mathieulandry

...and John's answer is TOTALLY unimformative...what a waste of precious bits.

 

Makes me cringe when things are pigoneholed, especially when we are dealing with individuals who are all essentially different.

In an ideal World, you shouldn't need a release ever. But the sad truth is that selfish parasitic brats live among us and we have to deal with them.

 

First, "A photo doesn't need a release till there's an intended use for it. Sure, you can have a very broadly worded release that can apply to any and all uses, but it is only at the time when a specific use of an image arises can one determine if a release is required" according to Dan Heller's information.

 

Dan Heller has a quite detailed account of how to deal with releases in general and Chapter 7.9 of his article is about web posting (see http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html)

 

Another good source I found doing a quick search was the following: http://www.publaw.com/photo.html

 

For your specific question, according to the latter site, there has been no case to create a precedent:

 

"It has been questioned whether photos on a website constitute a form of self-promotion (i.e., advertising) because your site is something like a portfolio. Yet, this has never been tested in court, so at this point, it's merely conjecture. That said, it's another question of where along the spectrum a website may lie if it portrays images: is it a portfolio, or are you presenting material in an editorial context, or are you making photos available for use by editorial clients that do not need releases to license? Until a true precedent is established, I would assume that eventually a judge is going to look at cases individually and decide independently based on context." -publaw

 

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be careful.

 

"The general principles are that one who publicizes a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability for invasion of privacy if the matter publicized is of a kind that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not of legitimate concern to the public." -Publaw

 

So that can be a question you can ask yourself: is the depiction of your subject derogatory to his person. You are walking a thin line with two huge grey zones on either side, but you can generally figure if you are presenting a subject in a complimentary form or not. If you run into some problems, a verbal agreement is usually easy depending on how much is involved.

 

"The right of publicity provides that an individual has the right to control the commercial use of their name, likeness or identity. While the right of privacy protects an individual from the disclosure of embarrassing facts, the right of publicity protects the individual from financial loss from an unauthorized commercial use of their name or likeness." -Publaw

 

So, even if your work displays your subject in a complimentary light, the party representing that subject may want full control over the image/portrayal and distribution of that subject. e.g. a certain popular rock figure and even on the web. It's all a question of how extreme certain people are.

 

So in the end "Because there are many nuances to the right of privacy and publicity laws it is advisable to always obtain a written release from any individual that would be recognized in a photograph." -publaw

 

Especially, I might add, if you don't know how the photogrpahed individuals might react. e.g. I don't need a release for pics of my dad, but I don't know about that biker dude over there...

 

"Releases are generally not required from people who are identifiable in a photograph of a street or public place, provided that the photograph is reasonably related to the subject matter and the identifiable people are not the focus of the photograph" -publaw

 

So here is a general case where you do not need a release form, but caution is still warranted if such an image is used for the public dessimination of a controversial issue such as gay pride, a certain religion etc.

 

"If you decide to use a photograph without a release make certain it was obtained without trespassing on private property, that it does not violate an individual's right of privacy or publicity or that it is protected by a First Amendment use." -publaw

 

"Regretfully, there are no guarantees that an identifiable person or owner of property in a photograph would threaten to or bring a legal action for publishing a particular photograph. Therefore, the only way a publisher can be almost risk free from such lawsuit is by obtaining a written release from any person(s) or owner(s) of property that appear in a photograph." -publaw

 

So in the end, just use your common sense and deal with anoyances the best you can. If someone sees their pic on the web, I doubt they'll take legal action right away. They might ask you to remove it, and that's easy enough to do...the art of communication goes a long way. I try to never have recognizable subjects in my photos unless they are friends or familly. Otherwise I'd probably ask for a release.

 

Hope this helps...

Thanks for all the input and opinions from all of you.

 

First, I'd like to clarify, for personal satisfaction, the reasons why I only shoot an average of 1-2 rolls per month.

 

First off, I do music too and this is always in competition with my photography as hobby of choice. I have a 9-5 dayjob and I like to do many different things also. I'm not the type of person to focus on one thing only and make it his life. I admire those who do and can.

 

Secondly, I tend to be very conservative in my shooting. For instance, so far this month, I have shot 2 1/2 rolls of film and my creativity was forced because I tried to incorporate photography in my scheduled activities. Couple that with 2 films being B&W and lab processed makes for mostly shitty results (as expected). When I have the time I do shoot more (my prefered way of shooting is dedicated photo outings). e.g. I shot 3 rolls on just waterfalls on a short 2h hike this summer. But I cannot do this everytime.

 

Thirdly, I don't have an urge to archive all of my previous material. And I'm really picky for my best shots and those usually end up on my wall or someone else's.

 

Someone suggested a P&S but this is really not an option. I am used to the SLR feel and functions and can't go back. As for crop factor, I do have the 17-40 so the transition wouldn't be that bad.

 

You all made me think much about it and I thank you. The most logical path for me right now seems to stick with slide film and my current workflow and wait for price drops on the 20D or something better.

 

Peace

I have sort of a photographic consommation existentialism dilema.

Maybe you guys' advices and comments will help my cause.

 

I shoot film with my Elan7 and I like it. I don't consider that I

shoot a lot (due to other hobbies and time availability): Probably 1-2

rolls a month. My current worflow is shoot, lab develop, vision with

projector (for slides) or look at printed proofs, pick best ones, lab

enlarge and frame.

 

I recently was considering getting a dedicated film scanner (Nikon V)

to improve my workflow a bit since I have a decent PC with Photoshop.

But then an evil friend put in my mind the thought of buying a 20D.

 

The price difference is double for the 20D or more considering flash

cards etc. vs. the scanner. I do save a lot on film purchase +

processing in the long run but I wonder if the initial cost is justified.

 

So I have three options:

 

(1) Suck it up and keep my current workflow and wait longer until

prices for digital technology drops even more

 

(2) Buy the dedicated film scanner and keep shooting film until it is

not affordable anymore.

 

(3) Buy a 20D relatively soon to take advantage of digital technology

right away and never look back (use Elan7 as backup (it does work well

in sub-zero conditions) or for B&W film or as a weapon of choice)

 

I'd like logical rational advice please (with a focus on finance too

maybe) and I appreciate all of your time taken to answer. I hope this

thread can be of value to others in the same boat too.

You can check the Slik Pro 700 DX. This is a very sturdy tripod and is good especially if you're tall. I'm 6' and this tripod is stable enough at a height where I don't have to bend down. At lower leg angles it is even more stable. And it comes with a pretty good pan/tilt head.

 

It might be a bit heavy to carry in the field but I would personally lug it around.

 

Read tripod reviews here: http://www.photographyreview.com/pscTripods/Tripods/PLS_3114crx.aspx

Sheldon, thanks for your answer. I do have the collar ring for the 70-200/4 (what a kick in the nuts!) but I have encountered a problem mounting it to my tripod with the battery pack attached. It just won't fit. It's not really a big deal (I can just shoot without the battery pack when I want that particular configuration) but it is an annoyance. It's a Slik Pro 700 DX. It's a great tripod but there's a bolt (holding the leg to rest of tripod) that snapped so it made me question about build quality. I might just buy a good ball head to replace the pan&tilt that came with it. Despite these shortcomings, I still recommend this tripod, especially for tall people (I'm 6') that want assured stability.

 

Anywone encountered problems with similar setup?

I thank you all for your valuable answers. I always go with other user opinions before buying stuff and I'm never disapointed.

 

My main question has been answered: the 100 macro is too cumbersome to work in small and dark musical venues. I guess, knowing what I did, I had a bit of wishful thinking going on for the 100 macro.

 

(Body used: Elan7, so crop factor is not an issue)

This is a typical inquiry on the merit of these two lenses for

specific shooting circumstances given that budget is an issue (can't

buy both - thus explaining the very existence of this question) .

 

From my own research, both lenses seem very good. My indecision stems

mostly from the different target usages.

 

I like to shoot musical events in small venues and would like to get

more serious with that particular topic. I've recently developed an

interest in portraiture as well. So the 85/1.8 seems an excellent

choice for this. I have the 70-200/4 but I found it to have a big

'footprint' and a compromising maximum aperture so the 85/1.8 seems

perfect for a low profile.

 

Then, I always was interested in macro photography but never had the

tool to do it. I was wondering if the 100/2.8 macro could kill two

birds with one stone. i.e. macro function but also can do everything

the 85/1.8 does? Similar prices, both maximum apertures close enough

to my taste, similar sizes (100 bigger by much?).

 

FYI I like sharp portraits. I'm looking for answers from people who

have used both lenses, in particular with band shoots too, concerning

their focusing speed, physical feel and colour rendition for the

scenarios I have briefly described above.

 

I know some frown on this type of inquiry, but I really appreciate the

opinions of all the more experienced shooters here.

 

Thanks in advance for your input.

One aspect of this question that hasn't been discussed deals with seeing our World in a different way, in a more intense way. Anyone, I think, that has enough interest to take photography as a hobby or further, is awakening his/her consciousness a little bit more (I know, the last bit sounds a bit corny...).

 

But think of all the people that don't see shapes/patterns, light, colours and even emotions to the degree us fellow photographers experience.

When I started, reproducing common results of common scenes was a good way to learn. As someone who considers himself more of an artist however, I have started yearning to have meaning in my images.

 

For portrait work (of people, animals, insects, whatever) the subject justifies the meaning IMO. For landscape however (e.g. mountain range), I have grown more and more disinterested and uncaptivated (like you?) for these types of images (although being there is sublime). I recently took what I thought was really technically good waterfall pictures. I blew one up to 11X14 and decided not to put it on my wall. It just looks like a placemat to me.

 

So now, I make an effort to add 'living' elements in these types of images: someone hiking the mountain to give a sense of grandeur, a house nestled in there. The idea of the realtionship of man to nature seems more appealing to me now than just doing pretty postcard images. So that's how I got over it...Good luck!

I find the one that comes with the Slik Pro 700Dx Tripod really good. The whole kit is an amazing deal really.

I think the monopod is the best solution. Like some haved pointed out, it can also act as a walking stick and in a worst case scenario used to fend off bears! (just kidding).

 

I went on a group trip to Arizona and didn't take my tripod. It was the 'right' decision because there is simply no time to set up when you are constrained to a group schedule. Out of about 10 rolls of film (different speeds, slide/print) I have about 3-4 pictures that are 'good'. With my own time I could've had a way higher yield of good pictures.

 

So, a small P&S or digital seems the best choice for this kind of trip or your current camera with a monopod. If it's not a 'photography' trip primarily, I'd suck it up and not think about taking 'great' pictures, enjoy the scenery and take some souvenir shots.

 

P.S. If you are not constrained to print film and are willing to spend a little cash for good film you should maybe consider Fuji Provia 400F. I've just got a roll of butterflies back and the results are quite impressive. Good luck!

I'm going on a field trip in Arizona for a geology course in

April/May. My interest in photography lies mostly in flora, fauna,

landscapes and people. Here is my itinery:

 

April 18� 20

� Camp in Tuscon area TBA (south central Arizona)

� Saguaro National Park

� Kartchner Cavern State Park

� Lavender Open Pit Copper Mine, Bisbee

� Tombstone

� Casa Grande Ruins National Monument

 

April 21-23

� Camp in Show Low area TBA (central easternmost Arizona)

� Petrified Forest/Painted Desert

� Meteor Crater

- Hopi Buttes maars

 

April 24-26

� Canyon De Chelly (Cottonwood Campground) NE Arizona

� Monument Valley

� Navajo National Monument

 

April 27-29

� Grand Canyon (Mather Campground) North Central Arizona

� Grand Canyon

Bright Angel Trail Grand Canyon

Grand Canyon Rim Tour

� Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument

� San Francisco Peaks Volcano Field

� Merriam and Sheba Craters

 

April 30 - May 2

� Havasu State Park (central western border of Arizona)

� Hoover Dam National Historic Landmark

� Kingman, Arizona, Heart of historic route 66

- Peach Springs Tuff, Hurricane Fault

� Lake Mead

 

 

Presently I have a Canon Elan 7 with a 50/1.8. I am basically seeking

tips, advice or anything I should pay attention to from people that

have been in those areas. Types of films and such can also be useful

I guess. I am considering buying a new lense and this trip should

affect my decision. The debate is probably between the EF 20-35mm

f/3.5-4.5 USM, the EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM and the EF 70-200mm f/4L

USM but the first two seem to be the obvious candidate when thinking

about this trip. Any feedback is very much appreciated! Thanks.

After reading more rave reviews about the 70-200 f/4, I think I will get that. And later I can always get a tele-converter. Right? Right. I had forgotten about them teleconverters ;-)

I apologize in advance if this message is long. I recently bought a

Canon Elan 7 kit to explore my interest for photography, and I can

say I am very happy with this particular body. Being a student

(=poor), I couldn't justify even getting a 50mm to replace the crappy

zoom (28-90) that came with it at the time. But I learnt a lot. Now,

I'm saving up to get my next lense. I have been an avid birder since

my youth and nature is my favorite subject. So, my next lense will

probably be a telephoto (mostly because I live in the city and there

aren't much wide angle shots that interest me at the moment). So I

did some research and find the resources here very useful. But I

still want to pose the question on the forum for it to be an

extension of my thought process so as to make a satisfying decision.

 

I am considering different lenses for different reasons. I'd like

people with experience to share their thoughts on the different ones:

My major contenders:

 

Canon 70-200 f/4 USM

Sigma 400 f/5.6 APO Tele Macro HSM

 

Ok, so here's my reasoning on these lenses so far: The Canon zoom is

a great lense from what I've read. I think I could afford the f/4

version and it does extend my present focal range. Obviously, I might

find this not long enough. Another problem I am pondering is, when I

do get the money to buy more glass, will I regret buying this lense

and long for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS?

 

On the other hand the Sigma 400 seems to recieve relatively positive

comments for what it is, and for me, it's QUITE cheaper. It's also a

prime. Would it be better than Canon's 70-200 f/4 zoom in terms of

optical quality though? There's also the 300 f/4 which seems quite

good. Your thoughts on that?

 

I was also considering the Sigma 50-500 but then I'd have to get a

new tripod to support it and I have no car. I'm also the kind of

person who likes to make the best investement such that whatever I

buy can be kept and used for a long time. Please enlighten me!

 

Thanks for your time and comments. (Pat on the back for you if you've

read through this far!)