JohnElderRobison

I have not been active on here in recent years, but I'd like to start participating on the forums again. One of the things I do every year is photograph performances on stage at our state fair. This is from a series of the Marshall Tucker Band 1/250, F5.6, ISO11400 no flash, "natural" stage lights with Nikon D5 and Nikon 80-400 lens

 

This is a link to a blog post about photographing events like this

Images of the Big E 2018 - Concert and Performance Photography

 

 

I have never had a battery drain problem but I have sent cameras back for other warranty issues shortly after warranty ended, and perhaps because I am an NPS member, they covered them. That's a good reason to join NPS and now that they have opened up membership I think anyone can do so. Used to be, you had to submit a portfolio, get a recommendation, etc. I think all that is gone. Suggest you check that out either way and good luck

<p>This is the photo </p><div></div>

<p>I'm joining this discussion late, but . . . .<br /> I photograph a lot of circus, concert, and other performance stuff. Quite often, I stand next to photographers from other media outlets some or all of the time. In some cases there may be a few of us and we might circulate between a small circle of "photo spots."<br /> Many times we even have substantially identical equipment <br /> Yet the photos we come up with are distinct and different. A skilled photo editor could sort much of our work with a little practice. Clearly, none of us believes we are copying each other. We are just charing a vantage point and a moment in time.<br /> There can be times when we shoot the same moment and I suppose our pictures could at at that instant be very similar. But that is unlikely chance.<br /> The place and camera are only two pieces of the puzzle. The subject itself is always changing as performers move and change, and light and backgrounds change. But most of all the different photographers will have different visions for how each shot should be framed and exposed and that will make for unique images.<br /> The thing is, when you develop a style, your photos will tend to be "in that style," no matter what they are. That will make them recognizable and it's the style that makes photographers successful in most cases, as opposed to a specific subject.<br />Being a writer, I can say it's the same with my writing, and my brothers. Both of us write books and many people read both of us. But our styles are distinct and different despite writing about being in the same places and even sharing the same genetic material (being brothers)<br /> You could read of the same event described in both our hands and it would be totally different.<br>

Here is a photo of a flood, which I took while standing next to photographers and cameramen from several networks. All our imagery of this same scene came out unique and different even though we were in basically the same spot at the same time.</p>

 

<p>Right Simon, the registration of copyright dramatically increases your chances of winning a substantial award for damages; what we might call a punitive award in the USA. The scope of award is limited without registration</p>

<div></div>

<p>I think you have confused copyright and the property interest people have in images. When you take a photo you own the copyright to that (unless it's work for hire, for your job) but you do not have the right to use an image of a person for advertising without the permission of the person.<br>

To do that, you need a specific release that allows you to use that person's likeness in an ad. A line in a photo shoot contract is not going to accomplish that, if someone takes you to task over it. <br>

This issue is seen most often with celebrities but the fact is, it applies to anyone. You cannot use someone's image to advertise a product of service without their express permission. Look at all the trouble Facebook has faced in recent months over essentially the same thing.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sam, I live in a similar town in Western MA, and I have operated my writing and photo businesses for years, using my home address as the business address for tax filing purposes. I've never had any issues with the town. The fact is, if I want to write books or print pictures in my house, they have no right to regulate that. <br>

If I wanted to open a store and sell books or prints that would be a different matter, but I don't do that. My books are distributed by my publisher and sold in stores (nothing to do with me) and my images are licensed to people who print or otherwise publish them elsewhere.<br>

If you wanted to set up a photo studio, and them bring in shipments of merchandise, assistants, etc . . . then you might have trouble. But if you are an individual who will go on the road and take photos . . . <br>

Think of every hit song you hear on the radio. Chances are, most of them were composed in someone's home. Their situation is just the same as mine and possibly yours too, from the sound of this.<br>

If you operate a business like mine there should be no issue with your home address appearing on corporate or tax documents. Chances are, the town will never know.<br>

If you want to operate as a business in MA, you will need to register with the Dept of Revenue to collect sales tax on your image sales. I don't see any problem using your home address for that, and subsequently using that number and such to file your taxes. The issue of tax filing has nothing to do with local zoning rules.<br>

There is no "town license" to do what you want, at least none I have ever heard of. That said, I don't think I'd say anything to the town because some officials just lay and wait for the chance to say no or engage in a tussle</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you are an individual who takes pictures for fun - not an established photography business - the fact that you have a copyright interest in your images may not mean much in circumstances such as you describe. If someone copies your image online, you can indeed notify the host of the site and have them taken down, but do you want to do that with relatives? The only thing that would stop a place like Wal Mart from copying a printed image would be the presence of a copyright notice on the original print. Indeed, if you want to sell prints yourself, it would be wise to mark your prints in that way, with your own web address so they can then order from you.<br>

The big thing professionals get from actually registering copyright on specific images is the right to sue for damages (another word for lost revenue) if an images is later published commercially. You can't generally win a damages award unless the copyright was actually registered before the infringement.</p>

 

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Well, I learned a lot about what I don't know about digital image processing from looking at these responses. I now see that capable post processing and better control at the time the image was taken would result in minimal differences in the final result.

 

That said, the "out of the box" difference remains, and in this particular circumstance it shows the Leica to advantage. I can also see how other situations could have shown the Nikon as having the advantage.

 

And I also note - though no one said so - that the pastel rendering of the Nikon image is a more accurare rendering of reality as compared to the more vivid color in the Leica frame. But I still llike the Leica color.

 

With respect to Barry's comment - he implied these cameras are brand new and I should practice with a few hundred pics. I am almost embarrased to admit I've taken a few thousand with the Leica and many more with my Nikons. I guess practice hasn't made perfect!

 

As to Jim's comment . . . it is impossible to define the look and feel, but whatever it is, I'm satisfied with both cameras. And now I know more about comparing images.

 

I'm going to try and repeat this test with similar focal length lenses, tripods, and matching exposures in the near future. Perhaps I can do that next week. For the moment, I will retreat back to the book world.

Todd and Marc, looking at what you've done, I can see they look very similar.

 

I still maintain the shadow detail is better in the original Leica images.

 

And more than that, the Leica images, out of the box, made me feel better than those from my Nikon because of how they looked in their unprocessed state. Even though I see you can get similar results from either camera.

 

I guess both camera/lens sets are very good, and it's largely a matter of how the result makes us feel. And I felt better about the Leica images in this case.

 

There are many other circumstances - sports and action, for example - where I'd choose my Nikon, hands down.

And one more thing, Larry . . .

 

The shadow detail in the Leica image is quite a lot better. That "increased contrast" photo does show better color but the shadow detail really sets the image file from the M8 apart.

Larry, I know I could do the same thing, but my point was the difference right from the camera. I understand they meter and expose a bit differently. What I posted is the "out of the box" difference.

 

I agree we can work to make them more similar, but I still think the comparison is valid.

There is a lot of talk about the difference between images rendered with Leica

lenses, and images from other camera/lens combinations. Yesterday, I sort of

created my own example of the differernce, and to my great surprise, it was

quite apparent.

 

I wanted a photograph of me on a motorcycle for use in promotional material for

my upcoming book, Look Me in the Eye. I rode my bike to a local field, and my

wife took photos with two cameras: A Nikon D200 with Nikon 85 1.4 lens, and a

M8 with Leica 35 2.0 lens.

 

The photos were taken at the same time, same place, same lighting.

 

Both cameras were set for minimal sharpening, standard color saturation, and

sunlight white balance. No flash was used.

 

Look at the two pictures - the difference is obvious. I don't know how to post

the photos here in my post but here's the link to the blog. They're nothing

special, just me sitting on a black and chrome motorcycle, but I think the

difference is striking especially since the Nikon example used what's commonly

held to be one of their better lenses.

 

http://jerobison.blogspot.com/2007/07/it-was-hot-this-weekend.html

 

I have always felt that the Leica photos had richer color than the photos from

my Nikons, and judging from these photos, that opinion is accurate.

Having gone to those areas myself, I'd suggest a rugged digital camera. I think the lenses and the M8 result in wonderful, rich colors. I'd prefer that over my Nikon d2xs, for example, because of the color and the size.

 

I strongly suggest digital rather than film because of the spoilage/storage issues and the ever increasing hassle bring a hundred rolls of film through customs.

 

If budget were an issue, I'd take one of the high end Canon point-and-shoot cameras because they do 90% of the job of their bigger brothers in a small package.

That Rolls isn't mine. The other car in my garage is a Land Rover.

 

I have a business photographing circus and carnival performers, fairs, and carnivals. I'm presently working on a book on the carnival lifestyle. My brother, who writes as Augusten Burroughs, wrote a book about our childhood called Running With Scissors if you want to know more.

 

I also own Robison Service in Springfield ( www.robisonservice.com ) which is the principal service facility in Western Massachusetts for Land Rover, Rolls Royce and Bentley automobiles as well as other high-end makes.

 

As to the d200 being a backup for a d70 . . .that's was what I meant about the f5/f100 comparison. You will find the d200 and d2x cameras work in very similar manners so it's easy to swap from one to the other in a moment. Not so with a d70 to d2x. Also the d200 is much more rugged.