Spearhead

<p>I just accumulate projects that don't have an end point. Like women with tattoos and their suitcases.</p> <center><img src="http://spirer.com/bcbnov2013/content/images/large/_P9A1829.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></center>

<p>It doesn't sound like work for hire unless he signed a contract saying it was work for hire. When I've done freelance for newspapers, it's never been work for hire.</p> <p>Also, photographers are never required to provide model releases unless whoever buys the photos requires it.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The comments about future support make no sense.</p> </blockquote> <p><br />Guess you didn't follow the Final Cut Pro disaster. Apple is a device company.<br> </p> <blockquote> <p> </p> </blockquote>

<center><img src="http://spirer.com/hsf2014battlefinal/content/images/large/_P9A4353.jpg" alt="" width="992" height="744" /></center>

<blockquote> <p> Concert photography is a bit of spray & pray. </p> </blockquote> <p> <br> If you only do it once every now and then, maybe it is. Once you do it enough, it's pretty easy to tell what will work and what won't and to shoot what will work. The biggest issue I have with needing more shots is performers who are picky about how they look.</p>

<p>I shoot concerts every week. The aperture will depend on lighting and whether you can use flash. I use flash quite a bit - I realize many people don't and have a lot of trouble with control, but when it's allowed, I use it. When it's not allowed, I almost always shoot at f2.8 - f4 and bump the ISO up pretty high. I don't find that wide open works a lot of times, especially if you there's a lot of movement and it's difficult to do exact focusing. I have a different view than some of the above comments. For one thing, shooting in the dark, a lens' "sweet spot" is pretty much irrelevant.</p> <p>I agree that you should find your own approach, which is why I started shooting with flash. Here's a typical shot with flash from a recent shoot. I drag the shutter to get some motion and pull in the background in a more natural way. Shot at 1/6 sec, f4.5, ISO 400:</p> <center><img src="http://spirer.com/images/fantasia3.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></center> <p>Here's one taken where flash was not allowed. It's shot at 1/90, f4, ISO 3200. It's a bit soft from motion, something that happens in these situations. Any slower shutter speed would probably have been very soft.</p> <center><img src="http://spirer.com/images/valjune1.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="525" /></center> <p>The real point is that there are a lot of ways to shoot but you need to be prepared for all sorts of situations. I have shot many shows where there was nothing useable without going to around ISO 25000 if I didn't use flash. And ISO 25000 isn't that useable. Usually big venues, like where the second shot above was taken (Fillmore Auditorium, San Francisco) have enough light, but some performers want lower lights, and then, without flash, you're in that place that's hard to get a decent shot.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Of course I'm shooting mostly art images and not for a client.</p> </blockquote> Obviously Sarah is shooting for a client if she is talking about hourly charges.

<p>Anyone who thinks panhandling in San Francisco is a problem needs to spend about twenty minutes in any city in India.</p>

<p>I get that when my internet connection goes flaky. </p>

<blockquote> <p>you might understand what I'm talking about which has specifically to do with people who had cameras and the screens lighting up all over the rooms and the people with cameras being oblivious of others sharing the space with them. </p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Fred, I am very aware of that. I see it all the time. However, it has nothing to do with how people are dressed and what camera they are carrying. Knocking them for their clothing and their cameras is about as petty as it can get and has nothing to do with photography and who is in whose way.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The bother can be that people with cameras can very much get in the way.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> But so can people without cameras. And, as I pointed out, people getting in the way is a possible annoyance. It's the resentment of what other people are doing that in no affects anyone but themselves that is a waste of time and energy. The comments about attire and camera choice make it obvious that the issue is not someone getting in the way.</p>

<blockquote> <p>What irks me are the young ones in concert t-shirts, skinny jeans, converse shoes with leica or fuji x100s, a clique of them, not saying who, set up a website, and close the membership to a select few. </p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Why let what other people do with photography bother you? It's much easier to just do what you want to do and ignore them, unless they are getting in your way. And that comment doesn't even reference their photography. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Is the data transfer speed gain worth the extra $175 to adapt the hard drive over?</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> I have yet to see a benchmark that shows Thunderbolt outperforming USB 3 with a hard drive. It's different for SSDs, but there is not going to be a difference with rotating media unless you buy a WD Velociraptor. MacWorld has a good benchmark summary <a href="http://www.macworld.com/article/2039427/how-fast-is-usb-3-0-really-.html">here</a>.</p>

<p>Prior art is irrelevant. There haven't been patents in the past that are similar. The existence of a photograph that looks similar in the past has nothing to do with prior art.</p>

<p>I agree with Brad, post yours.</p> <p>Here's one that I didn't pose but somehow was a moment that wouldn't happen if I was sitting back waiting, with my wife and son. It's a while ago, he's 22 now.</p> <center><img src="http://spirer.com/images/zandt.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="480" /></center>

<p>I have a friend who most people know as "Bunny" rather than her real name. It's never been an issue. Many don't know her real name.<br> <br />And she (Yeager) was a terrific photographer.</p>

<p>The issue will be with the word "intended." I'm not sure why the PTO allowed that terminology but it won't hold up. </p>

<blockquote> <p>It only covers a very specific method of doing so</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> As anyone who actually reads the referenced article quickly finds out, even using an ISO other than 320 avoids the patent. Prior art is irrelevant as it isn't process-specific.<br> <br> The problem started with allowing process-based patents. As long as process patents continue, problems like this will pop up yet at the same time are avoidable with completely minor changes like using the ISO dial. </p>

<p>I stage shots with family members, far more interesting to me than casual snaps. These have all been in shows I've had, which I wouldn't do with less staged shots of them. I don't identify them usually.</p> <p>My father as William S. Burroughs...</p> <center><img src="http://spirer.com/images/zone.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="482" /></center> <p>My son in a fake horror film:</p> <center><img src="http://spirer.com/images/z2.jpg" alt="" width="346" height="443" /></center> <p>My wife and son in Kidnapping in Marrakesh:</p> <center><img src="http://spirer.com/images/berbers.jpg" alt="" width="570" height="476" /></center>

<p>I've never had a card fail, not that one data point is meaningful, but failure rates are very low. I'm using 32gb cards primarily. What I do in a 5D3 for important shoots is write to both cards, raw files to a 32gb CF and jpeg to a 16gb SD. I figure I'm backed up but can use a smaller second card.</p>

<p>For the first time ever, I am posting a photo of a child. Maybe Ian has to find a photo he took in a mosh pit.</p> <center><img src="http://spirer.com/images/carnaval13.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="525" /></center>

<p>My experience with concert shoots, which is fairly extensive, is that performers are happy to look at the camera LCD after a show. </p>

<p>There's a difference between between being a good photographer and being a good editor. I have known a number of people whose work was highly successful when well-curated rather than presented by the photographer. </p>

<p>You can read the manual <a href="http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/2/0300003562/02/ef17-40f4lusm-im3-eng.pdf">here</a> and see what you are missing. The only thing that any Canon user, or any camera user for that matter, might find useful is that there is a rear gelatin filter holder. Otherwise, it's zoom and focus rings, MF/AF switch and a hood.</p>

<p>The only reasonably recent films that made me think about my photography are those of <a href="http://www.zeitgeistfilms.com/director.php?director_id=43">Guy Maddin.</a> You can see one of his shorts <a href=" although I would recommend <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/saddest_music_in_the_world/">The Saddest Music in the World </a>for great feature length cinematography. Less recently, the films of <a href="http://www.warholstars.org/filmch/filmchro.html">Andy Warhol</a> and <a href="http://www.vice.com/read/richard-kerns-films-are-still-shocking-as-hell">Richard Kern,</a> who became a still photographer for many years after starting with movies. (All of Kern's work probably fits the NSFW category.)</p>