關於 how to do high key photography ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

根據計算，100萬人遊行隊伍要從維多利亞公園排到廣東；200萬人遊行則要排到泰國。

順道一提香港15～30歲人口約莫100出頭萬人。以照片人群幾乎都是此年齡帶來看，兩個數字都是明顯誇大太多了。

另一個可以參考的是1969年的Woodstock Music & Art Fair，幾天內湧進40萬人次，照片看起來也是滿山滿谷的人。（http://sites.psu.edu/…/upl…/sites/851/2013/01/Woodstock3.jpg）

當年40萬人次引發驚人的大塞車，幾乎花十幾個小時才逐漸清場。

而香港遊行清場速度明顯快得多。

順道一提，因此運動而認定「你的父母不愛你」的白痴論述也如同文化大革命時的「爹親娘親不如毛主席親」般開始出現：

https://www.facebook.com/SaluteToHKPolice/videos/350606498983830/UzpfSTUyNzM2NjA3MzoxMDE1NjMyMTM4NjY3MTA3NA/

EVERY MAJOR NEWS outlet in the world is reporting that two million people, well over a quarter of our population, joined a single protest.
.
It’s an astonishing thought that filled an enthusiastic old marcher like me with pride. Unfortunately, it’s almost certainly not true.
.
A march of two million people would fill a street that was 58 kilometers long, starting at Victoria Park in Hong Kong and ending in Tanglangshan Country Park in Guangdong, according to one standard crowd estimation technique.
.
If the two million of us stood in a queue, we’d stretch 914 kilometers (568 miles), from Victoria Park to Thailand. Even if all of us marched in a regiment 25 people abreast, our troop would stretch towards the Chinese border.
.
Yes, there was a very large number of us there. But getting key facts wrong helps nobody. Indeed, it could hurt the protesters more than anyone.
.
For math geeks only, here’s a discussion of the actual numbers that I hope will interest you whatever your political views.
.
.
DO NUMBERS MATTER?
.
People have repeatedly asked me to find out “the real number” of people at the recent mass rallies in Hong Kong.
.
I declined for an obvious reason: There was a huge number of us. What does it matter whether it was hundreds of thousands or a million? That’s not important.
.
But my critics pointed out that the word “million” is right at the top of almost every report about the marches. Clearly it IS important.
.
.
FIRST, THE SCIENCE
.
In the west, drone photography is analyzed to estimate crowd sizes.
.
This reporter apologizes for not having found a comprehensive database of drone images of the Hong Kong protests.
.
But we can still use related methods, such as density checks, crowd-flow data and impact assessments. Universities which have gathered Hong Kong protest march data using scientific methods include Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, University of Hong Kong, and Hong Kong Baptist University.
.
.
DENSITY CHECKS
.
Figures gathered in the past by Hong Kong Polytechnic specialists using satellite photo analysis found a density level of one square meter per marcher. Modern analysis suggests this remains roughly accurate.
.
I know from experience that Hong Kong marches feature long periods of normal spacing (one square meter or one and half per person, walking) and shorter periods of tight spacing (half a square meter or less per person, mostly standing).
.
.
JOINERS AND SPEED
.
We need to include people who join halfway. In the past, a Hong Kong University analysis using visual counting methods cross-referenced with one-on-one interviews indicated that estimates should be boosted by 12% to accurately reflect late joiners. These days, we’re much more generous in estimating joiners.
.
As for speed, a Hong Kong Baptist University survey once found a passing rate of 4,000 marchers every ten minutes.
.
Videos of the recent rallies indicates that joiner numbers and stop-start progress were highly erratic and difficult to calculate with any degree of certainty.
.
.
DISTANCE MULTIPLIED BY DENSITY
.
But scientists have other tools. We know the walking distance between Victoria Park and Tamar Park is 2.9 kilometers. Although there was overspill, the bulk of the marchers went along Hennessy Road in Wan Chai, which is about 25 meters (or 82 feet) wide, and similar connected roads, some wider, some narrower.
.
Steve Doig, a specialist in crowd analysis approached by the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), analyzed an image of Hong Kong marchers to find a density level of 7,000 people in a 210-meter space. Although he emphasizes that crowd estimates are never an exact science, that figure means one million Hong Kong marchers would need a street 18.6 miles long – which is 29 kilometers.
.
Extrapolating these figures for the June 16 claim of two million marchers, you’d need a street 58 kilometers long.
.
Could this problem be explained away by the turnover rate of Hong Kong marchers, which likely allowed the main (three kilometer) route to be filled more than once?
.
The answer is yes, to some extent. But the crowd would have to be moving very fast to refill the space a great many times over in a single afternoon and evening. It wasn’t. While I can walk the distance from Victoria Park to Tamar in 41 minutes on a quiet holiday afternoon, doing the same thing during a march takes many hours.
.
More believable: There was a huge number of us, but not a million, and certainly not two million.
.
.
IMPACT MEASUREMENTS
.
A second, parallel way of analyzing the size of the crowd is to seek evidence of the effects of the marchers’ absence from their normal roles in society.
.
If we extract two million people out of a population of 7.4 million, many basic services would be severely affected while many others would grind to a complete halt.
.
Manpower-intensive sectors of society, such as transport, would be badly affected by mass absenteeism. Industries which do their main business on the weekends, such as retail, restaurants, hotels, tourism, coffee shops and so on would be hard hit. Round-the-clock operations such as hospitals and emergency services would be severely troubled, as would under-the-radar jobs such as infrastructure and utility maintenance.
.
There seems to be no evidence that any of that happened in Hong Kong.
.
.
HOW DID WE GET INTO THIS MESS?
.
To understand that, a bit of historical context is necessary.
.
In 2003, a very large number of us walked from Victoria Park to Central. The next day, newspapers gave several estimates of crowd size.
.
The differences were small. Academics said it was 350,000 plus. The police counted 466,000. The organizers, a group called the Civil Rights Front, rounded it up to 500,000.
.
No controversy there. But there was trouble ahead.
.
.
THINGS FALL APART
.
At a repeat march the following year, it was obvious to all of us that our numbers were far lower that the previous year. The people counting agreed: the academics said 194,000 and the police said 200,000.
.
But the Civil Rights Front insisted that there were MORE than the previous year’s march: 530,000 people.
.
The organizers lost credibility even with us, their own supporters. To this day, we all quote the 2003 figure as the high point of that period, ignoring their 2004 invention.
.
.
THE TRUTH COUNTS
.
The organizers had embarrassed the marchers. The following year several organizations decided to serve us better, with detailed, scientific counts.
.
After the 2005 march, the academics said the headcount was between 60,000 and 80,000 and the police said 63,000. Separate accounts by other independent groups agreed that it was below 100,000.
.
But the organizers? The Civil Rights Front came out with the awkward claim that it was a quarter of a million. Ouch. (This data is easily confirmed from multiple sources in newspaper archives.)
.
.
AN UNEXPECTED TWIST
.
But then came a twist. Some in the Western media chose to present ONLY the organizer’s “outlier” claim.
.
“Dressed in black and chanting ‘one man, one vote’, a quarter of a million people marched through Hong Kong yesterday,” said the Times of London in 2005.
.
“A quarter of a million protesters marched through Hong Kong yesterday to demand full democracy from their rulers in Beijing,” reported the UK Independent.
.
It became obvious that international media outlets were committed to emphasizing whichever claim made the Hong Kong government (and by extension, China) look as bad as possible. Accuracy was nowhere in the equation.
.
.
STRATEGICALLY CHOSEN
.
At universities in Hong Kong, there were passionate discussions about the apparent decision to pump up the numbers as a strategy, with the international media in mind. Activists saw two likely positive outcomes.
.
First, anyone who actually wanted the truth would choose a middle point as the “real” number: thus it was worth making the organizers’ number as high as possible. (The police could be presented as corrupt puppets of Beijing.)
.
Second, international reporters always favored the largest number, since it implicitly criticized China. Once the inflated figure was established in the Western media, it would become the generally accepted figure in all publications.
.
Both of the activists’ predictions turned out to be bang on target. In the following years, headcounts by social scientists and police were close or even impressively confirmed the other—but were ignored by the agenda-driven international media, who usually printed only the organizers’ claims.
.
.
SKIP THIS SECTION
.
Skip this section unless you want additional examples to reinforce the point.
.
In 2011, researchers and police said that between 63,000 and 95,000 of us marched. Our delightfully imaginative organizers multiplied by four to claim there were 400,000 of us.
.
In 2012, researchers and police produced headcounts similar to the previous year: between 66,000 and 97,000. But the organizers claimed that it was 430,000. (These data can also be easily confirmed in any newspaper archive.)
.
.
SKIP THIS SECTION TOO
.
Unless you’re interested in the police angle. Why are police figures seen as lower than others? On reviewing data, two points emerge.
.
First, police estimates rise and fall with those of independent researchers, suggesting that they function correctly: they are not invented. Many are slightly lower, but some match closely and others are slightly higher. This suggests that the police simply have a different counting method.
.
Second, police sources explain that live estimates of attendance are used for “effective deployment” of staff. The number of police assigned to work on the scene is a direct reflection of the number of marchers counted. Thus officers have strong motivation to avoid deliberately under-estimating numbers.
.
.
RECENT MASS RALLIES
.
Now back to the present: this hot, uncomfortable summer.
.
Academics put the 2019 June 9 rally at 199,500, and police at 240,000. Some people said the numbers should be raised or even doubled to reflect late joiners or people walking on parallel roads. Taking the most generous view, this gave us total estimates of 400,000 to 480,000.
.
But the organizers, God bless them, claimed that 1.03 million marched: this was four times the researchers’ conservative view and more than double the generous view.
.
The addition of the “.03m” caused a bit of mirth among social scientists. Even an academic writing in the rabidly pro-activist Hong Kong Free Press struggled to accept it. “Undoubtedly, the anti-amendment group added the extra .03 onto the exact one million figure in order to give their estimate a veneer of accuracy,” wrote Paul Stapleton.
.
.
MIND-BOGGLING ESTIMATE
.
But the vast majority of international media and social media printed ONLY the organizers’ eyebrow-raising claim of a million plus—and their version soon fed back into the system and because the “accepted” number. (Some mentioned other estimates in early reports and then dropped them.)
.
The same process was repeated for the following Sunday, June 16, when the organizers’ frankly unbelievable claim of “about two million” was taken as gospel in the majority of international media.
.
“Two million people in Hong Kong protest China's growing influence,” reported Fox News.
.
“A record two million people – over a quarter of the city’s population” joined the protest, said the Guardian this morning.
.
“Hong Kong leader apologizes as TWO MILLION take to the streets,” said the Sun newspaper in the UK.
.
Friends, colleagues, fellow journalists—what happened to fact-checking? What happened to healthy skepticism? What happened to attempts at balance?
.
.
CONCLUSIONS?
.
I offer none. I prefer that you do your own research and draw your own conclusions. This is just a rough overview of the scientific and historical data by a single old-school citizen-journalist working in a university coffee shop.
.
I may well have made errors on individual data points, although the overall message, I hope, is clear.
.
Hong Kong people like to march.
.
We deserve better data.
.
We need better journalism. Easily debunked claims like “more than a quarter of the population hit the streets” help nobody.
.
International media, your hostile agendas are showing. Raise your game.
.
Organizers, stop working against the scientists and start working with them.
.
Hong Kong people value truth.
.
We’re not stupid. (And we’re not scared of math!)

WPPA memeber of the months- One of the famous wedding photographer interview ( Nick Ghionis ) www.wppa.com.hk

Member of the Month – Nick Ghionis @ X Sight
( www.xsight.com.au )
MORE PHOTO AND INTERVIEW : www.wppa.com.hk

1. XSiGHT is one of the most famous leading brands in the photography industry and it already has its studios and galleries in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Darwin, California (USA) and also London (UK)… Can you please give us a brief concept about do these studios work closely together or independently while all can maintain such a high level of quality that is absolutely amazing in terms of both business and artistry sense.

Nick: From the beginning the idea behind XSiGHT was to create a BRAND that will represent the best image making in the world. The business model we have attract photographers who are at the top of their game and aspire to be a part of a select group of individuals that will not only compliment the brand but also cement XSiGHT’s position as leaders in the industry.

All our studios work independently of each other with the common goal of creating stunning images and offering excellent customer service.

We put in place a proven business model that all studios would adhere to, but the freedom to create and be artistic in your own right is what makes XSiGHT unique.

2. You are the owner of XSiGHT Melbourne and how you can keep a balance role as you are the boss and photographer at the same time, which seem to be quite difficult to run a successfully business like yours… Do you mind to let us know how many staffs do you have and what is the distribution of their work? Does the scope meet your expectation?

Nick: XSiGHT Melbourne and the XSiGHT brand is owned and run by my wife Sharifa and I. We have surrounded ourselves with a team that can only be described as the best in the business so the day to day running of our Melbourne studio occurs with ease.

Without a great team, it is impossible.

We have two portrait photographers and two wedding photographers, a studio manager (also a photographer), a customer relations officer, two in house digital artists as well as our Creative Director and Photographer Rocco Ancora. Each person has specific roles to help the business run smoothly but most important is client liaison.

All this is overseen by Sharifa Ghionis while I get on with working on the business.

3. For the past years, how you position XSiGHT Melbourne in the market? Did you have a clear target set from the beginning?
Nick: When it comes to marketing our business, we recognize it’s not a once off event, it has a beginning a middle but never an end. There is not one key that opens the door, rather there are many aspects to marketing to ensure that clients are drawn to you on a regular basis. We have consistent strategies in place to make sure this happens and always keep an eye on market trends so as to keep up with changes in client expectations.

4. How you come to the idea of XMENTOR? Any specific marketing plan of it?

Nick: The XMENTORS came about when Rocco Ancora joined the XSiGHT family as Creative Director. As speakers and educators, Rocco, Sharifa and I decided to create a brand where we can draw on each other’s strengths and include different aspects to the photography business from digital workflow to management and business. The brand XMENTORS is all encompassing, making our workshops unique, as we offer photographers content that transcends more than just taking pretty pictures.

5. From your point of view, is marketing plan very important in running an artistry business? Can you share with us your way to figure out your marketing plan as it is very common for artistes that most of them are idealistic and will shift to the “art” side more then forget about the money matter spontaneously… Any advise or suggestions to photographers who just entered the industry and thinking about to set up their own business; and also to those photographers who are already running their own company?

Nick: Many people have a romantic notion of what a photographer is. We consider ourselves artists and get annoyed when business gets in the way of our creativity. Unfortunately this is where many fail in business.
When it comes down to it, we are selling a product. Regardless of the product, a business plan needs to be put in place that takes into account all aspects of photography. You need to calculate ALL expenses: overheads, printing, retouching, production, your time etc in order to make informed decisions and grow your business and profit margin. You need to be a business person in photography rather than a photographer in business.

6, When was the 1st time you had your very first shot? In what circumstances? Was it an amazing one? Then immediate fell in love with “shooting”?

Nick: I first picked up a camera at the age of 21 whilst on holiday in Fiji. Unlike today’s digital world where you are able to see in an instant what you are photographing, I used the camera merely as a tool to document my holiday. It wasn’t until I developed the film that I realise that I might have a talent for this. I actually enjoyed the process of taking photos and instinctively was able to get consistent results without really knowing what I was doing. I thought to myself “..imagine if I actually knew what I was doing, rather than putting it on auto.” That’s when the journey began. I devoured every magazine and book I could get my hands on.
As my passion grew so did my expenses. I built three darkrooms and enjoyed printing my own B&W prints. Like many who enjoyed the fine art of printing, my hero was Ansel Adams. I remember going to an exhibition of his and marvelled at the tonal range and depth that he was able to get in his images.
I would work 3 to 4 jobs to make money and pay for my new addiction. It wasn’t long before I purchased a 5×4 Linhof Master Technica and my 500cm Hasselblad with lenses and backs.

7. Do you remember what was your first set of equipment as a professional photographer? How’s their performance? Good?

Nick: My first camera was a Pentax MG and I grew out of that quickly as I was unable to put it on Manual. I then bought myself an Olympus OM1 which I loved and still have to this day.

8.When and how you have started as a wedding photographer? And how’s this first shoot led you to the way you are now?

Nick: Every weekend for 2 years I assisted other photographers with no pay, just so I could learn, but was too scared to do a wedding on my own. It wasn’t until 1989 that a friend asked me to photograph her wedding. Naturally I declined and thought nothing of it until 2 weeks prior to her wedding when she asked me what plan I had for her big day?! It was too late for her to find another photographer so I found myself shooting my first wedding! At the end of the day, I went home and vomited from stress and exhaustion. I remember paying a premium to get the negatives earlier because I couldn’t handle the anxious wait. When I got the results back I was pleasantly surprised. They were beautiful and it gave me the confidence to do more weddings.

After freelancing for a couple of studios and offering B&W printing services to them, I continued to work from home while persuing other ventures and business opportunities. It wasn’t until I joined XSiGHT that I truly forged ahead with my career. Focusing all my energy into being the best I can be. While I continued to serve our clients and exceed their expectations, my only motivation was to grow the business and remain at the top of our game. However the face of our company for many years was my brother Jerry Ghionis, an amazing photographer, and in my opinion one of the best wedding photographers in the world. It was only until he left the company that I had to make a conscious decision to step into the spot light and stear the company into its next phase. Amongst many initiatives that were put in place, one of them was to participate into the world of awards. Something that initially I was reluctant to do, but felt was necessary to continue the momentum of being an award winning studio, something that Jerry was already doing for our Brand.

9. Which is your best shot? And why?

Nick: With thousands of images taken, when asked which one is your favourite, it is hard to choose. But one photograph that I have dear to my heart is “ The Prayer “ This photograph was taken in the Greek Island of Rhodes, one of my favourite destination weddings. It was taken at the wedding of George and Fiona, who after their wedding decided that it was time they too realised their dream of running a photography studio. They now run XSiGHT Darwin, a thriving business in the north of Australia. At the time this image won 1st Place in the Wedding category at WPPI, it was a proud moment for me, not just for the fact that it won 1st place, but it did so without the over photoshop images that was prevalent in competitions and to a degree still is.

10.Any advice or suggestion could be given to photographers, especially for those fresh photographers?

Nick: I consider myself a purist when it comes to photography I implore all photographers whether you are starting out now or seasoned photographers artistry begins in the camera.

11.What is your motto in your life?

Nick: Many people ask me, what is your mantra? What do you stand for? I think living your life with respect and integrity is what I aspire to do every day.