paul_vincent1

Informal portraits are much different with children than adults. It depends on the child, it depends on the moment. I have four children under the age of 11. My youngest, age 3, is the perfect subject and has been since she could first walk. Very attentive, calm, and relaxed; she easily holds a pose and is willing to be managed during a shoot. Most any portrait film will work with her, on most occasions. None of my other 3 currently have this disposition, and never have. And even the youngest has her moods. I find that NPZ 800 is the only film that consistently achieves results, and I push it to 1600 on occasion. I also like Kodak 400TCN for B&W, again often pushed to 800. I agree with the comments that with most children of this age the ideal situation is to give them an activity to keep their attention, and use a handler to assist in directing their attention away. With many young children its very akin to sports photography! Shoot in bursts and talk to them or they will lose patience. If they simply refuse to follow your plans, go with the flow and see what they want to do. Often with kids, you're really just setting the stage for grab shots. Bring lots of film.

Harvey Platter wrote "Right, Paul. So I take it you have no objection to people using your pictures without paying you for them?"

 

The answer, Harvey, is "No, I have no objection whatsoever if the use falls within the fair use doctrine of the copyright act." For a photographic hobbyist, the use described seems to fall within the fair use doctrine. If the proposed use is for professional, commercial use, I would object. Your mileage may differ. Although I have not published or sold any prints, I sometimes write journal articles. It would not bother me if you were to copy one of my journal articles for your personal use. It would bother me if you were to sell copies of my article for profit.

 

Fair use is open to interpretation. The Copyright Act allows reproduction for purpose of criticism, comment, reporting, research, scholarship, etc. The statute lists four factors a court is to consider in deciding whether a particular use is fair:

1. Is the use commercial or is it for a nonprofit educational purpose? The more profit is involved, the less likely the use will be "fair."

2. Is the work reproduced purely factual or is it more "creative"? Non-fiction less protected than fiction, because author's creativity plays less of a role in its creation.

3. How much of the work was reproduced? Copying one page of an article is more likely to be fair use than copying the work in its entirety.

4. What is the effect of the reproduction on the potential market for the work? Copying an article from a magazine that is readily available on the newsstands is more likely a fair use violation than copying an equal quantity of text material from part of a chapter of a book that is out of print.

 

Let's examine the use I proposed, copying one chapter and a couple of charts out of the 3rd edition of Wildi's work, under this standard:

 

1. Purpose - It appears to me that Brian was proposing to use the work for his personal, non-profit education purpose. This was my purpose, as a hobbyist. No profit involved, so it is more likely the use is "fair."

 

2. Creative Work - Is the work reproduced purely factual or is it more "creative"? Wildi's book is non-fiction, but does contain some creativity in the manner of its presentation, and large portions of the book do discuss his ideas on creative techniques (along with some beautiful prints). However, the portions proposed for copying, the charts and the chapter on macrophotography, are purely descriptive. This argues for less protection, since the author's creativity played a minor role in the work's creation.

 

3. Proportionality - The copied portion is a minor portion of the protected work. Wildi's book is an extensive one with more than a dozen large chapters. My memory is that the chapter on macrophotography is very short. (I've never referred to it since copying it, I thought I might want to purchase some macro accessories in the future). It's an entire chapter, but a minor part of the entire book.

 

4. Effect on Market - The effect of the reproduction on the potential market for the work? None. The 3rd edition is out of date and out of print. Wildi's up to what, the 5th edition now? My memory is that this was a 1978 edition, something like that. Since the particular edition I wanted is only available in used copies, and there is a ready market of available used copies, there would be no benefit to the work's creator.

 

You can find the fair use doctrine at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode17&STEMMER=en&WORDS=fair+us+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/17/107.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match

I recently received my first Hasselblad 500c/m a few months ago, having never taken a photography course or used a manual camera. I obtained it from my local library (through inter-library loan). I second those who suggest you read it first, then decide if you need to buy it. In my case, I found several charts and the chapter on macro photography useful and simply copied them before returning the book. The 3rd edition is probably the most useful for the 500c/m since it contains more information on that model than any other.

The Walmart in Woodburn has a brand-new Fuji Frontier processor that simply cant be beat for 35mm processing. They will process only for @ $2/roll at the 1-hour photo. I then scan and prepare for printing using Photoshop. The Frontier digital prints are also dirt cheap and unbelievable. $2.80 for an 8x10. Use a Frontier ICC profile on your file and tell them to send it straight to the printer with no adjustments. For medium format I take non-critical stuff to Modine's in Keizer (just off the Salem Parkway on Cherry Street). They charge $3.50/roll for processing only. They also have rental darkrooms where you can do your own work. Again, I scan and print at Walmart. For more critical work, I take it to either Camera World in Portland or Suburban Photo in Beaverton. Surburban charges $5/roll to develop 120mm film, Camera World is @ $4.50/roll.

Until earlier this year, I shot strictly 35mm. And I'm a cheapskate, having used the same Pentax Superprogram and various lenses since 1986. In March, I received a virtually unused Hasselblad 500c/m. In April, Frys here in Portland, OR had refurbished Epson 1650 Photos on sale for $49. I call it my "90%" solution for digital printing in medium format. It comes with a transparency light, but the film holder only covers 35mm slides and negative. I've been placing my 120mm negatives over the slide holder and find that the results are more than acceptable. Using this setup, I get coverage of 2.0 x 1.9 inches, or approximately 95% of the total image area. However, I find some slight vignetting from poor light coverage of the transparency in the corners. So, I simply compose my shots liberally, restrict myself to approximately 90% coverage and have no problems at all. I used the red transparent cover from a report holder to cut out a custom "frame" to place on my viewscreen so I know where to frame shots. I print on various Fuji Frontiers in the Portland area. The 1650 is acceptable for 35mm prints from negative up to about 5x7, 8x10 on some, but not all prints. In medium format, every print I've made from 8x10 to 12x18 has been outstanding. I recently did an 8 x 10 comparison print of a favorite photo. I printed a scanned image w/ minor photoshop manipulation (level adjustment and unsharp masking) on the Frontier at a local Walmart for $2.84 on Fuji Crystal Archive matte paper. My local camera shop (also the local Hasselblad dealer) did an 8x10 enlargement from the original negative for $14.95. Every person I've ever had examine the two prints has thought that the Walmart print is the custom print. The last time I checked, Fry's had refurbished 1650 Photos in stock for about $99.

Why is anyone speaking about "phantom" $39 focusing screens from Hasselblad? The one that I'm looking at right now installed in my 500c/m is certainly real. I purchased mine at Suburban Photo in Beaverton, OR in April 2003 with absolutely no hassles. Yes, they were shocked at the price. Yes, they were pleased that I received such a good deal and happily showed me how to install it and take care of it. They then exhibited good business savvy, asked me I'd bought a new meter yet and talked me into buying a new meter using some of the money I saved. Good photo dealers know that value to their customers means more business for them.

Another source for replacement screens to update an older Hasselblad is from Hasselblad itself. I was recently given a 1971 vintage 500c/m that had the original, very dim, non-Acute Matte viewscreen. Through Hasselblad USA's website - in the "discount corner" section I believe - I was able to obtain the part number for a used Acute Matte screen direct from Hasselblad. They have to be ordered through a dealer. The dealer was flabbergasted that Hasselblad sent me a screen in absolutely perfect condition for only $30. He had some on consignment for $150! Check the web site to see if they're still available. The new Acute Matte made indoor photography much easier.