dai_hunter

<div></div>

non-optomised aluminium foil pinhole on 35mm manual body; assumed

f-stop = ca f/200; film - Ilford XP2 @ 400iso B&W; overcast sky;

typically 1-2 second exposures; finished in sepia tone<div></div>

Here is part of the answer and yes the secret is a sensitiser and the light used for exposure...QUOTED FROM:

 

http://www.blueprintphotography.com/eqpaper.html

 

"Blueprint/blueline paper (technically, diazotype paper) is a paper that has been treated with chemical salts to give it a sensitivity to light, especially blue light.

 

howstuffworks.lycoszone.com has the following description of how it works:

 

In the diazotype method, the paper is light-sensitized with a mixture of a diazonium salt (used in the manufacture of dyes), a reactant, and an acid that keeps the diazonium salt and the reactant from reacting with each other. The semi-transparent original is placed on top of the sensitized paper, and a copy of the same size as the original is made by direct contact. Light destroys the diazonium salt. Ammonia gas or solution is used as a developer after exposure -- it neutralizes the acid and allows the remaining diazonium salt to combine with the reactant to create a blue dye. The chemicals on the paper acquire color only in the areas not exposed to light. This diazotype method produces dark lines on a white background, and is the popular method used today for reproduction of large-format drawings.

 

The paper is especially sensitive to blue light and light with a large blue component, but is particularly insensitive to orange and yellow light. This makes the paper an interesting medium for landscape photography with yellows, oranges, and blues.

 

Several 'speed' ratings of paper exist, but I've only purchased 5 speed paper. I have been told by several shops that 7 speed paper is much quicker to expose, but the image quality is noticibly lower than with 5 speed.

 

Blueprint Paper is surprisingly cheap and readily available, even given the fact that many print shops have moved away from blueline methods and gone completely digital. However, it is very likely that a local shop will either have it or know where to get it. I pay between $30-$35 for 100 sheets of 36"x24" five speed paper...."

 

Hunter

A handy and free solution in a TEXT ONLY data base can be found here:

 

http://www.karenware.com/powertools/powertools.asp

 

Directory Printer v.5.0.3

application updated: Feb 18, 2005

 

Prints (or creates a text file with) the names and other information for which there is a broad and deep capability to include or exclude recorded parameters, of all, or a selected range of, folders and files on your computer (or on selected non-HD media including CD contents)

 

I use this to create seaerchable text based databases for exHD CDs.

 

Create a HD folder (e.g.) "CDDATA." THEN: Scan and record the data relating to CDxxxx with Directory Printer and drop the text file it creates as a sub-folder called CDxxxx in CDDATA Repeat for other media/additional CDRs or DVDs as required creating new sub-folders in CDDATA relating to the CDR name for each disk.

 

Last, scan the master folder "CDDATA" with Directory Printer and you have a text searchable database for the lot, both as the individually identified CD text files (CDADTA sub-folders) and as a consolidated (CDDATA) file containing file information within and for all the included named sub-folders (CDs)

 

Once the main database is set up you can add additional information to the database as required by constructing additional CDxxxx sub-folders in CDDATA and then re-scanning the CDDATA folder and saving the scan (overwriting the earlier version) as the consolidated file.

 

Searching: Open the consolidated database (e.g. in Wordpad or Notepad) and use the menu finction Edit>Find to locate specific information. You could search the CDxxx name to the start point of that CD contents segment... or search to individual file names; dates; file sizes; ect., ect.. For example: from an individual file name or other search term (once located) merely back up to the folder name and you will see that the found file is in CDxxxx.

 

Not a sophisticated (e.g. "with thimbs" searchable) database but compact in terms of size and costs absolutely nothing but a bit of time to set up. If you just want to see the thumbs of a particular CD's contents you can also create a contact sheet for each CD and drop that into the sub-folder on your HD as well.

 

For more sophisticated automated database creation "with thumbs"... you might explore ACDSee (v6 or v7) both of which have the capability to do it with a folder tree just as would be done above.

 

Hunter

Lastly in conventional B&W film you might give Ilford FP4 (ISO125) a go. A very fine grained general purpose B&W film when properly handled in the darkroom. Here is an example... virtually no apparent grain at x50+ enlargement<div></div>

#3: All colour killed - reprinted in mini-lab from 8bit greyscale TIFF. The colour cast and other problems (e.g. contrast) have been mostly resolved.<div></div>

#2: black and white point adjusted but left as an RGB and reprinted in mini-lab- note the colour cast<div></div>

The problem is with the lab - scanning B&W as RGB and equalising to neutral grey during printing. This shot was on Kodak BW400CN (C-41) mini-lab processed and scanned. Re-adjusted in house and reprinted (#3) also in mini-lab from a digital file.<div></div>

WOW!!! On first impression looks just like a movie set for a slasher movie. LOL

 

Hunter

http://www.pdf995.com/download.html

 

Not as good as Adobe, but it works. Pops up an ad window on closing of the application... but the price is right [freeware]

 

Hunter

Kinkos, as well as other copy shops, have been sued for this in the past... In the premier Kinkos case they lost.

example 1 and 2 are Avatars - completely synthetic computer generated images. OTOH here is a computer manipulated image derived from a conventional photograph... Is it still a photograph?<div></div>

example 2<div></div>

If you subscribe to the theory that photography is "light (photo)" + "writing (graphy)" >AND< a computer screen is a tablet upon which electronically /

electrically generated light is used to create a graphic image... then is it photography or isn't it?

 

example 1<div></div>

Jennifer said: ...and the brides were fantastic in front of the camera....

 

Not to put too fine a point on it but isn't there only ONE bride at a wedding? Even a lesbian one?

I, too, have explored this with a publisher friend, not as a project but we discussed it much more generally, and we decided that models are a fundamental problem. The F body shape of typical models, on all ends of the spectrum (fashion; glamour; and general photographic,) has changed from the 40s - 50s pin-up period. You just can not easily find models today with the right "period shape" willing to do that work. Not to say that they are not out there but they are hard to find - larger breast sizes and wide hips a bit heavy in the butt, but not really a lot of body fat in between or on the arms and legs.

 

Beyond that, there are non-PSable elements to consider... hair is less of a problem but a good stylist is a must; period style costumes are not too much of a problem but things like stockings with seams and corsets, period style underwear and foundation garments (with the RIGHT look in a photograph) may have to be made especially for the shoot, ect. A theatrical costumer is a good choice for that... usually what they don't have in stock, or can't get as original (vintage wear), they can make.

 

The least problematic part of the equation is lighting but you should revert to the old techniques to get the right result. Remember, too, that film characteristics have also changed from the period emulsions and may not give the desired results right out of the camera without a lot of planning and testing in advance... and there PS will be a great help in reproducing the generally rich and saturated period "look".

 

It can be done, for sure, if you can get the right model(s) (at any price,) but it won't be cheep in the other details either compared to doing a modern style glamour shoot withe strictly off-the-shelf models and other gear.

 

Hunter

WEBSTER... wildlife in Africa is genuinely wild, not like in Europe where it isn't around much and isn't that dangerous on the whole.

 

Webster, you have apparently never been in one of the British pub and club districts (pick any UK city you like and most small towns as well) at closing time on a Friday or Saturday night. Compared to lions, elephant or rhino? Give me the African variety of "wild" and "dangerous" any time compared to the urban variety I have to put up with here.

 

LOL

 

Hunter

Dan Daly , mar 01, 2005; 05:12 a.m.

Gobbly-gook pofundit gooker nide howziner.. EEKK! I just didn't know who owned the rights whay you had to "DO" to have copyrights. (break in text)... I pretty much got it straightened out, it's primarily the person who did the most "creative" work....

 

 

Dan... A simple statement but you still don't have it quite right. It is not the one who did the MOST creative work. It can be ANYONE and EVERYONE who did ANY creative work as part of the whole. Who actually owns it (copyright) depends heavily on the employment or contract relationship.

 

Issues of copyright and employment law keep a lot of lawyers in Cheetos, not to mention driving Mercs, these days. There is a reason for that.

 

Hunter

James O'Neill , feb 28, 2005; 06:42 p.m.

Dai, one side thing, under UK law if you are employed as an assitant... (break in text) Whether a "Volutneer" assitant is said to be employed or not I'm not sure.

 

You are right James EXCEPT that also there is no work-for-hire applicable in the UK and many paid "assistants" are de facto contractors NOT employees. Thus, in the UK such a paid "assistant," if a (by the day) contractor, will retain copyright in his own contribution, and I argue that he also could be joint author of a collaborative work if his contribution can not be seperated from the whole (re: both UK and US copyright law on that point.) As a side note, in the US, AIUI, there must be some expression of intent to create joint works... that is not true in the UK where the contribution itself is enough to result in a vested right to the claim of joint authorship.

 

Most assistants that I know (in Britain) are paid a day rate with no tax witheld and that does not necessarily rise their relationship to the mininum requirement to establish an employment relationship with the hirer. There are, of course other tests of "employment" that can be applied to that question, and Inland Revenue usually does that. That was the essence of the music case with the session musician - who was, after all, paid for his time (as a contractor) but still had, so the court said, a copyright interest in his independently created and unseperable contribution to the larger work. Many others in the UK, in particular, are in the same position as the paid "assistants" - the model, paid a day or hour rate is NOT an employee; the independent lighting technicians on big productions - usually hired as contractors on hour or day rates are NOT employees; the make-up and hair techs - usually hired on hour or day rates are NOT employees; how about set designers?; how about art directors?; how about the fashion consultants?; and the list goes on. Each makes a contribution inseperable from the whole in a photograph. Each, at least in theory, could make the claim of joint authorship.

 

You make the assumption that merely being paid (as an assistant - or in the case of any of the others) automatically establishes an employer / employee relationship - it most certainly does NOT in British law.

 

As for unpaid "volunteer" assistants - highly unlikely that the UK courts would hold that such work was factual employment. Thus, they most likely retain copyright in any independent work they create or contribute even on someone elses' shoot. If they contribute creative input does that give rise to a work of joint collaborative effort - it would seem to on it's face, and therein lies the danger for the photographer who may presume, and wrongly, that he has the entire copyright ownership.

 

It is also of interest that copyright ownership and interest can be transferred by contract BUT moral rights can NEVER be sold or contracted away. Interesting in light of the movie industry when you see credits roll at the end... everyone... literally everyone... from the principal actors to the guy servicing the porta-potty is listed. They have absolutely no copyright interest, that is clear in copyright law because copyright usually is automatically vested in the producer and / or director of a motion picture, but they do have moral rights and those credits are an expression of those moral rights in their contribution.

 

In the US there is a work for hire doctrine in play and so work by a factual contractor (paid) may be the property of the hirer... I wonder what a lawyer might say, however, especially where there is no contractural relationship OR financial recompense in the case of a "volunteer" assistant.

Quick correction:

 

I said: You can protect yourself by contractural means, but, sadly, NOT after the fact.

 

Should have said: THE PHOTOGRAPHER YOU ARE ASSISTING can protect himself by contractural means, but, sadly, NOT after the fact.

 

Hunter

I brought this up last year - one, and only one, person responded and even they tended to dismiss the theory, contrary to what is allowed in both copyright law and court precedent, that where there is more than one "creative mind" involved you may intentionally, or even unintentionally, create a work of "joint authorship"... and consequently also one of joint ownership. The US and UK courts have held that the amount of creative input need only be minimal. Read the thread and make of it what you will. You can protect yourself by contractural means, but, sadly, NOT after the fact.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009JIl

 

Following more recently than that thread, in the UK, a session musician was told to play a riff in the background of his own choosing. He was not told what to play and was not working from writtten or pre-arranged music. The song containing his work was at first a bomb but several years later became popular (I believe it was used in an advertisement.) It was then that he expressed an interest in the value his creative input, as a joint author, and sued for part of the profits. HE WON THE CASE. The interesting thing, and a bit different as well, about that case was that the court held that he could just ignore the original release when it bombed and did not have to make any claim to joint authorship at the onset. But that he also had the right to assert his claim at the later time when the song was making money.

 

Could the same thing happen to a photographer? You bet! And, I mention one California case in that thread against a photographer specifically to support that claim. Though decisions in the 9th Circuit Court are not binding on the others, that decision would surely be cited in other similar cases outside the 9th Circuit.

 

Methinks that IF you are shooting, even as an "assistant," in circumstances where you choose the camera settings, angles, lighting, ect. and finally end the process by releasing the shutter... you probably have a claim on the image copyright either entirely in yourself or possibly as a joint author.

 

Hunter

I have approached this from a different standpoint mainly because of the UK/EU's data protection law(s). Other photographers, however, may find this approach generally useful.

 

Models fill out the release pro forma on the front of the page and sign it on the front indicating, also there, that they are competent to sign (their age is over 18). They sometimes use stage names, as well, which will appear on the front as their "identity." Minor releases are also signed on the front by the parent or guardian.

 

ALL OTHER identifying and personal contact information is on the BACK of the form under the printed notice that: "This information is confidential and never released except by order of a court"... real name; full birth date; nationality; telephone numbers; address; mailing address (if different); agent's name and contact (if there is an agent involved); ect, ect. Though this information is never released to a client it is still available in the event of "down-the-road" legal questions/problems. If someone calls (e.g. an agent or another client) with more work for the model I pass that information along to the model and let THEM decide if they want to make the contact.

 

This solves two problems for me and for the model: 1) When you have to "prove" a release exists to a client you can by sending a copy of the FRONT of the form, though many clients will also accept a declaration that a release has been obtained and is on file without actually seeing it; and, 2) You are not, when you do have to provide a copy to a client, also supplying information that would allow someone to actually be able to find or contact the model directly and in person for good... or for ill.

 

The model is required to be advised, and is, of the level of "processing" of the release side of the form (may have to be distributed to clients) as well as the level of "processing" of the personal indentifying information (not released to clients) - the former is openly distributed and the latter, as my policy (though the law does not prohibit the release) is held to be confidential and only released on court order and used for no other purpose than to support the release. This, then, broadly, meets the requirement(s) of the UK/EU data protection law(s) for the management of personally identifying information. It also offers at least a minimal level of protection to the model in a dangerous world and they are likely to agree to sign.

 

Hunter

A quick follow-up to my previous comments to illustrate the effect of the lack of "privacy" law in the UK:

 

A few days ago a guy was convicted of having published and posted nude photos of a F workmate who he had accompanied on a nudist holiday to some far away place where he took nude photos of her.. They had a bust-up in their relationship and he printed off dozens of the images and mailed them to people who know her; put them on bulletin boards at work; stuck copies under car winshield wipers... anywhere he could think to put them in the open.

 

Was he done for "invasion of privacy?" Nope! They charged him with, and convicted him of, criminal harassment... absolutely nothing to do with privacy or defamation. ;-)

 

Hunter

GOD!!!! It's soooooooooo much easier in the UK where we don't have a general law of privacy. Aside from editorial where newsworthyness and timeliness may be an issue to the publisher but, even then, not strictly applying to incidental inclusion of someone in images shot in de facto public places, three rules apply- You may take and use pictures, virtually unrestricted:

 

IN any public place - the "public place rule"

 

IN any private place to which you (and usually, but not exclusively, the public) are allowed access - the "invitee rule"

 

FROM any public place or other place where the photographer can position himself without committing a tresspass OF any private place in open view from such a vantage point - e.g. of someone sunbathing nude in their garden; or of person "A" getting passionate person "B's" wife in the back yard, a park, or the doorway of a night club... even in a home if they are idiot enough to leave the curtains open while they are doing it. see: "public place" rule

 

In sum, if you can SEE it, you can PHOTOGRAPH it. If you can PHOTOGRAPH it you can USE it. A UK photographer would be hard pressed to get sued for damn near anything - including even any usage short of out-and-out photographic defamation - and here, in the case of the fictional lover of someone else's wife, the truth of the image is a near absolute defence.

 

Commercial appropriation (as a tort) has only been tested to the slighest degree in the UK courts and there is neither law nor precedent so firm as to assure a successful action against a photographer - these cases usually only involve the publisher. Only the rich tend to sue (or can afford to) and such cases as have come to the UK courts involve almost exclusively sports figures and the likes of commercial movie/TV/music personalities, and, more rarely, a political one. The decisions, where they have won, have usually been converted from privacy (the newspaper headline claim), and decided on issues commercial or contractural interference or, as in the case of Naomi Campbell, medical confidentiality (the factual legal claim(s) put to the court). They may sue on privacy claims but those grounds seldom, if ever, dictate the decision of the courts. Nearly the ONLY specific concession to privacy in law occurs in UK copyright law on issues of (commissioned) photos taken for "private and domestic" purposes e.g. portraits and wedding pictures - photographer owns the clear copyright but with restricted use rights. Otherwise one or more persons must take affirmative steps to seclude themselves from view to make such a claim (under other available law.) If they are in the "open@ then they are fair game and considered to have voluntarily diminished their expectation of privacy to a greater or lessor degree.

 

That said, most photographers here DO use some form of release for the principals photographed (e.g. models) in particular anticipatory circumstances for straight commercial (e.g. advertising) usage, but if they are street shooting for commercial use, they wouldn't necessarily bother to get releases from someone only incidentally included (in the photo.) As there is also now no "work for hire doctrine" in the UK (that applies to non-employee contractors,) once they take the photo(s) they own all rights in law - including the right to publish (that is: to exploit the work, with the "private and domestic" exception noted above.)

 

Hunter

?looks like? a fingerprint artefact and may be on the INSIDE surface of the glass.