anti-photography tools

Signs & fragments

A
Signs & fragments

  • 1
  • 0
  • 10
Summer corn, summer storm

D
Summer corn, summer storm

  • 1
  • 1
  • 23
Horizon, summer rain

D
Horizon, summer rain

  • 0
  • 0
  • 29
$12.66

A
$12.66

  • 6
  • 5
  • 167

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,814
Messages
2,781,232
Members
99,712
Latest member
asalazarphoto
Recent bookmarks
0

Andy K

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
9,420
Location
Sunny Southe
Format
Multi Format
Anti-digital-photography tools...
 

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 7, 2002
Messages
19,974
Location
Honolulu, HI
Format
Large Format
from the article said:
Meanwhile, Hewlett Packard is busy working on another way to remotely scramble digital camera images.

Ha! They can split infinitives, but let them try to scramble my albumen technology!
 

Andy K

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
9,420
Location
Sunny Southe
Format
Multi Format
David A. Goldfarb said:
Ha! Let them try to scramble my albumen technology!

Would that be scrambled eggs? :D
 

Tom Hoskinson

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Messages
3,867
Location
Southern Cal
Format
Multi Format
More like meringue - and that's no yolk!
 

Jim Chinn

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
2,512
Location
Omaha, Nebra
Format
Multi Format
There was an article or post about this about a year ago. Someone was making a device that could be carried on a person and would interfere with the electronics on a camera up to 30ft away. They talked about it being away for celebrities to foil in your face paparazzi or at least the ones using dgital or film cameras heavily reliant on electronics.

What if you could carry a device that did emit an EMP signal that could fry the insides or at least disable a digital camera. Would you be liable for damage to the phtographers gear or could you argue your were defending your privacy?
 

Andy K

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
9,420
Location
Sunny Southe
Format
Multi Format
Jim Chinn said:
What if you could carry a device that did emit an EMP signal that could fry the insides or at least disable a digital camera. Would you be liable for damage to the phtographers gear or could you argue your were defending your privacy?

Don't know, but I wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of the lawsuit when it got used in the vicinity of someone fitted with a Pacemaker...
 

laz

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
1,117
Location
Lower Hudson
Format
Multi Format
Hey I got an idea on how to get around this! Ya start with a light sensitive emulsion, maybe one with silver, ya spread it on a ........
 

eumenius

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
768
Location
Moscow, Russ
Format
Medium Format
I suggested once to my electronics friend a portable destroyer of electronics, made that way: a small, GN 28 or more if possible flash with bad lamp has the lamp replaced with a coil - a pair or two of turns of thick copper wire, maybe with a ferrite rod inside. When the "test" button is pressed, the unit emits a strong directed electromagnetic instant impulse, enough to blow any input circuit of induction-based sensors or similar things. What's interesting, my idea worked - it was tested, as I was told, on a subway tourniquet. Well, I am not guilty that such ideas come to my mind... but maybe my scheme would work with digicams, too? Just take something like old Metz 60 with lead-acid power pack :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

firecracker

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
1,950
Location
Japan
Format
35mm
Are we living in a totalitalian state? It's another military tool that's being introduced to us and that does perhaps more harm than good. Now whoever owns a piece of digital recording device is undoublty subject to this claim.

There are perverts and others who have no morals whatsoever with or without cameras, but that's a whole different issue as we know.
 

Jorge

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2002
Messages
4,515
Format
Large Format
eumenius said:
I suggested once to my electronics friend a portable destroyer of electronics, made that way: a small, GN 28 or more if possible flash with bad lamp has the lamp replaced with a coil - a pair or two of turns of thick copper wire, maybe with a ferrite rod inside. When the "test" button is pressed, the unit emits a strong directed electromagnetic instant impulse, enough to blow any input circuit of induction-based sensors or similar things. What's interesting, my idea worked - it was tested, as I was told, on a subway tourniquet. Well, I am not guilty that such ideas come to my mind... but maybe my scheme would work with digicams, too? Just take something like old Metz 60 with lead-acid power pack :smile:

One of these and a cell phone jammer would qualify as nirvana for me.... :D
 

eumenius

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
768
Location
Moscow, Russ
Format
Medium Format
firecracker said:
Are we living in a totalitalian state?
If it's the USA, that's for sure - you can't imagine how much does it resemble the former Soviet Union to people who lived there. Looks like anti-communists after 1946 did something wrong in their effort to struggle with the USSR, copying some worst parts of it. Well, I can't say it's okay when a photographer from the USA tells as a good advice on his site, that one should never ever remain with or without his camera alone with the female models or, even worse, children. It's important to have witnesses around, just in case. Or the American Nationalism issue? Or many other things in school and governmental institutes? And, not to be mentioned here, the practice of total unconsented circumcision of every male infant in the USA for decades, still in birth clinics - does it resemble Gulag or Auschwitz in some aspects to one, no?

But, as in every other place, there are idiots and there are saints - and a big heap of people between, so everything is perfecly normal. At least someone didn't get yet a grant from the US government to develop a system of potential terrorist detection, preferably with chip grafting under skin. Or from our crazy Russian government :smile:
 

Ole

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 9, 2002
Messages
9,244
Location
Bergen, Norway
Format
Large Format
eumenius said:
...Just take something like old Metz 60 with lead-acid power pack :smile:

I think a Metz 60, fired into the lens from a distance of no more than 10cm (4 inches) could fry any digital sensor chip :D
 

Andy K

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2004
Messages
9,420
Location
Sunny Southe
Format
Multi Format
firecracker said:
Are we living in a totalitalian state? It's another military tool that's being introduced to us and that does perhaps more harm than good. Now whoever owns a piece of digital recording device is undoublty subject to this claim.

That's a big NMP*






*Not My Problem
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,918
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
I just hope that nothing like this would have any effect on any of my film cameras that use batteries/have electronically controlled shutters (Mamiya 645 Super/Pro :confused:
 

kwmullet

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2004
Messages
891
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Format
Multi Format
wow. neat.

I switched over to non-electronic photography just in time. I just sold the last of my Canon EF gear and nearly have the first phase of my FD kit buit up. Sure, I could put a battery in my Canon F1, but I use my spot meter, so what'd be the point?

I can see one very interesting twist. If such technology becomes widespread, then maybe Paparazzi will be driven back to using film in cameras with spring driven shutters.

-KwM-
 

Tom Hoskinson

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Messages
3,867
Location
Southern Cal
Format
Multi Format
Hey eumenius, my process lenses and sock shutters sneer at your EMP device!
 

arigram

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,465
Location
Crete, Greec
Format
Medium Format
Fantastic!
I would love to buy one of these!
Then I would just walk in the local photo club meeting and watch with a grin
while they digitoys blow up in the hands while I am taking photos of them with
my Hasselblad. :smile:
 

PeterB

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
644
Location
Sydney, Aust
Format
Medium Format
Jim Chinn said:
What if you could carry a device that did emit an EMP signal that could fry the insides or at least disable a digital camera. Would you be liable for damage to the phtographers gear or could you argue your were defending your privacy?

Unfortunately EMP devices able to achive this sort of damage would not be portable. Besides the original article doesn't even mention EMP devices, it refers to some optical method of interference:
"The system then shoots a tightly targeted beam of light at the lens. The result: Your secret picture looks like a flashlight beam -- and nothing else"
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom