jmarshall

Venice<div></div>

<p>A few random points:</p>

<p>1. The name: it's far from the worst I've ever heard. Policy Management Systems went by its acronym for many years, before adding the word Corporation, and the letter "C," to the name and acronym, respectively. The other women I worked with and I got quite a kick out of guys who'd start phone calls with "This is So-and-So from PMS." </p>

<p>2. I've never been quite sure what the problem that the folks at Apple have regarding USB ports, but really, they need to get over it. I've used that iPod camera connector, to use an iPod as a storage device for a trip. It took so long to move images from my camera to the device that I never did it again. I'll admit that was a few years ago, but unless that process has sped up significantly, I'm not too interested in going back to it. </p>

<p>3. Re: the lack of a built-in camera, how on earth would you take a picture with something that's the size of a magazine? I'm not sure how a built-in camera would work in this thing, but it seems that it would be rather awkward. Same thing with using it as a phone, except maybe as a speaker phone. I suspect that the size of the device may limit its utility in these areas. </p>

<p>4. As for non-photography use: I have a Kindle, and I've had one for a couple of years. There's currently an iPhone app that lets me read me K-format stuff on my iTouch, and as long as there continues to be one, the ability to have a bigger screen for reading, watching movies, etc., would be great. Not so great would be Apple or Amazon pulling that app, forcing me to rebuy all the content I've already paid for electronically. And yes, yes, I understand that I put myself in this situation by buying content that can only be used on a proprietary device, but the Kindle was really the best option for an e-reader up until now. And my husband told me I wasn't allowed to bring one more book into the house the day we carted 20 boxes of them to the local library for their monthly book sale (I buy a LOT of books), so I was kind of out of options at that point. One thing I know I'll like iPad better for: reading magazines and newspapers. I've never liked the Kindle's format for newspapers. On the other hand, the eye strain from reading on a backlit device is very real. I can (and have) sit and read on the Kindle all day, but not when reading on the iTouch. <br>

I'm not quite sold ... yet. If ultimately I could replace my Kindle, iTouch and Blackberry with an iPad and a standard cell phone, that would probably be a trade-off I'd make, especially when travelling. But I might have been just as happy with a new iTouch that I could buy a data plan for, rather than having to rely on WiFi for an internet connection. I'll probably wait until iPad V2 makes its debut, and rely on Josh and other daring folks to work the kinks out of the first version.<br>

<br />Thanks, Josh -- for the article and for sharing the "early adopter" burden.</p>

<p>Jay -- don't know if you're still reading, but an alternative to a trip to the Grand Canyon in February might be Sedona. The red rock backcountry is gorgeous, and there are several companies that specialize in trips (I used Pink Jeep, but there are others). Bonus is that it's only about 2 hours from Phoenix.</p>

<p>Have a great trip!</p>

<p>My observation on whether stopping people from taking photographs prevents terrorism: from the early 1990s through the spring of 2001, I worked at 7 World Trade Center. After the 1993 terrorist bombing of the garage below the complex, photographs of the building were prohibited. I personally witnessed security staff stopping people from taking pictures of the building. People generally complied with the request. I have to admit that it did make me feel better about working there.<br>

<br />As we all know, though, it certainly didn't stop the terrorists anymore than all of the security cameras in London stopped the events of July 7 2005.</p>

<p>John -- I may be over-complicating or failing to explain bits and piece I picked up reading the story and those linked to it, so let me try to put it down more logically.</p>

<p>Celebration had a number of locations and a large number of photographers and videographers doing work on its behalf (not clear whether as employees or contractors). When Celebration was shut down by the state, some of the photographs and videos were still in the possession of the people who took them (and who were the original copyright holders), and were therefore not seized by the state. Most of these people had at least some outstanding compensation coming to them.</p>

<p>At some point during the settlement discussions, the owner of Celebration Studios, who was not the actual creator of the images, agreed to forfeit the studio's copyright in the images, to allow couples to get their albums finished, reprints made, etc. The judge ordered individuals who were holding works they created to turn them over to the state for distribution to the couples who had contracted to have the images shot, even though the photographers and videographers had not been compensated.</p>

<p>Now we get to the place where I may have put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5. </p>

<p>Assuming (and yes, I know what happens when we assume :) ) that the images were created as works for hire or under contract, and further assuming that in the contract the photo/videographer conveyed the copyright to Celebration in exchange for being paid by Celebration, if Celebration did not pay the shooters, was the copyright ever transferred to Celebration? Was the agreement by Celebration's owner applicable to works for which he didn't own the copyright, because he never fulfilled the contract under which he obtained it? How could the judge require the image makers to turn their property over to the state to be distributed ... along with the copyrights ... to the couples? Isn't that some sort of illegal seizure? Do they just lose their rights to the images, and have to stand in line with other creditors at the bankruptcy court?</p>

<p>If the image makers were employees (and I've run a small business, so I know that the mere fact that they were told to be at a specific place at a certain time to do a specific job could make them employees), I suppose that what they created while working was the intellectual property of the business owner. </p>

<p>Don't mean to prolong this. I'm just kind of fascinated by the ins and out of IP law ...</p>

<p>Some of you may remember that in early 2008, the state of NJ shut down Celebration Studios, due to numerous violations of the state Consumer Fraud Act. Thousands of couples were left in limbo: some lost deposits for upcoming weddings, others had never received images from weddings dating to 2006 and 2007.</p>

<p>The article contains a good overview of the situation. A couple of scary things for photographers: in some cases, photographers and videographers who'd shot weddings for Celebration were required to hand over the images, even though they were never paid. Also, as a result of the final order, the copyright in the images was transferred to the state. The article says the owner surrendered his rights to the images, but if the actual photographers and videographers weren't paid for their work, were the rights to the images his to surrender?</p>

<p>The most important part for <strong>couples</strong> who haven't received their images: you have until <strong>January 13, 2010 </strong>to claim them from the state Division of Consumer Affairs. "Consumers who contracted with Celebration Studios and have not yet received their photographs or videos should contact the Division by calling (800) 242-5846 or (973) 504-6200, or by emailing <a href="mailto:wedding.photos@dca.lps.state.nj.us">wedding.photos@dca.lps.state.nj.us</a> to arrange for the pickup or delivery of their merchandise."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/morris_county_wedding_photogra.html">http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/morris_county_wedding_photogra.html</a></p>

 

<p>Doesn't look like you've been to Spain ... how about the Camino de Santiago de Campostela? </p>

 

<p>Marc -- if by EuroAirPass you mean the Star Alliance Europe Air Pass program, I think you're out of luck.<br>

<br />According to Star Alliance website, use of the Europe Air Pass is available to residents of a country outside Europe, but only if their travel from home country to Europe is on a Star Alliance carrier. Finn Air isn't in Star Alliance.<br>

<br />Sorry.</p>

 

<p>Mindy -- It's been a while since I've been to London, but I usually would find at least one of the walks on the Original London Walks tours offerings that was interesting:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.walks.com/">http://www.walks.com/</a></p>

<p>The Jack the Ripper walk was good and creepy! Have a great time!</p>

<p>Richard -- The advice to work on it yourself is, of course, great, but if you're looking for something more structured, with feedback, and don't mind paying for it, there are a few different companies that do on-line classes.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.betterphoto.com/courseOverview.asp?cspID=200">http://www.betterphoto.com/courseOverview.asp?cspID=200</a> (Charlotte Lowrie is the instructor). I've taken some BP courses, and it's good in that you have a resource to ask questions and get feedback. Personally, I benefit when I'm doing something new from having someone available who can help my understand what I need to do, rather than just trying to figure it out on my own.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ppsop.com/unex.aspx">http://www.ppsop.com/unex.aspx</a> (Taught by Bryan Peterson, the guy who literally wrote the book Understanding Exposure teaches this one)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Didn't Outkast's "Hey Ya" actually result in Polaroid advising folks not to "shake it like a Polaroid picture" ... in those days when there was such a thing as a Polaroid picture?</p>

<p>Not a still photography problem, but I went to Antarctica last year and -- when I got on board the ship and went to charge the battery in my camcorder -- remembered that it was our OLD camcorder that used the same battery as my still camera, not the NEW camcorder that I'd brought with me. Serves me right for poor preparation!<br>

<br />My other travel "horror" story is that I lost (or had stolen) the digital camera I had with me on a trip to Thailand with all of my photos of Ayuthaya. I look at that as a good reason to go back to Thailand someday. The video of Antarctica will likely remain unshot by me, though.</p>

<p>Here's what the summary sheet says:</p>

<p>1. "Coverage is for videography and photography equipment and related accessories"</p>

<p>2. "You may insure office equipment and office furniture at the same rate"</p>

<p>Availability of coverage for the computer depends on whether it is considered a "related accessory" or "office equipment" by Willis and the insurer (I can't remember who the insurance company is). I'd get in touch with Willis directly (Phone: 610-260-4360; E-mail: <a href="mailto:einsurance@willis.com">einsurance@willis</a> or <a href="mailto:dale.wittick@willis.com">dale.wittick@willis.com</a>) to find out.</p>

<p>If it's "no" on the computer through the photo.net program, you might get some help from your renters company. My homeowners policy doesn't allow professional use of camera equipment, but there's no similar exclusion of business use of a computer. So our computers are covered under our HO policy, rather than under the camera policy.</p>

<p>Marc -- If you sign up as a paid member of Photo.net, you can buy equipment coverage through its relationship with a broker (Willis). Similarly, if you join PPA, you can buy insurance through a relationship they've set up. </p>

<p>This is a separate policy (I believe commercial inland marine) that covers equipment used professionally. I have the photo.net coverage; it's $10 per $1000 of value, with a minimum premium of $150 for $15,000 worth of equipment. There's a $250 deductible. You can also buy liability insurance, if you need it. Through Photo.net, the liability is separate; you don't have to buy both. Details:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/info/photo_insurance_specs.pdf">http://www.photo.net/info/photo_insurance_specs.pdf</a></p>

<p>Insurance through this type of "affinity group" relationship is likely to be cheaper than trying to buy a commercial policy on your own.</p>

<p>Have you talked with the agent/company from whom you get your renters insurance? Independent agents usually have relationships with multiple insurers, and might have one that offers an equipment only policy. Similarly, if the company your renters policy is with offers business insurance, you might be able to get coverage through them. Not necessarily though: we have USAA as our personal insurance company, and they have no options for equipment used professionally.</p>

<p>First camera I ever used was Dad's Nikon F. I still have it.</p>

<p>The first camera I ever used that was mine (it was a gift) was a Kodak Disc camera.</p>

<p>First camera I ever bought for myself: a Minolta X-370</p>

<p>William -- I was watching Samanth Brown's weekend show about Philadelphia last night. If you can get access to it, it looked like there was a great skyline view from the roof of the Eastern State Penitentiary. It wasn't clear to me from looking at the website whether access to that area is part of the regular tour, but that might be an option.</p>

<p>There's a shot I took from the steps of the art museum in this posting: <a href="../travel-photography-forum/00QpPU">http://www.photo.net/travel-photography-forum/00QpPU</a> It gives you some sense of what's there. I was more or less centered on the steps; you could definitely stand further left or right to get different perspectives.</p>

<p>Matt -- thanks; the Google searches I ran before posting turned up similar evidence of the prohibition, but no explanation. Google has resolved many "important" debates between me and my husband, but unfortunately doesn't have all the answers.</p>

<p>Jim -- thanks, too; pretty heavy reading for a Sunday morning. I suspect that there's some peculiarity in NJ law on this point. </p>

<p>Ed -- I've lived in NJ for most of my 42 years, so I certainly hear ya. This photo contest thing seemed new to me; I don't remember seeing it until the last couple of years. My other thought was that there are so many great photographers here that they figured the only way to let people in other states win was to not let us enter the contest ;) but I suspect that the Trenton braintrust is more likely behind this with some laws intended to protect us from being taken advantage of by those evil Costco and National Geographic contests!</p>

 

<p>The previous entry about fake photo contests designed to get stock images made me wonder if anyone knows why NJ residents are prohibited from entering many of the legitimate (at least to the extent that they are run by well-know publications) photo contests.I got my latest copy of NG Traveler yesterday, and it made me curious. I'd assume that it was some obscure law dealing with entry fees except that I know a few local juried exhibits require the payment of a fee with your submission.</p>

<p>I tried to find out last year, but of course got no response other than "Sorry, no NJ residents." Thanks.</p>

<p>"it does make it a manipulated photograph, and therefore a less accurate rendition of a real scene, that's all."</p>

<p>I don't agree with the "therefore" in this sentence. Why do you set out as a fact that a photograph that has been manipulated is necessarily a "less accurate rendition of a real scene"? Our eyes see things differently than our cameras. Which is more "real': what we see with our eyes or what the camera "sees"? And if we make changes to the image that comes out of the camera to make it closer to what our eyes saw, have we made it more or less "real"?</p>

 

<p>Six cats and a chow/golden retriever dog here, and no problems with fur ... at least not when it comes to the camera.</p>

<p>Enjoy the kitty, Harry. Dick, that's an awesome picture! OK, have to share one ...</p><div></div>

<p>Richard -- I'm sorry for your loss. To my insurance trained eye (albeit in the US), the policy is pretty clear that it covers only theft and damage.</p>

<p>Even if you were to argue that the luggage was stolen by one of the baggage handlers, the insurance company might successfully argue that an exclusion for theft by a third party to whom you'd entrusted the property is applicable, and deny coverage anyway.</p>

<p>Do you have any other insurance (a homeowners' or tenants policy or a travel policy that includes lost baggage cover) that might include at least some coverage for this loss? If not, if you want to pursue further, your next step is probably to consult a solicitor (or a friend who's in the UK insurance business) to see if they can see any way around the policy provisions.</p>

<p>16-35 L</p>

<p>24- 105 f/4L IS (my usual "walking around" lens)</p>

<p>24 - 70 2.8L (to use as a "walking around" lens when I'm indoors)</p>

<p>70 - 200 f4 IS</p>

<p>100 - 400 L</p>

<p>50 1.2</p>

<p>But most of these are just upgrades. I'd be happy to keep my 17-40, 24-105, 50 1.4 and 85 1.8, get the two long zooms and let Santa bring some more "toys" to good boys and girls.</p>

<p>Robin -- Somehow I missed that you already have Lightroom!</p>

<p>For training, another suggestion is Lewis Kemper's 4 week course on BetterPhoto.com. It's not inexpensive, but Lewis is really a great teacher and you'll learn the basics, have the opportunity to ask questions and get feedback. I also bought (and use a lot) the Rob Shepherd book on Lightroom. Most of it is about manipulating the images, which may be overkill for you, but it also has some good info on file management (it's where I picked up the system I use now). </p>

<p>Here's a link to the BP course. <a href="http://www.betterphoto.com/courseOverview.asp?cspID=166">http://www.betterphoto.com/courseOverview.asp?cspID=166</a></p>

<p>Robin --</p>

<p>Are you looking for something to do file management, or do you just need photo editing capabilities?</p>

<p>If you want to create your own file structure and naming conventions, what might be the simplest thing for you to do is to disable the automatic importation of photos into iPhoto. Then you can just create your own file structure/naming conventions and simply move photos from your memory card (or camera, if you're hooking the camera directly into the computer) into files using whatever names you like. Realize, though, that unless you go into the drive and change all the image names, even this method is still going to result in files named IMG_0327, etc. That's the name that the camera gives the file.</p>

<p>If you don't want to use iPhoto for editing, Photoshop Elements might do the trick. It's not free, but you can do a lot (or a little) editing and it doesn't "force" a file structure on you.</p>

<p>I never really like iPhoto much either, but have found myself really liking Lightroom. It's not just you!</p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

Lacey -- although I know you asked more from the perspective of "business license" another issue you need to think about, particularly

if you're thinking you'll be shooting weddings, is insurance.

 

Many catering halls and other locations require that vendors working on site provide evidence of liability insurance, so that the site

knows you'll be covered in the event that someone is injured or the property is damaged. Also, your homeowners insurance may not

cover loss or damage to your equipment if you use the equipment -- ever -- to earn money. Our USAA HO policy has this exclusion.

 

In addition, you may want to consider forming an LLC, which could provide some protection of your personal assets in the event that you

cause (or are even accused of causing) injury or damage in the course of your business. For federal purposes, you can report income

from a single member LLC on a form C; no need to file a separate return. Check with a local attorney and/or CPA about this.

 

Good luck!