dai_hunter

Sounds like another processor that I was forced on short notice to take some Kodak BW400CN into. Wouldn't do it because "every time we try the film turns orange" ...but they would be happy to send it away for processing (10 day turnaround)

BW400CN has an ORANGE f*&@%?g BASE - just like colour neg film. It IS C-41 colour neg film!

IDIOTS!!!!

Took it to a supermarket and had it back in an hour.

Maybe they thought your film had some "dirty pictures" on it.

ROTFLMAO

Hunter

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1487099,00.html?gusrc=rss

in part: ...Leica cameras have also been used by the world's most

famous photographers, including Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa and

the AP photographer Nick Ut. But now the German product is on the

brink of disappearing.

Next week its manufacturer is holding an extraordinary general meeting

following a disastrous year which saw a record (Euros)15.5m (UKP10.7m

/ USDca18m) loss for the company....

Hunter

Christian Deichert Photo.net Hero Photo.net Patron, may 18, 2005; 06:33 a.m....

Your comments are noted... but ISTR there are also exceptions in some US states allowing juries of 6 (Florida ?) and also some that permit split (majority) decisions in, at least, non-capitol cases.

In my reckless youth I served in the USAF (early part of the Vietnam era) and later in the US Army Reserve, as well as working at various times as a civilian on US Navy facilities and US Army run facilities, so I am not totally unfamiliar with the quirks of the UCMJ. In the end I believe Harman has been treated at least as fairly, and maybe more so, than she might have been in a civilian court both in trial procedure and sentencing.

Hunter

Printing is an art but a collaborative one between the photographer; the page designer; and the print house. You hit the nail right on the head.

Hunter

The final chapter to Sabrina Harman's story...

She has been sentenced to 6 months in prison with credit for two months time served; and a bad conduct discharge.

On the issue of remorse as discussed above: "...During sentencing the 27-year-old apologised for the mistreatment...."

see story at: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/17/prisoner.abuse.ap/index.html

Hunter

IF you are working on a PC with Win2K/NT/XP you can burn a CD directly from the OS via the WinMedia application. This will ISTR be a Joliet formatted disk (Win long file names) and may not be openable on a Mac which will generally not "see" long Win file names + the Win file extention.

You need to use external/stand-alone software to create the CD - such as Adaptec or Nero. However, if you don't have such software, here is a free solution - ABSOLUTELY NO AD-WARE OR SPYWARE IN THIS ONE:

CD Burner XP Pro

http://www.cdburnerxp.se/download.php

Compatable operating systems: Windows 98/ME/2000/XP/2003 Server;

App will: Burn and create ISO-files (ISO9660-1 w/8+3 file names or ISO9660-2 with extended file names) For creating an ISO9660-1 disk you MUST name the files in the source folder on your PC with 8 or fewer characters... any longer file name will be truncated to 7 alpha chars + the char "~" + the 3 char Win file extention "jpg" or "tif" ect.; which is how the ISO 8+3 name format works. The 8+3 name convention is really a backward compatable DOS name convention that became the ISO standard. Macs will "see" those names.

MORE:

The PDF you referenced in fact can be found here - the link as seen in your orig msg does not open (?) apparently because of the blank space and st chars between the word "Conte" and "CFE..."

http://pdnonline.com/photodistrictnews/photos/2005/01/PDNWeddingContestCFE2005.pdf

Submission Requirements

"Entries must be submitted as a print or slide for judging. No materials will be returned. Also provide a digital file for reproduction on a "Mac-formatted" CD-Rom disk; at least a 5x7 at 300dpi CYMK tif file."

I think they are really asking for a "Mac readable" disk - which then would mean an ISO "format" if the disk is created on a PC to be opened on a Mac; as I don't believe that a Mac will open the Joliet format.

Whoever wrote that, and it is a surprise especially as it is PDN and a professional photography specific website, actually mis-specified the resolution in "DPI" where it should have been "PPI"... sigh!

Hunter

Apparently the story has not hit all the main US news outlets yet (?):

The power of photography is now followed by the consequences... Spc. Sabrina Harman has been found guilty of six of the seven counts laid before the military court. A military jury of four officers and four enlisted servicemen seated in Fort Hood, Texas, however, acquitted her on one maltreatment charge. Under existing military rules, the conviction will be automatically appealed. The sentencing phase of her trial was due to begin on Tuesday [today] She faces a sentence of up to 5 1/2 years and will be confined to a military prison pending the outcome of any appeal hearing.

AFP [AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE] reports the story here

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050517/1/3skg6.html

Al Jazeera, too, reports here with a re-write of the AFP story

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E9EAFC9E-6F15-49E3-AB6B-951073276599.htm

Hunter

Christian Deichert Photo.net Hero Photo.net Patron, may 17, 2005; 10:48 a.m. said: "... If an accused is unrepentant and refuses to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his or her misconduct (a la Graner), panels and judges tend to hammer them. This from my eperience from prosecuting and defending military clients...."

This element of trial procedure, usually between a finding of guilt and passing sentence, is NOT limited to US military courts. We see it on TV, as well as in real courtrooms, all the time when a judge will ask the defendant if he/she has anything to say before being sentenced. The criminal system demands some admission of guilt from those found guilty even if it comes after trial. In the British criminal system it is virtually a necessity to see parole before expiration of the total time of sentence. Typically those who make admissions serve 2/3 time and are paroled. There have been several notable cases, however, where someone claiming "innocence" refused to make such admission - they were retained in prison for the full term of sentence - and only thereafter found not to have committed the original crime of which they were found guilty. In those circumstances it becomes a Catch22 for the accused.

Hunter

The answer is relatively simple...

Every print house and press can be associated with a "RIP" file that is a colour profile for that press, as well as integrating information for the ink and paper to be used in the particular print run. Images are set - in the pre-press stage - in CMYK and the colour profile assigned to the image is the one to be used by the actual press/ink/paper combination. This information is integrated into both the image file itself and the page layout files as a whole (so non-image page colours are also profiled).

The place to start is with the print house and they will advise on how to set up the layout for the pre-press. If they want you to set up to their RIP data they will supply the profile to you so you can drop it into your profiles folder. Some, indeed, may just ask that the images be submitted as sRGB / jpg. Alternatively, some will ask for the images as sRGB / tiff and others will have different requirements at submission stage where YOU will have to adapt the image and pages to the printer's requirements. Some indeed may ask for the images to be integrated into the page layout and others only that the images be referenced (as linked image files) and submitted as separate files. As a point of interest, images for 4-6 colour offset printing integrated into a layout (not merely linked to it) should always be sized and resolved to the ACTUAL size they will appear on the page and at some specified resolution (typically 300ppi at the finished size) - with a small tolerance e.g. 10%+/-

The latest pre-press / pre-flight press composition methods work from Adobe PDFs (as WYSIWYG whole page images... or sometimes, but less common nowadays, as EPS files, also whole page images) that go straight to a press / plate maker so the printer does not handle the individual components of the layout and images. It is at the platemaker stage that the colour separations and registrations are normally constructed as well and the printers will have to do this.

Don't fret how to prepare, or what to do with, your images - ASK THE PRINT HOUSE FIRST!

Hunter

Christian Deichert Photo.net Hero Photo.net Patron, may 14, 2005; 01:29 p.m.said: "...Dai, you laugh at the argument Spinner makes, and that's your reaction. But don't think for a second that we defense attorneys necessarily believe everything we argue...."

As a journalist I know how it works... but it [spinner's reported comments] still is fantastical and hard to fathom unless some quirk of military law (?) allows it as a special circumstance. He seems to argue that if you can do it "in the dark" then it is not a crime... or at least as serious of a crime. In the extreme, and by similar argument, it might be said that a person shooting someone commits a less serious crime as long as the victim doesn't see it coming.

Either way I did not comment on guilt, or not, of the accused. The [legal] theory, however, should never be allowed to overtake the facts. That one had me choking on my corn flakes - and I think Spinner did his client a disservice by advancing it quite that way.

Hunter

I would love to see THAT lawyer at a kiddie porn tiral:

[re-phrased quote from the story]

For instance, photos Harman took (of the children) shouldn't qualify as abuse because the (children) were hooded and unaware they were being photographed, Spinner said. And it wasn't abusive to write the word "rapeist"(sic) on the thigh of a sexual assault suspect, in part because (they) couldn't read..., Spinner said.

He has to be f***ing joking!

Hunter

Knowing the UK law(s) in this area my first question might be: "On what terms were YOU admitted and allowed to take photos during the show?"

Model agencies, the majors at least but many smaller ones too, usually try to tie down, in fact NAIL down, ANY photography of their "talent" during shows without payment of fees to the agency. More than likely, if the models were hired from an agency then the hirer [show organiser; designer, or whoever is the agency "client"] would have an agreement with the model agency on the issue of photography.

Photographers [the pros at least] at runway shows are often asked to sign an agreement for any photography during the show - usually limiting use to editorial... and even for that use to single photos. There also may have been general restrictions, established by the organisers, of admission to the show on the subject of photography during the show - this is something YOU should be aware of just by being there.

You have to understand the issues that may, do, could affect YOU and any sale of the images.

My personal take on this, and this is only what I might do and I am not giving you any sort of legal advice here, is that IF I was not restricted by a condition of entry; AND I was not working on assignment for one of the principles involved and who may have hired the models; THEN I would sell the images PROVIDED that I also got a full indemnity and hold-harmless agreement from the purchaser as a condition of the sale. The same agreement should also make it absolutely clear that the images are not released and place the onus on the purchaser to obtain any required releases. If they then use them without releases or contrary to some other third party agreement with the agency, which you may not even be aware of, then it's their neck not yours. In the final analysis, if you are free from restriction(s), and sell on some of your images then YOU are NOT the commercial user, or, are YOU responsible for the "commercial," or ANY, use that your client makes of them.

And, as a P.S. for those readers who don't work in the UK - it IS possible to use unreleased photos in commercial uses... not every photo... and not in every commercial application... but it is possible. See:

Photographer's Rights in the UK

download at: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf

First, read the section titled "Private Property," then, further on, you will find this:

"...The lack of any coherent privacy law in the UK means that photographers are not only free to take photographs of people in public places, but they can use those photos as they wish, INCLUDING FOR COMMERCIAL GAIN. [MY NOTE: This also includes other places which, though they may be private they are places to which you have been admitted and where there is NO prohibition or set conditions on photography as a condition of entry. This is called the "invitee rule"] In some countries, individuals have rights over the commercial use of their images, hence the importance of obtaining a model release for the use of an image that contains a recognisable person. UK LAW DOES NOT, AT PRESENT, RECOGNISE THIS RIGHT..." [the emphasis (caps), in both places, is mine]

What I suspect is happening here is that the designer is looking for images to use that are not bound-up in an agency agreement for the payment of use fees; limits on the number of images; or time and territory limits. If they didn't hire the models [or even if they did] but they didn't hire you - then your images are free of any use restriction as far as they are concerned. The agency hiring agreements in the UK appear to bind the client only in so far as they have engaged a particular photographer to shoot photos of models they hire. Third party images contracted after the fact are pretty much a free-for-all.

Hunter

Jeff Conrad , may 08, 2005; 07:16 p.m.said: "It doesn?t seem to me that this case even breaks new ground, although it?s encouraging that it seems to affirm what should have been self evident...."

You are right Jeff it doesn't break new ground, in general, but it may be doing so specifically for technology based items such as digital [or ANY] cameras and cel phones... probably also for lap-tops; iPods; PDAs; data dongles; and all the rest.

The almost direct comparitor, to my mind, is that of vehicle searches and the "plain sight" rules [settled law]. Though a vehicle is in plain sight and the interior may be substantially in plain sight - a locked compartment such as the trunk or a locked tool box is not. Thus, a seizure of evidence that can be openly seen in the main part of the vehicle, or in it's surface, can be legally undertaken without warrant. To search inside the trunk or the locked tool box, however, requires a warrant. In this case the phone itself was in plain sight but the images were, by technical means, locked within. As is long settled law in the case of vehicle searches seeing what is in open view is not the same as forcibly searching the secured interior areas.

I am thinking of the potential importance of this case where, for example, a photog may have one or more "suspect" images in-camera and those may be seen by LE under similar circumstance to the above [non-voluntary search and seizure absent probable cause] - but then lead to them seeking a follow-up warrant to further search the photog's home or computer system on little more than a fishing expedition for additional "evidence" of some wrongdoing.

Interesting case, this one, as it seems to now move, or, more correctly it affirms, the limit of the "plain sight" rule, and thus the limit of a warrantless search, to the device itself (cel phone, camera, or virtually ANYTHING similar) as first observed... and no further.

Hunter

Though this case is more than just one involving photography, per se,

it does serve as something of a benchmark for street work, ect, and

relations with the police when they insist that you: 1) allow them to

see what you shot; or 2) try to, or do, seize your film or camera

without probable cause or a warrant. Article reproduced in full here,

in fair use for education and comment, as it will not remain on the

public news server for long. Interestingly, the warrant they did get

the following day for the service provider, based on the camera-phone

seizure, did not protect them under the legal doctrine that anything

so obtained was already "the fruit of a poisoned tree."

http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/news/74008.php

Section: News

Judge tosses nude pics on seized cell phone

Ex: THE NEW YORK TIMES

WILMINGTON, N.C. - Police violated a man's constitutional rights when

they seized a camera cell phone containing explicit images of an

unconscious woman, a judge ruled this week.

New Hanover County Superior Court Judge W. Allen Cobb Jr. ruled in a

case that could create precedent and serve as a reference point for

future cases nationwide. He found that officers should have obtained a

search warrant before viewing images from the camera phone.

Assistant District Attorney Todd Fennell said he'll appeal.

The ruling came in the case of Christopher Snow, 26, charged by

Wrightsville Beach police with second-degree sexual offense. On the

night of July 25, he attended a party with a co-worker. They were on

the beach the morning of July 26 when police were called.

Snow was trying to load the victim into a car when they arrived,

police said in court documents. A witness told police she had seen

Snow taking pictures of the woman on the beach. When police asked to

see the images, Snow became flustered and said his batteries were

depleted, according to documents.

An officer activated the phone and retrieved several images, including

one of someone pulling down a woman's underwear, court papers state. A

warrant was obtained the next day and police contacted Sprint

corporate headquarters. Sprint provided copies of seven images,

including one of a woman's exposed genital area.

Snow's lawyer argued the images were obtained on July 26 without

probable cause or a search warrant. Cobb agreed.

Hunter

I especially liked this part in the AP wire service version of the story:

"Democratic Rep. Al Edwards, who filed the legislation argued bawdy performances are a distraction for students resulting in pregnancies, drop-outs and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Ribald performances are not defined in the bill. "Any adult that's been involved with sex in their lives, they know it when they see it," he said."

Geeeez! He blames nearly all the ills of society on alleged cheerleader (mis)behaviour. Everything short of global warming. But do we hear anything 'bout them football heroes patting each other on the ass (as they do)? Noooooo!

LOL

Hunter

Ahhhhhhh for them "good old days" in Texas when men were men and cows were nervous. I also remember in that state a time, within my adult lifetime I might add, when a woman couldn't drive the family car [or pick-up truck as circumstance might have it[ or hold a bank account in her own name without her husband's permission. It has always been a bass-ackwards state in the individual personal liberty area, ESPECIALLY when it comes to a women's personal liberty.

As for cheerleaders I remember, once, when I saw first-hand two of them critters doing their thing without their nickers on... and that was in 1960!... and it did perk up an interst in photography amongst the male spectators... and it was NOT in Texas.

If you haven't figured it out yet, Texas politicans are the best that money can buy!

Hunter

You can explore these two in the UK. Both do short-run POD. I also am aware that there are a couple of print houses in Italy that will take on short-run POD photo books but I can't offer you any contact information for them. No doubt there are some in France; Germany; and Holland as well [all have established custom book printing industries] as I have come across short-run work originating in all of these countries but it was not necessarily POD type jobs.

http://www.ridgewaypress.co.uk/index.htm

http://www.print-my-book.co.uk/Contact_us.html

The problem you will encounter with the above two is with the available binding method. For books, in addition to other methods, they both offer "perfect binding" as an option but this is a soft cover binding method. I didn't notice any that offer "case binding" [aka "edition binding"] which is hard cover [proper book] binding and that may be what you are looking for.

Hunter

Is this photographic proof, maybe, that she didn't get in "over her head"?

Something bizarrely psycho-dynamic about the whole idea of that image - but I like it.

Hunter

Robert, I like the model idea but don't you think a bandaged and sad looking puppy would have more "Ahhhh" factor?

Hunter

Matt, I'll be nice (a decided rarity for me) and explain it in terms others have not as well as setting out the legal principle underlying your question. In fact I just addressed this exact question on another forum for another photographer and this was my reply to him as well:

Matt, almost universally in copyright law and practice "ideas" alone can not be protected. It is only when an idea is reduced to a fixed form - a latent image or an actual photo; a piece of artwork; a song if it is written down or even recorded but not written down; ect; that the "idea" becomes something that can be copyrighted or protected.

The same thing applies to patents. You could think of a new invention but you can not copyright or patent the "idea" alone; the "idea" must be reduced to some fixed form - even notes in a notebook have some value in proving who thought of it first, and those notes would be protected by copyright... but better yet an actual construction of the device which the "idea" describes which could be protected by a patent.

The legal principle that applies to similar, but not necessarily identical, photographs that arise from a commonplace "idea" (or visual scene) is called "scenes a faire." Under the doctrine of "scenes a faire," courts will not protect a copyrighted work from infringement if the expression embodied in the work, the "idea" behind it or your view of it but only in your mind's eye, necessarily flows from a commonplace idea (or scene)?. and that where it is only possible to express the "idea" (or represent the scene) more than once by doing so in a similar way and containing similar elements or components and by creating the similar, but not necessarily identical, creative work.

Your mentor can not copy your actual images which are your copyright but nothing in law stops him from photographing the same elements to create a similar work. The issue of "morality" has absolutely nothing to do with it, nor is there any breach of trust because you happened to tell him about the location.

Get over it.

Hunter

John Falkenstine Photo.net Patron, apr 25, 2005; 11:40 p.m.said: ...While I was photographing the model protested and said that I needed an artist's release. I told her that this was unlikely and that she was interfering with my photography...after this she went back to modelling and ignored me..

Maybe I'm just not as polite as you, John, but my reply would have been reduced to two words, the second word being "...OFF" I'm sure you can guess the first word. An exclamation point also obviously being added with a particular and well known hand gesture.

Hunter

Barry Fisher Photo.net Patron, apr 23, 2005; 05:00 p.m.said: "...Dai, as a pro, maybe you'll find this familiar, if not interesting.... One of the officers turned around just as I snapped and got pretty upset. Said what are you doing, I don't like that when I'm working and then came over and detained me,..."

Fortunately for me but perhaps not for you or other non-journalists is that I can and would have immediately identified myself as a member of the press and probably [i can't say in every possible circumstance "absolutely"] been left to get on with my job.

The circumstances at the NYC convention did result in some pretty nasty words between editors and the NYPD as well as the courts ordering the release of many of the people arrested on those days, journalists and non-journalists alike. And, I dare say some financial compensation to the journalists who were detained... all done very quietly to be sure.

In Britain too, the police have been known [but VERY rarely] to try to seize film from journalists, even the card carrying kind with police recognised press ID, of such things as violent demonstrations. They consider it to be evidence of "crime(s)" and therefore DO have limited powers to take it at the scene. If it gets away then they have to seek a court order. In many cases photogs will shoot a roll, change film [or digi cards] and hand off the shot material to a "runner" who spirits it away from the immediate area. In the extreme that media has been known to be sent out of the UK {Holland being a popular destination - BTW] and, there, out of the reach of even the UK courts. Once the material is seen and selections made the "to be published" images are sent back electronically to the press room. Every effort is made to keep unpublished / un-broadcast images out of the official hand, just as they would not get their hands on reporter's notes.

Now, as to this situation you encountered... AFAIK in the US you have every right to shoot images of the police doing their job in public. Some of them, at least, don't like it but they can't generally stop you on a whim. I refer to the "Photographer's Rights" flyer that Burt Krages publishes for download at http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm and in which he mentions the police issue specifically. With certain exceptions the British police don't mind cameras - being almost universally an unarmed police force - and often welcome the camera, even to the point of inviting it on several occasions, because it highlights the dangerous s**t they have to put up with.

As an aside, a short while ago two detectives were sent to a pub to arrest a KNOWN violent and armed man. Not only were they unarmed... neither one even had body armour on... or did they have an armed back-up; and both were shot by the suspect while trying to make the arrest. The guy escaped the scene and was later found dead of a self inflicted gunshot. How's THAT for policing? I have found, to the credit of the police here, that any time the spirit moves me do a story on the police a force press officer is only a phone call away.

Hunter

Barry, I had no more to go on but the content of the article - but it does rest on precedent that a rented public facility [as noted] MAY change it's status temporarily giving the person in control greater legal authority to control what goes on there.

True we don't have ALL the facts in this particular case, or do we have the legal framework in NV law to consider, so my comments were cautionary and conservatively formulated. I am a photo-journalist and one of the questions I might have considered in my mind's eye, if it were I, would have been: "What is a Nugget security guard doing guarding a public garage?" From which it would no doubt have flowed [because I would have asked] that the Nugget had the place rented - possibly for the sole use of their own customers for the time being = very much the examples I gave of publicly owned facilities rented for private use.

That being the case had I been asked to stop photographing I would have - though I would also have stayed to visually observe and take notes of what was going on until also asked to physically leave.

Hunter