frank_gross

December 7, 2013

Thanks everyone. I have a better handle and understanding of it now

December 5, 2013

Because there are less expensive options, albeit with hurdles, to trying out zone focus. But if I win the lottery I'll keep your excellent suggestion in mind

December 5, 2013

Thanks - how they work?

I assume the dial engraved with distance/aperture focuses the view ?

December 5, 2013

Thanks for this practical tip - any chance you have a link to a gizmo like this. I have no familiarity and wouldnt know what to look for

December 5, 2013

Yes, i understand the advantages of using it in some situations hence my specific question.

Keeping in mind the "not sharp as a knife" results and the importance of coc for 'optimum' quality it doesn't serve me well to 'guestimate' or 'estimate' or hope to find an object at 'approximately' the HFD in the scene. I want to know how to pre-set my canon auto ef lenses without a proper distance scale to manually focus them

December 5, 2013

The issue is that the HFD has to be set first in order to use the zone focusing method effectively. You can't go around hoping to find an object 'approximately' that distance in every scene

December 5, 2013

Using a dof calculator I can see what Hyperfocal distance to set the lens at, but how do people do this with modern lenses (such as canon ef) when there is no proper distance scale to manually set the focus/distance . Any ideas?

December 6, 2012

Any ideas about the contents of the LR pre-set you refer to ? I am working in PS (cs6) rather than LR

December 6, 2012

Any Photoshop gurus retouchers out there that could help give direction?

I want to create this kind of 'vintage' look with these skin tones <a href="http://www.billyundhells.de/Seiten/Pictures.html" target="_blank">http://www.billyundhells.de/Seiten/Pictures.html</a> I have been experimenting with a black & white duplicate image, on a layer above the color background, and then playing with the opacity and blend modes. It achieves a desaturated image but .... I understand that a gradient adjustment layer may be a better option than a b&w layer?. I don't have experience creating those and was wondering if there was a way to set up the gradient, and placing the stops, and assigning the right kind of colors to the stops, that would get me to where I want to go? The usual adj. layers don't seem to 'get me there' col/tone wise. Another layer to 'crush' the blacks or create a hard black edge also seems necessary - this is more accessible through a variety of adj. layers I d/l a few samples from the web link above, and used the col picker tool to read the CMYK values of the skin in the info palette, I find that they're all about equal or around 36, 36, 36 (maybe with a touch of extra red) and the k is around 1 or 2 . So then I wondered how to recreate this and I created a col fill layer with those cmyk values. I laid this col fill layer over an image (of mine) and set the blend mode to Saturation. Still it doesn't quite get me there Any advice appreciated. Frank

November 25, 2012

thank you

November 25, 2012

Neither link specifically. In general, I am simply looking for some direction on which way i might adjust the hue/saturation, channels, and/or col balance to achieve a less modern and perfect col rendition.A more limited palette, in a certain 'spectrum', that is reminiscent of the look of the fifties ie skin looks more pale & peachy, some other colors are muted. I can't be more specific or I'd know how to do it or have found a preset / action

November 25, 2012

Hello, I found this website today http://www.photoconservation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=106:three-color-carbro&catid=37:photographic-processes&Itemid=57 and I would like to ask for some information how I can achieve those (particularly) skin colour tones in photoshop?

I understand that lighting and make-up play a part, but I am trying to understand the proportions and mixing of the colour channels - it seems Yellow, Cyan, Magenta are stronger?

There are these modern day practitioners doing it the original way: http://www.colorcarbonprint.com/ Thank you for any help. Frank

October 7, 2012

SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/frankgross/Documents/privacy%20laws%20in%20canada.doc

This is not legal advice it merely sums up my findings thus far:

In my limited research (google & photography forums rather than formal legal counsel) around the question of privacy laws (not copyright or ownership issues) in ‘street photography’ it seems that Canada is more conservative than the USA, UK, SA or Australia. The classic photography genre is not alive & well here.

The question arose to find out if it is ok to sell in a gallery, or self publish a portfolio book, images made in public places where a person is recognizable, is not aware of being in the picture, and has not given consent (written or implied). The person may not necessarily be the main feature, large in the frame, as one would expect in a portrait, but nor are they merely incidental passers-by either. Their presence fulfills the artistic intent of the image.

In 2010 the Quebec supreme court handed down a ruling which only makes it ok to make images of people on the street if it is considered newsworthy. See the link below for a description of the scenario.

Ben Evans on photo.net posted:

“Under Canadian law, generally speaking, commercial, editorial and artistic are the same thing. It doesn't matter if a photo is published in a newspaper or hung in a gallery and it doesn't matter whether or not the photographer uses the image for monetary profit.

It is legal to photograph people who are in a public place without their consent. It is legal to publish their photo without obtaining their consent if the photo covers a newsworthy event.

However, it is NOT legal to publish (in the media, a gallery display, a personal blog), without consent, the image of a recognizable person who is the main subject of the image if the image was not taken to record a newsworthy event.

Example: You take a photo of a clown who is entertaining children in a public park. The clown is the obvious main subject of the photo but a group of children who are being amused is visible in the photo. You can publish or display (commercially, artistically or editorally) the group photo without the consent of the clown or the children (i. e., their parent). If you crop the photo so that only the clown is recognizable, no consent is required because he was performing publicly and the event is " newsworthy" and he wanted to be seen. Since the children are incidental to the photo, you CANNOT publish (or display in a gallery) without consent, a cropped photo that is essentially a portrait of one or several of them.

A few years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down an important decision in this area. A photographer was taking pictures of a public demonstration. He noticed a young women sitting in a nearby doorway. His portrait of the woman was later published in a magazine. She sued and won because she was not depicted as the main subject of a newsworthy event or even as a recognizable onlooker of that event but as a private individual present in or observable from a public place.

The following link (in French) covers the essentials of privacy rights that affect photographers in Canada:

<a href="http://www.francisvachon.com/blog/le-droit-a-l%E2%80%99image-au-quebec/">http://www.francisvachon.com/blog/le-droit-a-l’image-au-quebec/</a>

He goes on further to say:

“The linked article is specifically about Québec but much of the information is applicable to all provinces. The author is an experienced news photographer.

Here's a link to the English version of the related Supreme Court decision:

<a href="http://csc.lexum.org/en/1998/1998scr1-591/1998scr1-591.html">http://csc.lexum.org/en/1998/1998scr1-591/1998scr1-591.html</a>

"The respondent brought an action in civil liability against the appellants, a photographer and the publisher of a magazine, for taking and publishing, in a magazine dedicated to the arts, a photograph showing the respondent, then aged 17, sitting on the steps of a building. The photograph, which was taken in a public place, was published without the respondent’s consent. The trial judge recognized that the unauthorized publication of the photograph constituted a fault and ordered the appellants to pay $2,000 jointly and severally. The majority of the Court of Appeal affirmed this decision."

Then the Supreme Court went on to uphold th lower courts' decisions (5:2), based on the Québec charter of rights, for the following reasons:

"In this case, the appellants are liable a priori, since the photograph was published when the respondent was identifiable. The artistic expression of the photograph cannot justify the infringement of the right to privacy it entails. An artist’s right to publish his or her work is not absolute and cannot include the right to infringe, without any justification, a fundamental right of the subject whose image appears in the work. It has not been shown that the public’s interest in seeing this photograph is predominant. In these circumstances, the respondent’s right to protection of her image is more important than the appellants’ right to publish the photograph of the respondent without first obtaining her permission."

Since no similar case in another province has reached the Supreme Court, whether the ruling applies elsewhere is not clear. However, one of the justices mentions in passing section 8 of the federal charter (unreasonable search and seizure). He raises the possibility of making an argument that would make publishing (but not taking) a photo of a person without permission tantamount to an illegal seizure since a person's right to privacy and "inviolability" (section 1 fundamental right) applies to some extent even in public places.

The woman was awarded damages in the amount of $2,000. Ironically, anyone can now publish the picture because it was received in evidence before the Supreme Court and by law is now in the public domain.

If I was in another province, I would play it safe and assume the Québec-based ruling applies since that is the most likely outcome when the Supreme Court finally rules under the federal Charter or the laws of other provinces.

Here' a link to the law in Ontario with some refs to other provinces:

<a href="http://ambientlight.ca/laws/overview/what-can-i-publish/">http://ambientlight.ca/laws/overview/what-can-i-publish/</a>

Even in the absence of a specific privacy law in a particular jurisdiction, anyone who thinks they have been physically, emotionally or financially harmed or their reputation has been harmed can sue you. Even if you prevail in Court, the experience could cost you a lot of money

The last sentence is the bottom line:

Even in the absence of a specific privacy law in a particular jurisdiction, anyone who thinks they have been physically, emotionally or financially harmed or their reputation has been harmed can sue you.

Here is a separate link to a privacy law blog but it doesn’t throw much more light on the subject except to suggest offering subjects the right of veto. That I would cease & desist if necessary- <a href="http://blog.privacylawyer.ca/2010/04/some-thoughts-on-street-photography.html">http://blog.privacylawyer.ca/2010/04/some-thoughts-on-street-photography.html</a>

And here is a link to a downloadable brochure outlining photographers rights in Ontario -

<a href="http://ambientlight.ca/laws/printable-laws-pamphlet/">http://ambientlight.ca/laws/printable-laws-pamphlet/</a>

So what is the answer to my original question whether I can display, sell, publish my ‘street photos’? There isn’t a clear cut definitive answer. It’s open to interpretation. In general it is not illegal to make the photos, but it is to publish them, if the subject feels harmed. Mostly people will probably not mind if they don’t think I’m up to using them in a negative way. Hopefully the seriousness of my work and it’s artistic integrity will be sufficient to allay fears and make them willing participants in my art projects.

There are so many great photographers in the history of ‘street photography’ that would not have been able to function & produce their work under these circumstances – Henri Cartier-Bresson, Andre Kertesz, Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, Helen Levitt, William Klein, and many, many others.

What to do…….mmmmmm. If anyone has more to share please let me know.

October 7, 2012

Ben:

I posed my original question on facebook and other photo forums too (besides this one) . Do you mind if I reply and quote some of your links and reply.

I think what you've contributed puts the issue to bed as best it can be done.

October 7, 2012

"Here' a link to the law in Ontario with some refs to other provinces:

<a href="http://ambientlight.ca/laws/overview/what-can-i-publish/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://ambientlight.ca/laws/overview/what-can-i-publish/</a>

Even in the absence of a specific privacy law in a particular jurisdiction, anyone who thinks they have been physically, emotionally or financially harmed or their reputation has been harmed can sue you."

Ben:

I am in Ontario so i was keen to find the answer on this link - it is relevant but the laws in Toronto are still open to interpretation and as you say it depends on what the person feels they have 'suffered' by being shown in a photo.

Overall, the situation is not heartening. The great tradition of 'street photography' is not alive & well in Canada (Toronto, Ontario). It seems that we have surpassed our neighbours as a litigious society.

Under these conditions, is it worth doing this type of photography here? Probably not.

October 6, 2012

I agree. If Ben is right it is not the answer I was hoping for. Awful really. Considering all the legions of street photographers in this and the past century from Kertesz & Cartier-Bresson to the many modern masters working at Magnum & other agencies I can hardly believe such a ruling.Most of them are photographing life as it unfolds which are not necessarily newsworthy events.

October 6, 2012

Steve: Thank you for the compliment & kind words. Encouraging & appreciated.

Ben: Wow this sounds definitive. I get your explanation and examples. So 'newsworthy' is the key.

I will try and get your link translated. Is it French because the law is provincial ie limited to Quebec, or is it Federal ?

According to what you've said none of my images can be legally be hung in a gallery, or self-published as portfolio book, as they're all my intent as 'an artist' rather than my recording of a newsworthy event.

Please take a moment to look at the links to my work that I provided in this thread and see if you concur 'with that ruling'.

p.s. are you a lawyer?

October 6, 2012

Many aspects of the infinitely variable scenarios are open to interpretation by courts according to local laws. In my specific case, as the original poster, the people in the street scenes are not large in the frame, as they'd be in portraits, but because of their 'smallness' they lend weight to the picture, the concept, and are thus not 'incidental' passers by. Plus they're recognisable. So they could argue privacy/harm/embarassment etc etc. It's such a grey area and i am wondering if I can make a Blurb book and/or show/sell prints. if you're interested you can look at my site under 'tell me a story' http://www.frankgross.com/pages/story.html, and/or, see a few samples or on my facebook photographer page under the album 'portfolio 1- stories' https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150729532879136.465947.163495914135&type=3

October 5, 2012

I am looking for a camera with a very quiet shutter and the K5 came up as a recommendation but with some warning about focus issues. Can anyone elaborate?

Also is the K30 just as quiet and if so how does it compare on other counts?

My Canon 5D drives me nuts with it's very loud shutter when I'm trying to be unobtrusive.

October 5, 2012

Can anyone tell me what the law is pertaining to the use of "street photographs" in which the people are recognizable? The photos are not to be used to promote a product or service but may be for sale in a gallery, published in a magazine, or in a limited run 'portfolio' book (self-published rather than commercial publishing/distribution). I am in Canada but would be interested to know about the US, UK & other countries too. There is the famous lawsuit (New York) brought by a subject against Philip Corcia diLorca. The man not knowing he was being photographed on the street, objected to prints being sold in a gallery and profit being made off them. To him that was 'commercial use'. The court ruled in favour of the photographer. And of course all the 'documentary' / 'journalistic' work done by all the photographers with Magnum and many other picture agencies. There is no way that they are carrying model release forms and stopping the street activity to ask for signatures. What's the scoop?

September 14, 2012

At least the panasonic is a constant f2.8 (but at a steep price!). I dislike variable f-stops.

I only want one zoom or a single prime (35mm or 50mm equivalent).

I don't want a range of lenses (ie a kit) as I have a dslr for that.

I want a 'no excuse to leave at home', 'pocketable' unit.

Like I said I think it's down to nex6 or Fuji EX-1 or maybe the X100

September 13, 2012

I agree about the need to be able to process the Fuji raw files in LR or ACR (PS) or at least be able to convert them to DNG & then open in LR or ACR - but apparently not so....?

This makes the fixed lens fuji x100 (doesn't have 'the issue') a contender too

Too bad about the lens being a stop slower on the sony - i dont care much for the wider angle. It's just' not my cup of tea'

But the tilt lcd screen is a big plus for me

September 13, 2012

my local camera store hardly ever has all the models I'd want to try out in person hence the online shopping & researching.....

September 13, 2012

I'm trying to decide between the EX-1 & a Sony Nex 6. I have seen or tried neither Assuming both produce the same image quality Fuji EX1 - Easier to access the controls (exp. compensation etc) via dials vs the Sony being more menu based. More solid (metal) build. Kit lens is faster - f2.8-4 vs f3.5-5.6. This is a big one for low light & indoor (no flash) shooting Sony Nex 6 - Has a tilt screen which I loooove for waist-level shooting. It's cheaper - about $1000 vs $1400 I have big hands (XL glove size) so the ergonomics for me are important. Also important is the coat pocketability - I want a camera that i have no excuse to leave at home - just grab 'n go. I have a big dslr with lenses so I'm not looking for a system camera per se

September 6, 2012

It's now fall 2012 and I just got a copy - I think that it's an awesome book. Sure some stuff is 'dated' but our struggles to become ourselves and be better photographers hasn't changed a bit. What he has to say is wonderful

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by frank_gross