dai_hunter

Eugenijus Kostrubinas , nov 02, 2004; 07:23 p.m.

Day, seems laser beam is not workaruond: at first, it has coherent light, so human's eye can not accept it's beam as illuminant device,...

Only suggested as a focusing point within the frame by using it to illuminate some part of the frame that you absolutley want in focus in low light conditions. You CAN see the light in the viewfinder where it impinges on some other object... even in near darkness.

Jim Strutz Photo.net Hero Photo.net Patron, nov 02, 2004; 04:57 p.m. said: "People are dirty rotten sinners..." -- I learned that listening to TV preachers. :)

AND, if you don't send them a donation (all your money - checks, money orders and all major credit cards accepted - but cash preferred) they won't be able to appear on your TV screen next Sunday.... and it will be all YOUR fault. LOL

Barry, exactly for copyright reasons I only posted the first quoted para of the story and the link. The additional comments are mine, in my own words, describing what happened as it was reported.

As long as it's still on line, and it is, there is no reason, or is there any justification, to post the whole thing and infringe the publisher's copyright.

http://kbak.bakersfield.com/local/story/4988161p-5045018c.html

First Amendment Issues Raised As Valley Plaza Security Guards Tackle

[TV] 29 Eyewitness [news] Photographer To Ground

"Fifty-two year-old news photographer Chuck Dennis was almost done

videotaping the aftermath of an armed robbery at Valley Plaza Mall on

September 9th. As Dennis was in the parking lot shooting Bakersfield

police on scene just outside Macy's, a man in plain clothes approached

Dennis and barks out, "Sir, I'm going to ask you to stop filming at

this point and leave the mall please," said the plain clothes man

without identifying himself...."

They assaulted him; injured him; tried to seize his camera; handcuffed

him; and took him to, and held him in, their office in the mall

against his will.... Methinks this is a BIG problem for them now.

Read the story on-line and see the video stream. Marvelous!

Donald Qualls , oct 29, 2004; 12:06 p.m. said: The old fashioned way to *really* do this one correctly would be:...

More or less the way I suggested... but then again I am an old fashioned kind of guy. LOL!

Here is a different view of doing this - everything may not be as it seems... from the perspective of looking at the finished image your mind's eye does not mesh with the reality.

How to do it: Model curled up on a transparent platform (glass or plexi-glass). Platform covered in (probably) a fabric of the apparent colour and lit from BELOW. Fill light from above as would be expected. Camera position above and shot directly downward into the sandwich of model / "background" / and backlight.

The viewer's perspective changes from that of the photographer's when the image is viewed in a vertical - up and down orientation - on the computer screen or even on a wall. You can see it from the photographer's perspective if you place a print on the floor and gaze directly down at it... Obviously not how you would normally view a photograph.

Hunter

Adding a bit here as I re-read your orig massage and noticed that you want to use a conventional photographic print rather than a digital image print...

Print the calendar pages as described in my first post, including the front and back covers, but without printing the images as digital images and merely leave spaces to attach your conventional prints in the appropriate places to the skeleton calendar. For this I would print on a medium card stock (ca 180 to 220 gm/sq m) and use an ordinary re-positionable print mounting spray to mount the prints.

Try this freeware. I have used it [ver 2.03E] with good results under Win98SE and there is also a new version [ver 3.0E-beta] for XP on the download site:

http://www.bento.ad.jp/freeware/english/calendar/download/

Photo Print Calendar from Yokohama

[Computer Institute of Japan, Ltd]

The older version [2.03E] does NOT allow saving completed calendar pages to "file" for printing later (you are supposed to print from the layout while the application is open) BUT there is a work around for that. If you have Adobe Acrobat (PDF writer, NOT the reader] or can download a freeware PDF creator (there are several of those about) you can save the completed page layouts in a printable format as a PDF file because the calendar application sees that PDF creation as a virtual printer.

For front and back cover pages of a calendar you can also use any other application that will let you layout such a page with pictures and text - e.g. MS Word, QuarkXPress, ect. Both Word and Quark (and others) have facilities to create "cells" and thus for the back cover you can print 12 cells with thumbnails of the pictures used on the calendar pages so all 12 months' pictures can be seen at a glance, just like commercial calendars.

A second option creating calendars, if you don't want to run this Yokohama application is to create the calendar pages from MS Outlook and print the image on the back... thus you get (in order of printing and assembly) a cover, first, with Jan image on the back and the next page has Jan calendar on the front and Feb picture on the back... and so forth... then ending with Dec calendar on the front of the last sheet and the back cover on the reverse of that.

Where there is a will there is a way.

Hunter

If you want a paper one see this:

DoF calculator for 35mm + MF + DSLR

"...I've just finished the first "official" release of my multi-purpose depth-of-field calculator, which is available for download from

http://www.silverimages.de/en/downloads.html

It's available in German/metric, English/metric and English/imperial

and it now includes a special "portrait" version (thanks to Robert Crc

for the idea) covering the range from 1 to 3 meters.

Comments, critics and ideas are very welcome. Jens"

Jens has made something useful here I think...

The actual English language dnld and instructions pages are:

http://www.silverimages.de/downloads/dof-metric-en.pdf

http://www.silverimages.de/downloads/dof-imperial-en.pdf

Kimberly Coccagnia , oct 25, 2004; 11:05 a.m.said "...one whipped off her dirty underwear through them on the wedding night bed and left them there,..."

James O'Gara , oct 25, 2004; 01:23 p.m.said: Wait, I want to hear more about the bridesmad who whipped off her underwear.

Maybe you don't James. Could it be that that's where they were when she put them on that morning? (me bad - LOL)

Tony Terlecki, oct 16, 2004; 06:49 a.m. said: What the hell is going on here? They'll be insisting we avert our eyes in public next under penalty of having them pulled out if we don't comply.

And give a tug of the 'ol forelock too. SCR**W 'EM!

Andy, all the info you will ever need on Ilford Delta 3200 you can find here:

http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/delta3200.pdf

Neal Shields Photo.net Patron, oct 15, 2004; 06:53 p.m. said: The EU has a new law about shooting famious people even if they are in public places. I think the article was in last weekend's NY Times.

That's a new rumour. It will probably turn into something like a photographic urban myth BUT it is simply NOT true at this time. There is NO new EC/EU "law"

What there is is the final judgement in the case of Von Hanover vs. Germany (ECHR case#59320/00 June 2004) but that as of now only affects Germany. Any new EC/EU "law" will take years, if ever, to get past the various stages of enactment - even when it happens fast as such things go, and there is really no indication that it is happening at all, it wouldn't be "law" for at least 10 years. Even then this case concerned the publication of the photos not merely the taking of the photos.

Unlike Germany and France the UK has no general law of privacy. I, and a number of other journalists, were in a conference with a privacy specialist from the UK Press Complaints Commission [PCC], in fact THE privacy specialist, not ten days ago and that case was specifically discussed. Even the PCC didn't know how, if at all, that decision would impact UK press photography, much less any other kind of photography. In the mean time it is business as usual re: celebs and press photographers / publishers in the UK.

Received from a correspondent of mine today. Nice to know it happens

to the big boys too:

15 Oct 2004 1400gmt

Spencer Tunick did a small 'installation' this morning in east London.

As usual, it took place at sunrise (in this case 7.30 am). He had

planned to do set ups, each with four models, and their position was

in the middle of the road, their backs to the morning traffic. He

started well enough (he had timed the photograph with traffic lights

so as to avoid actually holding up any cars and buses). Until disaster

struck.

I was standing immediately behind Tunick in the road and became aware

that a police car had stopped on my left. The window wound down, the

PC asked me who was 'in charge'. It was clear they were not happy what

was going on. They drove the car slowly towards the models,

effectively forcing them off the road. Tunick, who has experience of

this situation before, in France and the US if not the UK, immediately

asked us to grab the camera off him and remove the film. I took it

and passed to a woman who stuck it into her enormous bag.

By this time, the two policemen had got out of their car and were

questioning Tunick. Did he have a licence? they asked. A licence for

what? Tunick asked back. A licence to take photographs in public, the

police said. The police's attitude was ridiculously aggressive and

they were obviously not going to let us continue. After he agreed to

stop the shoot there and then, the police drove off without cautioning

anyone.

Tunick remained perfectly calm and polite throughout and said to us

that he wouldn't risk continuing the shoot since the police would be

sure to come back - and he didn't want to be in a police cell and miss

his opening at the Hales Gallery.

-----ends------

Several years ago I had a friend that I was doing some work for come into my the studio with a local lad. The friend told the lad - "...while we're here you should let him take some photos of you..."

He was an interesting character to the eye, the odd scar and with a few apparent bruses from fighting, obviously a rough-and-ready street kid, so I did. I shot him in some boxing / fighting stances and that was that.

Two weeks later he was shot dead in a local drugs gang dispute. I had taken the last photos of him in his all-to-short life, and, as it turned out, some of the very, very few photos that his family had ever taken of him. And yet, because he was a really rough looking kind of character this was someone that most photographers, except maybe street shooters, wouldn't really have considered doing photos of voluntarily, and he would not have ever thought to seek one out to have photos taken.

Got a local reputation, after that, for "having friends in low places", sort of like "photographer to the local gangsters", and which description I tend to wear with some pride and satisfaction.