photographs of illegal mushrooms

[ballzac]

Hey everyone. I got a question for ya. I don't have a digital camera, so to get pics to post on shroomery.org I need to bring the mushrooms home and take poor quality pics with my cam, by which time the mushrooms are looking pretty sad and becoming harder to identify. I can however take decent quality pictures with my analogue camera on location and scan them once I've had them developed. I was just wondering what the legality is with these pictures. I'm sure that most operators and employees of these photograph places couldn't care less what the photos are as long as they're not child pornography, but I'm just curious what would happen if the photo people thought that all these photos of fungii looked a little suspect and called the cops. Does anyone else use an analogue camera and a scanner to get pics for shroomery?

Thanks people

[2b]

I can't see any problem photographing them in their natural state , that is where they are growing. A photo of you with a handfull may be another story tho....

[AndyAmine.]

Yeah, I think it should be fine as long as there is nothing too incriminating on it. perhaps take some photo's of other fungi and wildlife to add to the mix?

Reminds me of an old mate of mine from back in the day.

Jst before taking a pill he would stick it on his out streched tongue and take a photo, in the end he had a wall with hundreds of photo's on it..

Anyhoo, the last role of film he took, he was a bit too game and took pictures of all him and his mates getting stuck into it along with various bags of drugs and some other stuff I wont mention, the photo developer showed them to the cops and he got raided a couple of week later and the nail in his coffen were all the photo's he had.

[genki]

as long as you dont have photos of you cramming down a fistful of illegal shrooms you should be fine. taking photos of them without removing any is fine, taking some home to photograph is dodgy if your caught with them on you. but if you had a huge selection of other mushrooms to photogragh as well you could always say you didnt know better and just collected anything you saw - provided you dont have any books with psilocybes in them lying around at home. if your really worried about it buy a polaroid camera, although the picture quality would be less than perfect

[naja naja]

In most cases, photo developers follow a volantary code of client confidentiality and will develope absolutely anything aslong as it's not child porn. You should hear the discusting shit my mate tells me he developes. Some places I know of like coles developing will just not print them or remove the illegal ones like pot photo's, but still do not report to the police. In your case though and considering how cheap they are, just get yourself a crappy digital camera, aslong as you just want the photo's on your computer, 1megapixel is adequate, even printing photo's to the standard photo size wil be fine. If you want to print any larger you need more megapixels, the more MP the bigger print you can do, 3.3MP is fine for A4 printing. If the pics are just for the comp, then you won't notice alot of diff in quality between 1mp and 4mp on a comp screen.

So even one of those shitty $30 1.1MP dig camera's should be fine, (in theory). If u got some money to spend, go one with a carl zeiss lens, I rekon that one reason my photo's always look so good

[ballzac]

okay, thanks guys. I guess I don't have much to worry about, but I might get a digital camera anyway. I didn't realise you could pick them up so cheaply these days!

#drools over Carl Zeiss lens#

Oh yeah, I was actually contemplating taking photos to club x to be developed as I have taken photos there before ;)

but I figured they might think that photos of naked mushrooms was just a little TOO kinky:P

[eeroborroc]

.

Edited September 13, 2013 by eeroborroc

[naja naja]

Any good developers visually check every photo in the batch, to check for quality. They will regularly reprint photo's because they are too dark or too light. People don't realize how much work goes into developing simple photo's. Kodak won't hire you if you are colour blind, they even have en employee test computer programme to test for colour blindness. Aslong as it's a privatley owned shop you should be fine.

Coles,K-mart, etc are not good! They print shit prints and don't do illegal ones most of the time. Even if there is no evidence pertained within.

[MrBumpy]

So thats why the sneaky photos my friends took of their penises as a joke when they stole my mates camera didn't come out

[Green Osiris]

QUOTE: ballzac:

Oh yeah, I was actually contemplating taking photos to club x to be developed as I have taken photos there before ;)

but I figured they might think that photos of naked mushrooms was just a little TOO kinky:P

LMAO. Yea, but they'de wonder what & how you might be using something with such a 'soft' demeanor.:D Probably a more expensive way to develop conventional film too, yea, through a porn outlet ?

While on the subject of cheap digital cameras, there are some brilliant quality photos posted on this forum and other parts of the 'ninternut'.... can anyone give me a good example of what bottom end quality photos look like at say, a 3.2 megapixel res ? Cams at this res are sooooo freaking cheap (ie' inder $130) And what of the PC requirements to upload ? (this boy is running an old paperweight with win 98 and a slow processor - PII)

QUOTE: naja naja

Any good developers visually check every photo in the batch, to check for quality

Reminds me of the movie "One Hour Photo". Scary obsessive. But bonus points for the main character's name of "psy"

[naja naja]

QUOTE:

While on the subject of cheap digital cameras, there are some brilliant quality photos posted on this forum and other parts of the 'ninternut'.... can anyone give me a good example of what bottom end quality photos look like at say, a 3.2 megapixel res ? Cams at this res are sooooo freaking cheap (ie' inder $130) And what of the PC requirements to upload ? (this boy is running an old paperweight with win 98 and a slow processor - PII)

QUOTE

All my photo's are taken with a sony 3.3 megapixel, with a carl zeiss lens.

Check "some pics fom my collection" in the creativity section to see them.

AS I said b4, unless you are going to be printing the photo's your not going to notice too much difference between photo's taken with 3.3MP and 6 MP. All that MP is for when you print a photo! The bigger the MP the bigger photo you can print without a loss in quality. But if your just viewing it on a computer screen, you won't be able to tell a diff. The only diff then comes down to the individual cameras, and their lenses.

I can print up to A4 without loss in quality, so unless your planning on getting poster sized prints of your photo's made. 3.3 is fine! Even a 1mp camera can take photo's suitable for printing up to the standard photo size without a loss in quality.

Conclusion. For the computer screen it doesn't really matter how many Megapixels, the quality of the camera/lense is more important.

If a 1mp photo, a 3.3mp photo and a 6.6mp photo printed in "standard" photo size, taken with similar quality camera's, were placed side by side, 99% of people wouldn't be able to pick between them. Viewed on a computer screen, would give the same results.

Only if you had enlarged the prints, would people be able to tell the diff.

Hope this helps,film is dead people.

Naja