Jump to content

boinkphoto

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    318

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by boinkphoto

    Just letting off some steam

    in Wedding & Event

    Posted

    <p>Sometimes I'm inclined to believe there's a bit of "devils advocacy" here just for the sake of "devils advocacy".</p>

    <p>I'm the guy who wants to be "Uncle Bob" but knows dang well he shouldn't so backs off. I back off because I know that the professional was hired to do a professional job and my interference doesn't help him/her get that job done. It doesn't matter if I know more than the "pro" - (s)he was hired, I was not. Injecting myself without prior agreement would be obnoxious and unfair.</p>

    <p>Certainly no one would suggest that someone be allowed to randomly insert themselves to "help the band play"? Or go into the kitchen to help the cooks make dinner for the reception? Or help the priest on his liturgy? Like the photographer each of these people have roles and any "help" they receive needs to be arranged clearly beforehand, regardless of any relation to the bride/groom. Sure it's their wedding, but they hired you for <strong>your </strong>"art" after all.</p>

    <p>I think for your own sake perhaps a little respectful assertiveness could have helped, but I also think you have good reason to be annoyed and express your annoyance. Given that this is a community of photographers of similar ilk, I would havehonestly expected more sympathy, but it seems oddly lacking in a number of cases.</p>

    <p>Finally, yes, having a sense of humor about it has its advantages I suppose and just brushing it off and moving on may be the least stress inducing tack, but if one can't, I certainly understand the wish to vent with your peers.</p>

    Nikon vs Canon

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>So, you switched cameras because the menus? Not, um, because of image quality? Better lens selection? Better DR? Better NR? More resolution? Better skin rendition?</p>

    <p>I have no dog in the Nikon vs Canon fight (they are both excellent) - but it seems to be a curious reason to choose, much less change, the camera line over. It is, if you pardon me, like choosing a car strictly over the font on the odometer.</p>

    <p>Ah well, to each his own I guess.</p>

     

    Supply of the Nikon F6

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>@Peter Hamm</p>

    <blockquote>

    <p>With digital, there is nothing that would make me "long for" the layout or functionality or image quality of the D50 now that I have my D90. Not one single thing.</p>

     

    </blockquote>

    <p>I was happy with my 8008s the day I bought it (new) to the day I switched to digital. I might have lusted after the F5 or the F100, but there was not one thing I thought I couldn't do with it than any other Nikon could. Hell, a K1000 could outshoot an F5 in the right hands.</p>

    <p>You didn't wait for the new body, so much as the new film, and sometimes the new glass.</p>

    <p>Granted - I did want a larger negative and played with MF and 4x5.</p>

    <p>Anyway, now the body is the film and as the "digital film" improves, so goes the body with it. I've gone through 4 bodies in about half the time I had my 8008s. Moreover if you wanted a new style with film you just grabbed another brand of film. Now you're stuck with whatever "look" the manufacturer baked into the chip. Sure you can do a lot with PP, but there's some things you just can't achieve. It may look more like Velvia, but it ain't Velvia. It may look more like Kodachrome, but it ain't Kodachrome and so on..</p>

    Getty Images

    in Business of Photography

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>Reasonable expectation of privacy has nothing to do with "editorial purposes" analysis. An image can be used as such even if the image were not taken in a public venue. If the image were taken in a way that amounts to the tort of intrusion, however, the the conduct is actionable even without publication. A completely separate issue and analysis altogether.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>I see what you're saying there - I'm mixing the law, though the end in this particular instance doesn't look that much different. Correct me if I'm misinterpreting:</p>

    <ol>

    <li>In a circumstance with the "expectation of privacy", I cannot take your picture period without consent. That consent however does not have to be in the form of a "Model Release", but just some sort of indication that you accept my taking of photos. If I take photos in this case without consent, then I am in "tort of intrusion" territory and committing a crime regardless (ie: I'm a "Peeping Tom" of sorts).</li>

    <li>If the subject consents in a situation that otherwise has an "expectation of privacy", because of the consent I am now free to use the images for "editorial purposes".</li>

    <li>If I take the image in a "public venue", then there is implied consent and I can both take the picture regardless and use it for "editorial purposes".</li>

    <li>However, in either of #2 or #3 if I use the image in a mode that implies endorsement, then I need a model release.</li>

    </ol>

    <p>Again, correct me if I'm wrong.</p>

    <p>Thanks.</p>

     

    Getty Images

    in Business of Photography

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>This is a ridiculous idea.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>I think "ridiculous" is a bit overly melodramatic thank you.</p>

    <p>The point was, the OP said, to quote:</p>

     

    <blockquote>

    <p>My wife and child are the main subjects of the images</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Now if I were the photographer and it was posted in several places, I, being a nice guy that I am, would offer to give a copy if they asked. I think it's the right thing to do. A small gesture frankly. I made money frankly off of these people as main subjects.</p>

    <p>I did not, however, as you have read into my words, imply that this should be general "modus operandi", nor suggest that they were in any way obligated to. Also, if it was a big deal because of the numbers as you suggest, then I would just say, "I'd love to, but I get these requests all the time and I can't afford to." However, this seemed a very specific case based on the main focus of the image.</p>

    <p>I'm not a pro, so the chances of this happening to me are small. You have to decide what is right for you, but I don't think I'm "ridiculous" for suggesting it.</p>

    Getty Images

    in Business of Photography

    Posted

    <p>Unfortunately if you were taken in public venue, which you were by all sounds, you have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" and therefor your picture can be used for "editorial purposes" without any compensation.</p>

    <p>As also noted, your ticket stub may have waved away further protections. See here for more on "Model Releases":</p>

    <p>http://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html</p>

    <p>Consider the alternative - the NYT sends out a reporter to cover the local Tea Party. (S)he takes pictures which of course may have dozens or more identifiable persons in a frame. The NYT then prints the photo(s), which the NYT being a "for profit" is essentially making money off of the subjects of the photo, but is still "editorial" in nature.</p>

    <p>Should the NYT have to track down and get "model releases" for everyone they take, potentially in a fast moving crowd?</p>

    <p>Obviously not.</p>

    <p>Now selling mugs is another thing.</p>

    <p>That said, the right thing to do as a photographer (or Getty) in this case, would be to supply copies free of charge as a goodwill gesture. If nothing else, it helps avoid the kind of angst we see here. But they're a big ugly company, so there you go.</p>

    <p>BTW - also see the section here on "Public places":</p>

    <p>https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy</p>

    <p>This too:</p>

    <p>http://asmp.org/tutorials/frequently-asked-questions-about-releases.html#q4</p>

    <p>Clearly there is a fine line between "editorial" and "for profit" use though...</p>

     

    Photographer Banned

    in News from the Photo World

    Posted

    <p>I'm not sure how useful this will be but...</p>

    <ol>

    <li>It sounds like, based on the little evidence presented, that his "bedside manner" as it were, left a little to be desired. Not illegal certainly, but also not helping.</li>

    <li>Regardless of his attitude, what he was doing was patently legal. There doesn't seem to be any question about that.</li>

    <li>Businesses have the rights to be whatever pricks they want. I'm not condoning it, but unfortunately that's the way the country works these days.</li>

    <li>Blacklisting is ugly, but government enforced blacklisting is uglier. As noted though, he can still walk the street. </li>

    </ol>

    <p>#4 sort of gets to the meat of my argument though. I'm not surprised that businesses got together and banned him, and for all I know he may have been a total prick himself and deserved it (or, he may not have).</p>

    <p>What concerns me however is that the police interviewed him twice and served him the ban. To me this shows an uncomfortable collaboration between business and government entities. I'm not saying it's not legal, I'm just saying there's something icky about it.</p>

    <p>Businesses may not like this photographer, that's fine, but when it gets converted into a quasi-governmental edict, and the police are actively facilitating it, it gets my back up. The police are supposed to represent the photographer here as much as the business owners.</p>

    <p>I wish I could put it into better words, but this business/government relationship makes me uneasy and has become far too common. That said, I'd be hard pressed, even though at a instinctive level I'd have to strongly disagree, to point to a true legal issue with what was done. The only area I would wonder is in terms of anti-competitive law, where blacklisting like this might show collusion, but I'm sure it's legal because anything pro-business, pro-authoritarian is legal these days.</p>

    What's limiting your photography?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>So, 24mm * 1.5 = 36mm. So the thing missing is a 35mm equiv DX fast prime for Nikon? And f2.8 isn't fast enough?</p>

    <p>I suppose for street photography. But enough to change systems?</p>

    <p>Seems like it'd be easier to just go FF.</p>

    <p>Anyway, it seems a minor shortcoming. Certainly if that's your "sweet spot" I can see complaining, but I can't imagine changing systems over it. I am also happy to buy non-Nikon lenses so it's not as much of a problem for me.</p>

    <p>Anyway, I'd be happy with Canon if I had it, but I agree with others - time and what's behind the camera is really what's limiting me.</p>

    Should I switch from Canon to Nikon for weddings?

    in Wedding & Event

    Posted

    <p>Personally unless you're going to buy a Fuji S5, well I'd say no - and I am a Nikon user (D300 and S5 user). Both Canon and Nikon make great systems and if you're in one and not hopelessly tribalistic, then the grass normally seems "greener" on the other side. Happens to me too with wanting Canon equipment.</p>

    <p>Personally I do think Canon is more neutral in its rendition, and Nikon tends to have a "look" (I call it the "Nikon Browns"). Problem is that "look" sometimes makes the image more constraining and will probably ultimately go out of style. Using RAW though you have a lot more options.</p>

    <p>In the end though, I would be very hard pressed to recommend anyone change in either direction. Both have their advantages, and zealots aside, they are both fantastic systems.</p>

    Would You Buy a Used Lens?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>There are actually quite a few problems with a lot of new lenses, though obviously you increase your (negative) odds a bit by buying used.</p>

    <p>I mostly buy used lenses and I'm very happy. I highly recommend KEH in that regards.</p>

    B&W grain hell...

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    <p>Thank you Mendel that's good to know. Frankly I'm struggling with the whole process with scanning because I'm trying to solve a few things:</p>

    <ol>

    <li>To give me access to my images for personal enjoyment and posting on the web.</li>

    <li>For potentially selling stock.</li>

    <li>Provide an archival storage point should my house burn or something.</li>

    </ol>

    <p>Doing full 16 bit 5400 DPI scans with some degree of oversampling is not only enormously space consuming but also time consuming. Thus I've kind broken it down to:</p>

    <ol>

    <li>I do roughly 10mp scans for personal/web use, then import into my Lightroom DAM setup. </li>

    <li>I scan max everything for potential stock sale, clean, and then delete after conversion to JPEG.</li>

    <li>For slides I really think are my best (which frankly aren't that good but...) I do max and actually save them.</li>

    </ol>

    <p>I'm not totally loving this workflow, but the realities of time and disk space don't offer much choice.</p>

    <p>As far as B&W goes, well I'm trying to figure that out. I have far more of them, but mostly their candids of friends etc. For those that aren't, that's part of why I started this thread.</p>

    <p>Thanks again Mendel!</p>

    B&W grain hell...

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    <p>Thank you all again for the responses. Photo.net really is a great resource and I appreciate that unlike some sites you don't get snarky responses for what might be considered dumb questions. I will try the inversion technique and look into the fluid mounts (though I doubt the DiMage could handle it not being a drum scanner - but still it's interesting).</p>

    <p>I agree incidentally that 5400 DPI is beyond the resolution of the film, even Velvia 50, which is what I primarily use. I have no doubt 4000 DPI is more than sufficient. Also to note all of my B&W was hand tank/reel processing (the slides were dip and dunk). They were immediately sleeved in archival sleeves, but it's amazing how little it take to scratch/dust them up. Thank god for nose grease!</p>

    <p>Thanks again to all!</p>

    Who still uses discontinued Nikon DSLR Bodies?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Being utterly honest, the insidious problem with digital is that you will always wonder, "If I had <strong>that</strong> camera would I have captured a better image?" or "If I use <strong>this old</strong> camera, will I regret later that I didn't use <strong>that</strong> camera?" Add that on top the normal inclination to want to keep up with the Jones'es, general gear lust, and the want of status symbols and it can be pretty hard to combat. When I bought my Fuji S5 it ate at me for a year that maybe I should have bought the D300. Now that I have a D300 (and S5) I wonder if I should have a D700. And that doesn't even include the S2 and D80 I've owned previous to my current cameras.</p>

    <p>The thing is if I look at it objectively - I like the "obsolete" 6 mp S5 images better than the D300. In some instances I like the output I used to get from the S2 more than the S5 (though for people the S5 is amazing). When I had the S2 and bought the "more advanced" D80, I ended up using the S2 more. This is all despite looking at pictures taken from the "other" camera in each case and thinking, "Wow, look at the images <strong>they</strong> are getting. If I only had <strong>that</strong> camera!"</p>

    <p>Again, it's insidious. And it doesn't help with places like DPReview where people post to a camera forum how they've given up on the body you're using and are <strong>soooo</strong> happy with the newfangled body <strong>you</strong> don't have. You must be pathetic for not picking up your own (obscenely priced) $8k camera (I spend a lot of camera $$$, but it seems there is no limit to many people, which I still haven't figured out)!</p>

    <p>Intellectually speaking you know it's crap, but in our society you really are emotionally programmed to never be satisfied and at least in my case I duly oblige. I fight it, but it is pernicious and I think digital caters very well to the inclination.</p>

    <p>Here's the thing - I had a N8008S and F3 for 15+ years and while I may have lusted at the shear beauty of other cameras, I never felt so compelled to change as digital. I was happy with both cameras from the day I bought them, to the day I effectively retired them. Zero complaints and no desire for more features.</p>

    <p>Why? Because it was only the film, glass, and art that mattered. It was obvious then. With enough care and a solid prime a K1000 could produce the same quality as an F5.</p>

    <p>With digital it isn't as clear. Yes, you can take great pictures with a D1, but it isn't a level playing field. With film a 35mm frame was a 35mm frame. With digital there's total mps, DR, and NR and yes I'm sorry to say a D300 does probably on average produce a more usable (or even salable) image than the D1. The D700 does probably produce a better image than the D300 too. And as with film, given the choice between an older film that has ugly grain characteristics and lower longevity and one that has nice grain and permanency, you want the later. The difference is, you can't just switch film, you have to replace the whole $1,000+ ($2,000+, $5,000+, $8,000+) body and frankly it bites.<br>

    Still, going back to my pseudo-quote, "Wow, look at the images <strong>they</strong> are getting. If I only had <strong>that</strong> camera!" That statement of course woefully neglects the fact that you simply may lack either the time, opportunity, or (in may case) talent to capture the quality images they are getting. However sadly it's always easier to focus on the equipment than the art. The treadmill rolls and you forget there's anything else around than the endless rails in front of you.</p>

    <p>It's frankly neurotic and while not proud of it, I honestly struggle with this daily.</p>

    B&W grain hell...

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    <p>Actually I don't think it came with "Grain Dissolver" (I looked around to make sure I wasn't missing something), but rather Kodak's "GEM". I haven't tried it with B&W, and I suppose I should (kind of dumb that I haven't now that I think about it).</p>

    <p>I'll see if, as you suggest, the cure is worse than the ailment. It is pretty ugly straight out of the box though.</p>

    <p>Thanks!</p>

×
×
  • Create New...