argument – if cyclists aren’t registered they will continue to ride recklessly and are more likely to crash – and when they crash they will be asking for government dollars for rehab. But lets be a bit positive here - how much is a cyclist already saving the public – one less person who will be suffering the ailments of obesity, alcoholism and other manner of lifestyle diseases that are plaguing our health system

So registration is clearly of little use, and would be a nightmare to introduce without national identity, but how do we deal with all the ‘congestion’ that Courier Mail readers clearly believe cyclists cause? The argument presented is that cyclists hold up commuters on their way to work. Excuse me – you still drive to work in the city? And complain that cyclists hold you up for 20 something seconds on your entire journey, not the masses of other idiots living the suburban dream, doing the same (usually with only one person in the car), and who are also stupid enough to drive at the same time and clog the roads?

Then what about those same people who are against cyclists not queuing in traffic? Why would any cyclist in their right mind ever want to sit behind a queue of cars in the city, when they can roll past with no problems, just like a motorbike does? Oh but the poor car driver has to pass them again, moving just a little, this little inconvenience causes all the trouble it would seem. But that’s not all – cyclists also clog transit lanes ‘unlawfully’. Hang on a tick – a cyclist is actually allowed to do this, and what do you propose they do otherwise – ride suicidally in the middle lane then? And even if they are in the left transit lane – how much of a pain are they when you compare them to cars that are legally parked in similar lanes on a 4 lane arterial road? Surely a non-moving car is a bigger problem than a slow small cyclist, but no way would they ever cop so much flack!

I guess that brings me nicely to the one thing that never ceases to amaze me about Brisbane’s motoring public -it’s stunning ability to switch from being a pack of super spatially challenged Neanderthals behind the wheel when parking, to someone who is capable of passing within millimetres of a cyclists handlebars, generally when a whole extra lane is available! You know what I mean, when you see someone trying to parallel park by driving front in, takes 5 attempts and thinks they are legally parked with a meter between the car and curb? And they have the hide to criticise cyclists and suggest driver education – take a look in your own backyard folks!

Another point the paper managed to cover a few weeks before the all out assault was the issue of cyclists flouting the other laws of helmets, and lights, as well as general road worthiness of bikes. I think at this point it is important to differentiate between the demographics of users. I think it is highly improbable that you will ever see a serious cyclist riding an unsafe bike without a helmet, or lights when necessary - the most likely demographic to be flouting these laws is the factory worker who has lost his licence DUI. And while we are at it, back to the argument of keeping it in your own backyard – who cares if a cyclist is wearing a helmet or not? No other country imposes such a ridiculous law on its citizens apart from America for Under 15’s. However, I personally will always wear one in Australia, as Aussies are such disrespectful neanderthals behind the wheel. Now to the roadworthy thing. If bikes were to be roadworthied – how about stepping things up a little with cars too hey? Queensland has perhaps one of the slackest roadworthy schedule in the developed world – necessary only when the vehicle changes hands

So at the end of the day, what does the Courier Mail reading motorist propose to get the cyclist off ‘their roads’? Cycleways. Why not, their tax payer dollars have gone into them, all 500 km (apparently) of them in Brisbane, that’s plenty right? (funny how its their money for cycleways and it needs to be a cyclists for roads).Lets have a look at how these are used. Firstly they receive very little use from the fast guys – the genuine ‘lycra set’ – why? Because 35 km hr+ necessary for effective training just isn’t safe there for all other users such as pedestrians and commuters. Next, of the “network” that exists in Brisbane how much of it is merely a 100m green lane just painted either side of a set of lights? Not exactly bankrupting to lay a few more lines when the road is being painted is it? but it does add a lot to the “number of km’s of bikeway count”. Lastly, how expensive is a bikeway network in comparison to the billions on all the vehicular projects underway? Not significant I bet.

Well that’s a long winded argument – and hopefully a little more insightful than the courier mail.