bluphoto

Photo-Dot-Net?.?.?

I was at our camera club the other day, admiring some images taken of penguins by a member. Another member

commented that this particular photographer was well known for "buying" his images. When I asked what he meant,

he said that this member often went on organised tours overseas which catered for photographers by "herding" the

wildlife, making it relatively easy for the photographer to shoot.

 

This confused me a little, as I was under the impression that photography is about the final image, no matter how

someone came about the subject matter. (perhaps excluding documentary and photojournalistic photography)

 

I started thinking about this and started to make connections with other fields of photography....

 

If what this member said were true then things like shooting planes at an airshow would also constitute "buying" your

images. Even wildlife photography where you KNOW you're going to find a particular animal in a particular place,

such as the nesting area of a particular bird, for example, could in the same way be called "cheating".

 

Things like studio photography and portraiture might also be considered the same as the photographer simply has to

ask the subject to sit down and shoot away. Still life images would be the easiest of all - simply throw down a bowl

of fruit and push the shutter button, right?

 

So I look at more and more of the images from members of my club, and although I see lots of interesting subjects -

some of them animals which could potentially hard to photograph, the final picture in most cases is not what I would

call artistic.

 

How many wildlife photographers, for example, pay much attention to the way their subject is lit? A photograph of

Bigfoot or the Yeti might make you a lot of money in the papers, but is it artistically presented? - is it a good

photograph?

 

There was a big hoo-haa at the club last year because one image which had been rated highly by an independant

judge was of a bird which was obviously captive at the time the picture had been taken - determined (apparently) by

the lack of a particular feather from the birds plumage which would allegedly make it difficult for the bird to fly

properly. The member who made the comment to me in the club gallery often goes out into the hills for days on end,

and comes back with reasonable photographs of lovely subjects, but commented on how wildlife photography should

be of a subject in its natural state and that the judges mark should reflect the "effort" which has gone into a

photograph. I had to disagree. I said that a beatiful photograph of an ordinary bird should always get more "points"

than an ordinary "snapshot" of a fantastic specimen. Fantastic if you're in an ornithology

club, but not a photography club. I even went so far as to say that even if an animal were stuffed, the mark should

reflect the aesthetics of the IMAGE and not that a lesser spotted wagtail warbler would never actually be nesting in

that particular species of tree.

 

So is hillwalking something that constitutes PART OF wildlife photography, or is it an activity which is often done at

the same time as wildlife photography? What about rock climbing - is that PART OF photography, or do you only

start the photography part once you have already climbed the cliff or whatever? Scuba diving? Animal tracking?

Personally I think of each of these as admirable activities in their own right, but they do not constitute PART OF

photography per se, and as such should not be considered while technically or aesthetically evaluating a particular

image.

 

Incidentally, this particular photographer does make some beautiful landscapes, but using his own argument, he

knew those particular hills were going to be there before he left home, so all he had to do was show up with his

camera and wait for sunset, right?

 

What do you guys think?

 

best regards,

Guy

Why would you delete any images? I thought they just wanted to SEE them. If I was asked to delete them then I'd

tell them that I COULD delete them, but that I had a program at home which could recover deleted images, so what

would be the point?

<p>

I'm sorry, but deleting the evidence of your innocence? a couple of observations:

<p>

1. there are dozens of software applications designed purely to recover deleted images from memory cards, so if

you want to, you can recover the images.<br>

2. If they DID ask you to delete, and you complied, do you think you would still be arrested? As such, who

would you have to prove your innocence to?

<p>

To get back to the point, the police asked to SEE the photographers images and he CHOSE to be arrested, rather

than show them. To me, that smells a little like a lack of common sense. Perhaps this guy is a hero in some

peoples view, but not mine. I'm guessing that those police officers will not have a better opnion of people with

cameras because of this event.

<p>

<i>"Bad move. Of course you could refuse and be arrested, which would be a wrongful arrest, a waste of police time,

and an embarassment in your day you could well do without."</i> - I think that is exactly my point, thanks.

<p>

If someone wants to make a point, do it through the proper channels (whatever they may be). Being defiant gets you

nowhere.

<p>

In the UK, the police have a right to stop and search and use this when they believe someone may be carrying a

concealed weapon, illegal subsances or breaking and entering equipment for example. In the US perhaps the

authorities don't have this power - I really don't know - allowing questionable citizens their constitutional right to carry

unlicensed concealed weapons, pockets full of dope and jimmy bars etc. This police power isn't seen in the UK as

treading on peoples liberties, it's seen as providing us with a safer environment to live in. They don't misuse this

power, at least not where I live. I'm sure the police in the UK are no smarter or dumber than the police in the States

(you guys agree, right?) and they can make the same judgement calls that our police make.

<p>

If I treat a colleague of mine as a dumbass (assuming he's not) then I would expect to be treated in return with

disdain. Similarly, if someone treats me with no repsect, then I will not respect them.

<p>

Bottom line is that police officers should be treated, in gerenal, with the respect they are due because of the position

in society which they hold. In return, once they understand that we respect them as people and as LEO's, they WILL

eventually provide us law abiding citizens with the same respect.

<p>

I'm not talking about political figures here, only about the front line cops on the street. If we go into politics, that's a

whole other ball game.

I'm talking max power in manual mode. (or any common fraction of max power). Obviously in ETTL mode both should meter the same, although the 580 is more capable if it needs more power.

You just have to work out your lighting rations properly, remembering that the 580 has a guide number of 58 and the 430, 43 - so 1/1 isnt' the same amount of light on both units. You can either move the 430 closer to match the intensity of the 580, or shoot the 580 wider, or cut the power of the 580 etc - assuming you're looking for equal power.

 

More often than not you DON'T want equal power from both flashes, and like any other piece of photographic equipment, you'll soon get to understand it and use it to the best of its ability.

 

cheers,

Guy

Although I'm from Scotland I've done a trip or two to Edmonton. On my last trip I hired a car and headed west to Jasper - some great stops along the way once you get into the hills, but pretty boriong for the first stretch. Second day I headed south through the park to Banff. Some nice waterfalls etc although the cloud was low. Third day I headed to Calgary and on the fourth back up to Edmonton on the Highway.

 

That was a little hurried and although I saw some nice places I was a bit rushed through them all, and didn't get any "relaxation time" at all.

 

Of course with 12 days you may well have more time, but if you're heading out to Vancouver, that might take a while. Have you looked into flying Calgary-Vancouver and back?

 

Have a nice trip.

Guy

16-35 isn't good enough for portrait eh?

 

Okay so the focal length migh to be the most appropriate for portrait but the quality is certainly there.

 

So you HAVE the 70-200/2.8 and the 24-105/4 is not fast enough for you so you need to cover the same focal lengths (24 up to 70) with faster glass. I think the best lens for that would be the 24-70. Sure grab the 50/1.8 or 1.4 or the 35/2 as well for even lower light situations.

Think so. If you're rapid shooting then go for the II, otherwise, I don't see much difference - is there a PC sync socket on it yet?

We need to earn the trust of the authorities, as a community. Stands like this prove nothing other than the obstinacy of one man, which may then be construed by those particular police officers as the obstinacy of photographers in general.

 

IMHO he did prove a point, though, but it wasn't the one he was trying to prove and it didn't do us any favours.

No, but as I mentioned earlier, we have to treat each case on it's own merits. If someone asks me to do something reasonable - doesn't have to be a police officer, and it doesn't cost me anything, then generally, I'll try to help them out.

Sorry, but I simply don't see the harm in an officer asking to see your photo's and I still think wierd that someone

would rather be detained than show them. I guess it's the photographers freedom of choice whether to be detained or

show the photo's and hey, maybe he has a thing for police stations - who knows.

 

Sure, it's a shame that society has turned the peoples liberty into a continual battle against authority but that is

indeed what is happening. An "us and them" attitude which is at the root of many of America's problems today.

Would it not do photographers a better service to comply with the authorities and demonstrate that in fact we are

NOT a group of hot headed antagonists requiring ever increasing legislation to monitor and police. If we continue to

hide what we do from anyone then of course they will eventually become suspicoius and legislation and licensing

with be inevitable.

 

Okay so maybe it's a bit heavy handed to detain him for not showing his photo's but that was the Photographers

choice, which I'm sure was communicated to him at the time.

 

When they say detain, did they mean arrest him and take him to a police station for questioning, or are we talking

about sitting in the back of the police car for a while? Did he end up showing them the pictures anyway?

 

Jeez, these people really get my goat, so politically motivated and determined to make a point that they are blinded

from normal common sense.

 

Okay, so maybe the driving license was a bad analogy, but cops aren't aliens you know. What's wrong with NOT

going out of your way to create enemies for once.

Sure showing the picture is the first step, but each situation has to be treated on its own merits. If the police wanted to see some of your other photographs then let you say, "sure, this one is of my kids, this one is of my car, this one is of an oil spill that I photographed last week, this one is of a hole in the fence that I found at the nuclear power station up the street, and this one is of the control panel that switches off the alarms."

 

If you're shooting film, and they want to see what's on it, then you have to decide what the images on the film are worth to you. If you're not too worried, then you tell them that they can take the film, get a receipt, and ask that the negatives be returned to you. If you're concerned about the value of the images, then you tell them that, and ask if you can talk to their superior to explain the situation.

 

If the Police want to confiscate something then "I think" they generally need a court ruling or "warrant". If you're determined to piss them off, then tell them to get one, but it would take a real tosser to do that for the sake of it. Face it - civil liberty and all that garbage no longer exists. These guys are just doing their jobs, people should loosen up and let them.

 

If they DID confiscate any films then I would expect to get a receipt and for them to be returned. I would expect them to process them correctly and to compensate me for any damage, loss, or incoreect processing. I would also expect once I had given them the film, to be allowed to load another film (or card) and to go about my business. I would tell them that they are welcome to hang around and watch me shooting if they want to.

 

If of course, the point of my taking the images was more for criminal reconnaissance, then I would also hand them the film for processing, although I may forget to rewind it first.

 

Politeness goes a long way in todays society, and is becoming a rarer and rarer commodity.

So a cop pulls you over for a routine check, but you refuse to show him your license. You've done nothing wrong, but the cop is entitled to see your documents. You could expect to be detained.

 

It always pays to comply with the authorities and those that defy them to make a point should expect this kind of treatment. Okay so they make the point, but do we really want to overturn the right of the authorities to stop and search? I think they do an excellent job and they are restricted enough in what they can do already. Removing this valuable power would only serve to reduce their ability to do their job.

 

Did the photographer mention why he did not want the police to see his photo's? If it was just to make a point, then I fear we may have one more dumbass on our hands.

 

cheers,

Guy

On a similar note, I went to a waterpark while I was away and wrapped my Canon G9 in a towel to stop it getting splashed. When I unwrapped it the rear screen was full of condensation, although it cleared after a couple of hours.

 

I hope that this hasn't shortened the life of the camera, if there's a chance that it may have, should I also claim on the insurance there?

 

thanks

Guy

Guys,

I just returned from vacation in Greece and was unpacking my things when I discovered a very wet skyport

transmitter in the pocket of my swim shorts. I remember putting it in there one evening as I was scared it would fall

off my camera. I guess I went swimming in the sea the next day without emptying my pockets! I haven't tried it yet,

but the battery was all rusted to hell so I don't imagine that the circuit board will be in a much better state.

 

So I have travel insurance for the vacation, and also have photo equipment insurance with an independant

company. Lastly I have personal items cover through my domestic insurance. I'm at odds as to who I should claim

from! Any tips would be appreciated.

 

I'm so annoyed as I don't think I can buy the transmitter on its own - ie I have to buy a transmitter/receiver kit.

 

Anyone else been in the same quandry?

 

thanks

Guy

I've been tasked with organising the competition for our camera club "projected images" category this year. As slides

have been effectively discontinued from the syllabus this year, projected images now constitutes solely digital

images.

 

Someone told me that there was a published list of judges floating around somewhere but i've been unable to locate

it.

 

Does anyone have any idea what's the best way to source judges?

 

I was actually thinking that for this year, it would be interesting (as images are purely digital) to ask some

international photographers for their opinions on the images. Are there published lists of judges for other countries?

US/Canada, Latin America, Africa/China/Russia for example? If anyone knows of any such lists, I'd very much

appreciate it if you could give me details.

 

Also, if any of you are qualified judges (if there is such a thing) and would be interested in offering you opinion on the

Photo's taken by a handful of Scottish MadMen then I'd be delighted to hear from you.

 

best regards,

Guy Carnegie

Additionally, trying to shoot video of someone in an outdoor swimming pool on a sunny day where there were highlighted reflections all over the pool proved nigh on impossible.

I bought a G9 to go on holiday with and have to say that in the main part, it performed admirably. One thing I did

notice, though was a obvious vertical line (white) on the viewfinder and in any captured video where there was any

point source of light.

 

for example, shooting a night scene where there may have been car headlights or a floodlight in the picture would

result in a vertical line through the burned out point source, but equally visible from the top of the picture to the

bottom. I don't mind a burned out source every now and again, but this artifact basically divides the picture in two!

 

It also appeared in captured still images, however, with slightly less strength - probably because of the aperture

kicking in and reducing the intensity of the source.

 

Has anyone come across this. Maybe you would like to try it out with your G9 and let me know if you experience the

same problem.

 

If it's a fault, the camera's only three weeks old and still well within warranty.

 

thanks

Guy

Strobist did a section on specular highlights in Lighting 102 - check it out.

 

I don't think you want to remove all reflections from the glasses - that'd make them look flat and plain and boring. What you're looking to do is make the reflections as pleasing as possible. This involves using a large, soft light source.

 

The strobist.com website will help you considerably in this matter.

Is she an employee of your company, or a contractor you've hired? If the latter then she's self employed and should have her own liability insurance.

I think you would be doing your family a great disservice by taking on this job.

 

Firstly, can I ask what you intend to shoot, in what location?

 

For this level of advertising shot, you're going to need a whole production team as Ellis suggests. There will be no change from $10k, depending on location, there may be no change from $20k.

 

There is a LOT more to successful fashion advertising than taking a stunning picture - who were they getting to do the page layout and text, was that a freebie from someone with a copy of Photoshop too?

 

Also, for someone who has only just got hold of their first SB-800, I think you'll have a LOT more than six months to go before you know the nuances of multiple heads and modifiers. Can a stunning fashion shot be acheived with a single SB800? sure, but more often, you'll need complete control of the scene, and that means lighting the clothes to show them off at their best. Rigging the model out in accessories such as jewellery etc. Perhaps hiring supporting models. The list is endless.

 

Realistically, no-one in your situation would be able to pull this off to an acceptable degree. That publication is the creme de la creme.

 

That said, it's not completely unacheivable. You will need to dedicate your life for the next six months to doing nothing but shooting fashion. Don't tell me you have another "day" job. I'm talking 6am-10pm six days a week. If you can get people to pay you for it then so much the better, otherwise, you'll have to pay for it yourself. That's going to cost you a grand a week in models alone. Buy and ANALYSE the photo's in the glossy mags. Expect to pay out approx $50-75k over the next six months in training yourself and getting the equipment (even if you have to hire it for extended periods), and expect your family to pay $20k for the shoot itself - you can't tell me it's going to cost any less than a decent wedding, at the very minimum.

 

The above is all speculation, but i'm pretty level headed and if your heart (and wallet) is set on it, that's how I would do it.

 

Lastly, please don't come back in six months and ask us how to set up your SB800 to get a Vogue shot.

 

This really is pie in the sky.

 

cheers,

Guy

If you're looking for tips, check out strobist.com

Yeah, with the ST-E2 there is no reason to keep the cord. Just like why could you possibly need a spare key to your house? Might as well throw away all keys other than the one in your pocket? right?

 

Wrong...

I'm sorry, but this is like comparing a Mercedes Racing Car with a Mercedes 4x4. Both are excellent cars, but neither will perform particularly well on the others territory.

 

The more versatile 4x4 (70-200) will do a resonable job on the road, but the racer (85/1.2) can't even get out of a gravel trap, let alone climb a mountain.

 

I feel you'll be diappointed with either, as you'll still be hankering after the other.

 

So I'd recommend going for the 70-200/2.8 and then either saving for the 1.2 or settling for the 1.8 (which is an excellent lens in its own right). Of course, I'm saying that not having experienced the 1.2...

 

If you can only afford one, then maybe you want to think about specialising into a specific genre, which only calls for one of the lenses.

 

cheers,

Guy

You know you're obsessed when viewing these photographs feels the same as viewing pictures of a mass grave!