I have to wonder if either actually looked at the data.
If you hit the link to the original article by Evans, you find that the testers reduced the flash output from the Metz 45CT-1′s to about GN 20 at a distance between 1.1 and 1.4 meters, to approximate exactly what an amateur flash would put out. (remember, those little flashes also have a fairly short range, and many P&S cameras have wide angle lenses that inspire the “photographer” to be close) After the test, about 1/2 of the pigments showed changes “visible to the eye.”
Now as photographers, I hope we’ve reviewed Henry Wilhelm’s work in testing, first color negative, slide and print material, and now inkjet ink and paper materials. One of the important points is that materials fail when there is perceptible fading in one color. If you again read Evans’ work, he points out that the testing resulted in fading after only 1/3 of the expected exposure!
The point isn’t that electronic flash units cause fading; it’s that they add to the fading already occurring (very slowly), and the museums (and the public that enjoys these works) have a vested interest in slowing this fading as much as possible. The options include limiting the amount of time the works are on display, or limiting the amount of “unofficial” light that’s added to the works.
Any amount of fading and color shift is bad. Trying to claim it’s OK for thousands (or tens of thousands) of visitors a year to add to that fading is rather criminal.
There’s been a lot of noise in the last few days since a New Mexico Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that a New Mexico photographer discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to photograph a “commitment ceremony” between two lesbians. Important point: “New Mexico law does not recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions for same-sex couples, but its Human Rights Act requires that places of public accommodation not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.”
The photographer claimed that her Christian faith would not allow her to photograph the event. However, we must first remember that it was not a “wedding,” so she can’t really claim that her belief that “marriage is between a man and a woman” has any bearing here. She is, in fact, using her Christian faith to refuse her services in a discriminatory manner.
A restaurant can’t easily discriminate against diners. If you walk in and see empty tables, it’s very hard for them to refuse you service. But a photographer can easily discriminate against potential clients without revealing the issue. My calendar is not out for everyone to view. When a potential client discusses a job with me, I don’t first reveal whether I’m booked that day. I first want to discuss the job to see if I can do the job adequately. I’ve turned down plenty of jobs I didn’t think I was properly equipped to do, without revealing that I dislike the client. (and yes, you really can dislike a client at the interview enough that you don’t want to work with them) Vibe is important, and I’m sure every wedding photographer can tell a story about realizing at the interview phase that this wedding is going to be a horrible experience and trying to figure out how they can get out of it. If you wisely don’t display your prices, you can sometimes price yourself out of a job that you don’t want to take.
None of this is discrimination. It’s only discrimination if you tell the client you won’t work for them for any of the reasons that are forbidden by law. And this is the sticking point: if you want to wear your religious views on your sleeve, you are going to run into trouble. If you only want Christians as clients, then posting a set of the Ten Commandments or John 3:16 in your window may accomplish that desire, although it strikes me as bad business to drive away potential customers. But telling clients you won’t work for them because you don’t agree with their (insert discriminatory item here) is illegal and bad business.
No, I wouldn’t want to hire a photographer that hated me, nor would I want to work for a client that hated me. But there are plenty of good reasons that a photographer/client relationship might be a bad fit. Don’t use a bad one that leads to a lawsuit.