dai_hunter

Probably dirt and grime over time well embedded in the etched side of the glass and a film of same on the non-etched side. IF you can get the glass - alone - out try soaking it for 10 min in vinegar + a few drops of detergent (as a wetting agent) and follow with a rinse in baking soda + water (to neutralise the acid) then a good rinse in clean running water alone. Let dry and see what you get. The process won't hurt the glass and may actually clear/clean/degrime it sufficiently to make it usable again.

Lots of light on the BG any way you cut it and 12 - 14 ft overhead clearances

Brent...By the way, I don't know how to ensure that my CD is closed or finalized. It's another big problem I have. I am using the Japanese version of XP....

 

Brent you should not worry about being able to actually check that. It will happen automatically as long as you are not writing to disk in any mode that is like "track at once" or "leave CD open" which allows additional data to be recorded. That's why I suggested only using the option (write) "DISK AT ONCE" which will close out the disk as required and no more can be written to it - disk "closing" aka "finalization" also adds to the disk closing data which is only computer to computer information and the disk structure and directory data that the reading comp needs to find the files on the CD - which is why if the disk is NOT closed properly (or "finalized") it may not be readable on another comp.

 

You don't really need to know WHAT the data is only that you select a writing mode to allow it to be created. Everything you need to set that up (and also select the ISO9660 format) should be in the CD Writer dialogs and not necessarily in any XP dialogs on your machine (though I am not an XP user myself)

Tips on using Pelis...

 

Peli's also have a pressure relief valve in front (edge with the handle) make sure you have this "CLOSED" tight before setting out on the water. If the case locks-up from altitude / atmospheric pressure differences you can open the valve for a second to equalise the inside and outside pressure which then allows the case to be opened.

 

Also, make sure with Peli's that the lid / body seal is kept clean and in place. It can sometimes be pulled out of position when opening the case - it only needs to be re-positioned and pushed back into the groove.

Just an additional thought - if you are creating the disk on a MAC but the shop is using a PC (probably) the MAC files won't open unless they are PHYSICALLY NAMED with the PC file extension before the "save as" dialog - simply telling MAC this file name is "Xxxxx" and to "save as" a .tif won't allow it to be opened on the PC - the file has to be physically named "Xxxxx.tif" in the MAC file naming dialog and then pushed through the "save as" dialog telling it there to save as a .tif file.

Might be how the disk is written on your comp. and IF that can be opened on their comp. When in doubt write the disk in ISO9660 format using the options - DOS file names (8+3 short name style) and "disk at once" (NOT using the "track at once" -or- "leave CD open" options) so it closes properly on completion.

 

That disk format - ISO9660 - should be readable on virtually any computer - PC or MAC. I regularly transfer images as well as QuarkXPress files to my publisher like that and there are generally no problems cross platform from my PC to their MACs for .jpg .jpeg .tif or.tiff files or the page layouts in .qxd or .pdf

Can't fly cattle class like that...LOL

Bounce the light into the background without using the brollies at all. Use B I G bounce panels (e.g 4 x8' styrofoam panels) and you should get the effect of a giant soft box without the shadows. You may find that you need a 3rd bounce panel / light unit comming from the top just in front of your subject but lighting only the BG.

The Swedish main company site is here:

http://www.profoto.com/default.php

 

modelling lamps for the Acute 2 series are here

http://www.profoto.com/product_category.php?catId=124

 

A list of dealers by country can be found at the "buy/rent" page (in the banner index) but doesn't look like they have anything in South America at all. I really doubt that any of the US outlets will have the 240v lamps in stock but for a first try you could ask in the LA Calif area where they may have more of an industry requirement for them. Probably have to order from a European dealer source (Spain or Portugal or the UK?). Just to make you feel better you probably can't get the 120v version of the lamp in Europe.

Oh, sorry. The expression "image rights" refers to the right to distribute the likeness of someone, or, the contrary view, the right of an individual to control the distribution of their likeness.

 

In France releases take on somewhat greater importance when photographing people, even in public places. I don't do any work there so I do not know the ins and outs, or limitations, of that French law regards street photography.

As a general rule the exhibition or sale of prints is NOT a "commercial use" as the term really means something different than that, at least in British law.

 

The only European country that you MAY have problems in, or with, is France as far as I know - because they have in recent years created a much more problematic law on "privacy" concerning image rights.

Interesting question. The word itself betrays some implications, however, being as it is, a combination of photo(graphy) and journalism. As a working (print) photojournalist I can testify personaly that in today's market, with the exception of some major metro areas, dedicated staff news photographers are very thin on the ground. You still see the photographic scrum on television associated with major stories but ONLY in the mega-markets and, even then, the great majority of the photographers there are freelancers not news staff.

 

Even in TV news, and including much feature stuff, the trend is to use one person for both the story reporting and to take some photos as well to illustrate that story - video equipped reporters and maybe with a sound person in tow who will also double as camera operator and "gofer" for a vox-pop or a piece to camera with the reporter in frame. Typically in the recent Iraq war coverage, but not exclusively in that case, a news "team" was often as light as cameraman; sound man; reporter; and (usually a local) translator who may also have been the driver. For stills coverage maybe, just maybe, a photographer will be included but it is usually an even lighter operation than video work in the form of an assignment reporter who is also a photographer and a (again usually local) translator who is expected to double up as driver and general dog's-body to fetch and carry.

 

More and more, I personally find that both skills, and a lot more like computer skills, are required. As a matter of interest I can tell you that in some months I make more from words then pictures. Ditto for many travel writers. The romantic notion of the "war photographers" of WWII and Korea and even Vietnam, zipping, dashing and dodging about the battlefield with his trusty and (usually)battered Nikon is pretty much long gone...unless you can offer a publication a "package deal".

 

I have submitted images for publication and had them spiked simply because there was no prepared story to go with them and the publication didn't want to detail a staff writer, who wasn't there, to do it. On the other hand I have submitted a number stories without pictures and sold them that way.

As a working photojournalist in the UK here are the facts and rules I work by on photography in public and private places - take any photo you like IN or FROM A VANTAGE POINT IN a public place - if publishing for editorial or artistic purposes NO release is required (either property owners or the persons shown in the image) even if the image may be one that could be described as "embarrassing" (e.g. a girl flashing her t*ts outside a nightclub; or nudists on a beach open to the public).

 

This is called the "public place rule" and is a matter of custom and practice - supported by a long chain of legal decisions upholding the photographer's right to photograph anything in public places. There is also a "photo of a private place if the shot is taken from a public place [rule]" [a vantage point as mentioned above - and usually called the "public place vantage point rule"] and any shots under that rule are also publishable as for the "public place rule".

 

Lastly there is a "private place [invitee] rule" where-by if you are allowed access to a private place (e.g. a nightclub; trainspoting from a station platform; someone's garden) and not restricted in photography as a condition of entry [you will find such restrictions, for example, on some NT or English Heritage properties] - then you may photograph there, and publish, as if it were a place under the "public place rule". The "invitee" rule also covers you if you are on one private place [invited / allowed to be there and not restricted in photography] and shoot a photo of an adjacent private place - such as a clear and unobstructed shot from one back garden into the next. The vantage point here, incidentally, need not even be ground level - you could climb a ladder or mount a rooftop vantage point from the garden shed, for example, to get a shot over a fence. Everything depends on you NOT physically trespassing on (in) to a �private� place to get the shot.

 

WHAT YOU CAN LEGALLY SEE YOU CAN LEGALLY PHOTOGRAPH. WHAT YOU CAN LEGALLY PHOTOGRAPH YOU CAN LEGALLY PUBLISH. The classic example is one where you shoot an image of a house from a (public) street. When you examine the image you discover that a woman inside the house left her drapes wide open and you can see her standing naked in the front room. Here, because of HER action in leaving the drapes apart, she has so [voluntarily] diminished her �right to privacy� vis a vis being observed from a "public place" that she may just as well have stood naked in the front garden...and you can publish the image without a release. Embarrassing for her? Probably, but it is neither defamatory nor does it show her in a false light.

 

Restrictions on the "use" of images depends on commercial v non-commercial uses not the mere fact of publishing them, putting them up on your website, or selling prints (you can publish almost ANY street photograph but you may not use a shot of a recognisable person to advertise of sell something = commercial use); and / or you may not depict a recognisable person in a false or defamatory light � usually associated with the accompanying text material and sometimes even a not-so-carefully chosen caption, not necessarily with the image itself. Except for these commercial or defamatory uses, generally, no releases are required for street work. People on the street (in a public place), or observable from a �public place�, in UK law (by reason of numerous court decisions, custom and practice) have no �reasonable expectation of privacy� in respect of being photographed.

 

Photographers are seemingly obsessed with releases and getting releases. This obsession can be legally dangerous. Here is a dilemma...IF you ask for a release and someone tells you "NO!", then by the fact of asking, and the refusal of the subject, you may have made that image un-publishable or at least questionable in respect to publishing it. Definitely a case of don't ask in the first place! If you want to publish an un-released image, and, significantly, you have not asked and not been refused, you can do it under one of the rules above.