Click to Enlarge Gallery Preview
Law enforcement, arson investigators, scientists, academics, medical, and forensics photographers are all specifically enumerated as the only allowed usages for the IS-1, according to the sticker affixed to our test unit.
Furthermore, any usages that may invade privacy, endanger children, or entail any sort of "paparazzi-like activities" are specifically enumerated as prohibited.
Somewhere between the prescribed and proscribed usages, fine art, editorial and landscape photography is missing.
(The ULA disclaimer on at least one online vendor had been recently updated to include Fine Art and Professional Portraiture since we began questioning Fujifilm about this ULA, although the company would not clarify if the language update on the online vendor's website officially reflects Fuji's position -- and has once again been switched to append only professional portraiture to the allowed usages.)
Now, there is something behind this. Certain materials reflect differently in infrared, some to the point of transparency, such as synthetic-based bathing suits, particularly when wet. So, while the camera could be misused by someone with nefarious purposes, what about those of us simply looking to capture the grandeur of wildflower-covered foothills in the mystical, magical feel of infrared? Fuji's narrowly defined ULA seems to make no distinction between the two.
Interestingly, our FujiFilm S3 Pro UVIR, which also captures photons into both the UV and IR segments of the spectrum, didn't ship with this restrictive ULA sticker. In fact, mentions on the official Fujilm USA site boast that the UVIR can be used by "photo artists for special infrared effects." Nor does the Sigma SD14, which easily captures IR with a quick and easy removal of the IR cutoff filter. Nor does the Leica M8, which is accidentally IR-sensitive. Nor do the cameras from LDP, an independent company that converts many different brands of digital cameras to infrared-only, and infrared-plus-visible sensitivity.
It is also disconcerting that Fujifilm does not choose to mention the restrictive ULA on its own Web page featuring the IS-1. Unless you read the entire description on the product page of an online vendor, you might not realize this awful ULA is in place until the package arrives at your door.
While we understand that infrared capture, can, in devious hands, be used for less-than-honorable (and possibly illegal) purposes, the same can be said for any camera and lens on the market. What's next? Telephoto lenses shipping with ULAs stating that you may not capture photos of people in public from a distance? We're not happy with Fujifilm's restrictive ULA, and we're going to continue pushing the company to at least amend it to include types of photography that are not, unto themselves, illegal in nature.
Print
Stumble It 
Comments
Be the first to comment!