jeff_conrad

<p>Sometimes letting the camera take over works, but in general, metering the sky will give more consistent results. The metering pattern is just as important: I use spot metering, but if the EOS 10s doesn't provide it, partial or center-weighted averaging is often OK. If the reading for the sky is significantly different from that for the final composition, it's usually better to use manual exposure to retain the settings you get when metering just the sky. Bear in mind the limitations of metering the sky that I previously discussed. On a night when the Moon rises much after sunset, metering the sky (which is probably much darker than it looks) usually doesn't work.</p>

<p>The exposure and color in the image you showed look pretty good; the foreground is acceptable, but could probably be improved, particularly by avoiding the waves that can produce motion blur. The key to having a great foreground is having it chosen in advance and knowing when and where the Moon will appear; by the time you see it rising, it's usually too late to search for a good setting. You can save yourself some time and effort by looking at the <a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info/sunmooncalc">Sun/Moon Calculator</a> on the Large Format Page. It will give you rise and set azimuths as well as rise and set times. You can also search for dates on which the Moon rises within a certain time of sunset (or sets within a certain time of sunrise), and can specify a horizon with an altitude greater than zero to cover the case of hills or something else in the foreground. There's a fairly comprehensive reference and tutorial; the whole thing may look a bit imposing at first, but after a few tries it's really pretty simple. The tutorial obviously reflects my ideas, but again, with a bit of practice, it should be easy to incorporate those principles to meet your objectives.</p>

<p>Calculations are easy after you've done one or two; the hardest part is doing the legwork and finding suitable locations. It can be frustrating; a good year might offer half a dozen good opportunites for rise or set, and a bad year might offer half that many. And this assumes that the weather cooperates.</p>

<p>As for thinking outside the box for sunrise, the main thing is just thinking out of bed, which can be tough sometimes, especially if you have to drive or hoof it a long way.</p>

<p>I'd say you came pretty close here, getting the pink antitwilight arch, the blue Earth shadow, and detail in the Moon (by whatever means). The key to balancing the Moon and the foreground is a rise close to the time of sunset (whether you want it before or after depends on whether you want an illuminated landscape with sky colors similar to what you got here or city lights). The Moon's brightness increases rapidly as it moves above the horizon, so when it's closer to the horizon, this also helps balance it with the foreground.<br>

I don't know how you arrived at exposure, but in a situation like this, where the image is made shortly after sunset, I usually approach the Moon much like a sunset, metering the sky near the Moon and following the meter indication (i.e., Zone V). I usually meter the pink area, but the difference between the blue and the pink usually isn't as great as it might seem. This approach works less well as the Moon gets higher (say more than few degrees) because the contrast quickly becomes unmanageable unless you make separate exposures for the Moon and the foreground.<br>

Incidentally, there's no need to wait for a full moon close to perigee. Unless you're working on a tight composition with the Moon juxtaposed with a foreground object, the Moon's distance is a minor factor. Although the perigee–apogee size difference (about 14%) would be quite apparent in a side-by-side comparison, it's barely noticeable otherwise.</p>

<p>Both extenders seem to work fine on all three TS lenses, far better than I would have expected. There's obviously some loss of quality, as there always is with an extender, but when there's no alternative, there really isn't a standard reference. The TS-E 90 with a 2× isn't as sharp as the 180 macro, but if you need the tilt, the 180 isn't an option. A similar situation arises if you need a 35 mm lens with shift. Consequently, I've never put much effort into making comparisons.</p>

<p>One small caveat, though—the extender isn't recognized by the camera, so the <em>f</em> -number shown in the viewfinder isn't correct (e.g., a TS lens used with a 1.4× extender and set to <em>f</em> /4 will indicate <em>f</em> /4 even though the effective aperture is <em>f</em> /5.6. It's not a problem if you meter through the lens before shifting or tilting, but you need to adjust if you use an external meter.</p>

<p>Atmospheric refraction causes the Sun's or Moon's altitude to appear greater than it is. Near the horizon, the bottom of the body is refracted more than the top, resulting in vertical compression. In most cases, there isn't much you can do about it, though refraction is slightly less at greater elevations because the air isn't as dense. Turbulence, as such, doesn't have much effect on refraction, but it can cause a shimmering appearance, which can cause some softness, especially at longer exposure times. In my experience, getting away from a city usually helps reduce this.<br>

Refraction decreases considerably as the Sun or Moon moves above the horizon, but in many cases, so does the photographic interest. But that really depends on the location. For example, shooting the Moon setting over many locations in California's Sierra Nevada gives quite a different result from shooting the Moon rising over San Francisco. In the former case, there is little atmospheric distortion, and the Moon is usually much whiter and sharper. This is the result of several factors:</p>

<ol>

<li>The air around the Sierra usually has far less pollution.</li>

<li>The base elevation around many locations on the east side of the Sierra (say about 4500 ft) is greater so the air is less dense, and there is less refraction.</li>

<li>The altitude of the distant mountains from many camera locations is much greater (say, for example, 10°), so the light passes through less of the atmosphere than it might in SF, where the hills to the east are typically around 1° altitude.</li>

</ol>

<p>So it's usually possible to get a much whiter, rounder, sharper Moon over distant mountains than in most urban locations. But there can be downsides, as well. Because the light passes through less atmosphere, the attenuation is less, and the Moon–foreground contrast can be tougher to manage, especially if you're shooting at or before sunrise.<br>

<br /> To my mind, atmospheric distortion is part of the appeal, and it's the way the Sun or Moon actually appear. Refraction at the horizon is highly dependent on atmospheric conditions, especially temperature, so almost no two rises or sets are the same. This, again, is part of Sun and Moon rise and set photography.<br>

<br /> Although airmass and refraction both result from the passage of light through the atmosphere, they aren't quite the same thing, and the formulas for airmass can't be used to calculate refraction. There are formulas for both airmass and refraction that are reasonably accurate at the horizon, but they assume a standard temperature profile that isn't always met in practice (and the true values are almost always unavailable), so they're best treated as approximate.<br>

<br /> Incidentally, the airmass is given by 1/sin(altitude) = 1/cos(zenith angle). But this formula is only good down to about 10° altitude, so it's often not of much use when photographing the Sun or Moon as part of a landscape. And the airmass relates more to the brightness of the Sun or Moon than to the refraction.<br>

<br /> Again, since it's usually tough to fight 'em, why not join 'em and enjoy the variety that accompanies every rise and set?</p>

If the region you want sharp is approximately wedge shaped (e.g., a field

of flowers with trees or mountains in the distance, the tilt can sometimes

let you get everything sharp using an aperture 1–2 stops larger than

without tilt; this can be very handy for delicate things on windy days. Is

the TS-E 90 mm the right lens? Simple. If you'd normally use an

85 mm lens, the 90 is the right choice; if you'd normally use a

shorter lens, the TS-E 45  might be better.

<p>

The lens is also good for moderate closeups (even without using tilt).

With tilt, it's possible to get a flat subject (e.g., a spider web or

butterfly wing) sharp without having it parallel to the image plane. There

are limitations, however. When the lens is tilted, the focus ring rotates

the plane of focus; extending the lens rotates the PoF away from the image

plane, and focusing closer rotates the PoF toward the image plane. At

close focus, the angle of the PoF with the image plane is only about

35°, which can work wonders for spider webs but cannot perform magic.

<p>

For closeup work, the angular DoF is so small that the wedge shape of the

DoF isn't much advantage; it's possible to get a flat subject sharp and

that's about it.

<p>

As Michael mentioned, the TS-E 90 can also provide some interesting

selective-focus effects when using tilt with a large aperture. Objects at

greatly different distances from the camera can be sharp with everything

else unsharp. For example a fence crossing the image at a 45° angle

can be completely sharp and everthing else unsharp. Similar results can be

had with rows of people. It's possible to have selective focus at

infinity; for example, by setting maximum swing (tilt to one side) and a

large aperture, a zone of sharpness can be seen to move across a row of

distant houses as the focus ring is adjusted. The effect is quite

noticeable with the TS-E 90. Much of this technique seems to come under

the rather faddish label “tilt-shift photography” (a term I

cannot envision Ansel ever having used ...), but in the hands of a skilled

practitioner, the results can be striking.

<p>

Although architecture isn't a common application for a lens this long, the

convergence of verticals is still quite obvious if there is a straight line

near the edge of the frame, so I sometimes use the shift.

<p>

I have the 24, 45, and 90, though I seldom use all at once. For

architecture I might use the 24 and the 45; for landscapes and flowers, I

have many days when I use nothing but the 45 and 90. My experience is all

with full-frame 35 mm; with a 1.6-crop sensor, the shorter focal

lengths might be better: the 24 and 45 for everything. Unfortunately,

there's nothing to fill the hole at the wide end with the crop sensors.

My results with DEP were similar to what I got using manual-focus lens DoF

scales; in other words, the algorithm seemed to split the near and far

image distances rather than give a 7/17 ratio. I described the test and my

results in some detail in <a

href="http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00EJPZ">this post</a>

in December 2005.

The visitor center is a sad loss, but by itself, it shouldn't have a big impact on fall photography in the

Eastern Sierra. But the <a href="http://www.inyoregister.com/content/view/115766/27/">vehicle vandalism</a> in

the Bishop Creek area could be a different story if it continues.

I've had good luck with Grip-Tek's <a

href="http://www.grip-tek.com/griptape.html">Grip Tape</a> on both aluminum

and carbon-fiber legs. It's easy to apply and reasonably easy to remove.

Although it doesn't provide much in the way of cushioning, it affords good

protection for the top legs, and is easier to grip if you find pipe

insulation too thick. It's also an excellent insulator for aluminum: as a

test, I wrapped a heavy Gitzo 2 series geared column with the tape, put it

in the freezer for two hours, and had no problem gripping the column with

my bare hand. The need for insulation is a lot less with CF, but

insulation can still be helpful if you work in fairly cold weather.

As several others have mentioned, you can't increase the DoF by

tilting—you merely change it from being between two parallel planes

to essentially wedge shaped. If the wedge shape is a good fit to your

scene, you will able to get the sharpness you want at a smaller

<i>f</i>-number (in some cases, as much as two stops); if the wedge isn't a

good fit, tilting will gain you nothing—in some cases, it might even

require a larger <i>f</i>-number.

<p>

The change in the nature of the DoF usually isn't much help in closeup

work, because there is so little DoF with or without tilt. Tilting

<em>can</em> help if you have a fairly flat subject (e.g., a butterfly

wing) that you can't get quite parallel to the image plane. Here again,

though, there are some limitations—you can't rotate the plane of

focus very far away from parallel to the image plane at close focus.

<p>

Whether or not the lens would be useful for general landscape work would

depend on how often you use that focal length with the lenses you have. If

you use it frequently, it's probably a good choice. If you generally use

shorter focal lengths, you would probably be better off with the 45 mm

or 24 mm PC-E lens. Again, the best choice would be the focal length

that you normally use and for which you sometimes have a difficult time

getting the DoF you want.

<p>

Pay close attention to some of the compatibility issues that Ken Rockwell

mentions (I think all PC-E lenses use the same T/S mechanism, so the

clearance issues should apply to the longer lenses as well). Clearance is

a problem for most T/S lenses (Canon or Nikon) on cameras with built-in

flashes; in some cases, it simply means that you cannot rotate the lens all

the way at full rise without hitting the prism housing, but in others you

may not be able to even get full rise. I'm a Canon user, so I can't give

you much in the way of specifics on the clearance or metering issues. I

think Rockwell gets a bit carried away in calling the lack of an automatic

diaphragm a return to the 1850s; prior to the PC-E lenses, all Nikon PC

lenses had preset diaphragms. They're a bit less convenient, but people

somehow managed. The pushbutton on the PC-E lenses is much easier to use

than the mechanical presets. I do agree with Rockwell that Canon and Nikon

(even more so) seriously erred in leaving it to the user to discover the

incompatibilities.

You shouldn’t need a special use permit unless the photography

involves models or props; commercial intent, as such, isn’t a factor.

The NPS have yet to define “model” or “prop,” so

the possibility exists for heavy-handed interpretation by field

personnel, but this seems to be by far the exception rather than the rule.

When the dust finally settles, both terms will probably relate to use for

commercial advertising, much as in the current 36 CFR 5.5(b). But

we’ll need to wait until the NPS publish the next proposed rule. In

the last couple of years, there have been some issues with commercial group

portraits in the National Capital Region, but aside from that, little seems

to have changed from the policy that’s been in effect for over 20

years.

Hmmm ... perhaps you’d believe that ﾓ... you have options that werenﾒt available to Shawﾗversatile,

well-designed brackets ...ﾔ

I second the recommendation of Shaw's <i>Closeups in Nature</i>. Published

in 1987, it's a bit dated in terms of equipment, but most of the techniques

are still applicable. If you do decide to use flash either as the main

light or as fill, you have options that weren't available to Shaw

versatile, well—designed backet systems are available from Really

Right Stuff, Wimberly, and perhaps several others. Although they aren't

cheap, they do give an alternative to building your own.

<p>

One thing that Shaw stresses is keeping the image plane parallel to the

subject whenever possible, as several have suggested here. Although this

doesn't increase DoF, it does somewhat eliminate the need for it. As I

mentioned, a tilt/shift lens would allow having the plane of focus coincide

with the subject in situations where it isn't possible to parallel the

subject with the camera. It doesn't work miracles, though; at close focus

with the Canon 90 mm lens, the PoF is at about a 35° angle to the image

plane. With the Nikon 85 mm lens, the angle is even less because of the

closer focus. But as I also mentioned, these lenses are quite expensive,

so unless you take lots of shots like this, the cost is probably hard to

justify.

<p style="margin-left: 3em;"><i>

Unlike what Jeff said, a large format camera wouldn't make things worse -

unless you use a greater magnification.</i>

<p>

Umm ... didntﾒt I specifically mention greater magnification?

It certainly would be possible to take a picture with an LF camera and use

only the central 24×36 (or whatever) portion of the image, but that

would be a most unusual (and unwieldy and expensive) approach. On the

other hand, if the entire image area were used, it wouldnﾒt be the

same type of picture that Ed originally mentionedﾗthe same could be

done with a small-format camera by simply avoiding macrophotography. That

doesnﾒt seem like much of an answer.

<p>

It would be much easier and less expensive to use a tilt/shift lens to do

most of what could be done with an LF camera.

<p>

Again, as several have said, there arenﾒt any magic tricks for

improving DoF, although focus stacking can sometimes work toward the same

end with subjects that donﾒt move too much.

As Bob mentioned, in the macro region, DoF essentially is inversely

proportional to magnification, and a large-format camera makes things even

worse because of its greater magnification. Depending on your camera body,

you can get a tilt/shift lens (e.g., the Canon TS-E 90 mm <i>f</i>/2.8,

the recently announced Nikon PC-E Micro-Nikkor 85 mm <i>f</i>/2.8ED, or a

Hartblei Super-Rotator available in several different mounts). But this

may not solve the problem, either. Tilts and swings can be very useful in

general landscape work, but they often donﾒt help that much with DoF

at close distances, where angular DoF is measured in minutes of arc.

Tilt/shift lenses can be helpful when photographing a flat subject (e.g., a

spider web or butterfly wing) that is not parallel to the image plane.

But neither is a true macro lens: the Canon gives magnification of 0.29,

and the Nikon 0.5. Moreover, these lenses, especially the Nikon, are quite

expensive. They can be great tools if you frequently can make use of their

features, but to me, either would be difficult to justify solely on the

basis of closeup photography.

Bruce, I agree with Brad that the problem isn't as nearly as pervasive as

you suggest. Although encounters such as Simon Lund's on Coney Island

(described in <a

href="http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0824,shoot-first-hand-over-film-later,464895,2.html">this

article</a> in the Village Voice) and yours are disturbing, they represent

a tiny fraction of street photography experiences. I'm not saying that

such encounters aren't aggravating as well as counterproductive and

illegal, but simply that it's premature to say the sky is falling.

<p>

As in all cases, if you want legal advice, you need to see a lawyer. But

I'm inclined to agree with Bob Atkins's suggestions in the <a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PeBu">May 29th

thread</a>. I'd be very surprised if the crossing guard has any peace

officer powers, such as the authority to detain. Had it been me, I'd

probably have said something like, “Ma'am, I'm not going to argue

with you,” and simply walked away. Had she laid a hand on me, she'd

likely have been the one in trouble.

<p>

Befriending the public usually isn't a bad idea. But it may not always be

an option; at a glance, it would seem that Simon Lund's biggest mistake was

in not simply walking away from the woman who was demanding his film. Once

a cop started making threats, even if illegally, it got potentially more

dicey, and Mr. Lund decided he didn't want to roll those dice. I'm not

sure what I'd have done in his position; although I don't like getting

bullied by petty thugs, my photography budget doesn't include hefty legal

fees. Although I'd love to teach such a cop a lesson with an action under

42 USC 1983, it's a lot easier to talk about such an action than it is to

prevail or even be allowed to bring suit.

<p>

Taking pictures of children is a touchy matter. In California, the

boundary between what's perfectly legal and what constitutes

“annoying or molesting a child” still appears to be unsettled

law. Although it's hard to imagine getting convicted for simply taking

pictures, many people, including myself, have decided it's just not worth

the potential hassle. But I'm somewhat of a chicken and without the budget

to participate in the leading edge of jurisprudence.

<p>

As for the incident that started this thread, as annoying as I would have

found it, I probably wouldn't worry too much about it. If it happened

every time I went out, it would be another story, but experience has led me

to believe that's not likely.

Sarah, it seems to me that's what I said in my post ... sometimes the

larger blur spot may have a beneficial effect, but sometimes it may

not—it's a subjective call that may even vary from image to image.

And the same result obtains whether one looks at it on the image or object

side.

<p>

Although at first glance it may seem surprising, the blurring of a

foreground object <em>is</em> greater with a short-focus lens because the

distance from the camera is so small.

<p>

This all is covered in some detail in the Wikipedia article on

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field">Depth of field</a>.

Paul van Walree's article on <a

href="http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/dof.html">Depth of field</a> offers a

similar discussion as well as some excellent illustrative photographs.

<p>

Again, though, playing with focal lengths to control background blur is at

best a secondary technique that makes sense only when specifically getting

large background blur spots is more important the perspective of the

subject and other compositional considerations. Don't get me wrong—a

portrait with a 400 mm <i>f</i>/2.8 can sometimes be very interesting,

especially because optics in that class usually yield a very pleasing

bokeh. But it's important to consider the big picture as well as the

background blur.

For the same subject framing, DoF is approximately the same for all focal

lengths, so using a longer focal length won't help reduce DoF. The best

technique for shallow DoF is to use the largest possible lens opening.

Getting as close to the subject as possible can also help, but the subject

distance will often be dictated by aesthetic considerations.

<p>

Although you didn't expressly say so, it sounds as though you might like to

blur the background as well. The best way to do this is to keep the

subject as far away from the background as possible. In some cases, a

longer focal length might help, but often not as much as you might think.

Although the background blur is greater with a longer focal length, the

background magnification is also greater, and if the background contains

something really obnoxious such as a sign or a piece of paper with printed

text, that object is usually just as recognizable with a long lens as it is

with a short one. There is one big advantage to the longer lens, however:

the angle of view is narrower, so a slight change in position can often

move a distracting background element out of the picture. The best way to

control a background is to carefully choose it so that it's far enough away

and without distracting elements.

<p>

The subject perspective is determined by the camera-to-subject distance.

Although there aren't any hard-and-fast rules, settings of about 50 mm

to 85 mm might be good starting points using a 1.6-crop-factor camera

for portraits of a single person. It's usually better to choose the camera

position that gives the perspective you like than to play around with

distance and focal length to achieve effects that you can better achieve by

other means. Avoid sacrificing composition for technical considerations

whenever possible.

Both extenders seem to work fine, though as Michael mentioned, the camera

is unaware of the extender and the indicated <i>f</i>-number isn't

correct. This isn't an issue if you use the camera's internal meter, but

must be accounted for if you use an external meter.

<p>

I agree with Michael that the manual isn't essential reading.

There's been considerable discussion here about TS lenses, so it's worth a

search of the archives. <a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PBcE">This

thread</a> had a lot of comments directly applicable to using the lens.

<p>

You might also look at my brief overview of the principles involved at

<a href="http://www.eosdoc.com/manuals/?q=Tilt-Shift">http://www.eosdoc.com/manuals/?q=Tilt-Shift</a>.

The links at the end of that article to the

Large Format site, Merklinger, and Bob Wheeler lead to more information

that you probably ever want to know. I particularly recommend QT Luong's articles

<a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info/how-to-focus.html">How to focus the view camera</a>

and

<a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html">How to select the f-stop</a>

for a practical introduction to setting up the camera.

Commercial intent is irrelevant in U.S. National Parks (and has been for a

long time), so there shouldn't even be a reason for a ranger to question

you. If for some reason he does, though, a quick glance at the regulations

will demonstrate that there is nothing to question; the same is true for

lands managed by the BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest

Service. Wish that were the case in most state parks.

Vincent, what you describe is similar to what usually happens in California

state parks: if you tell them you're planning to sell the images, they'll

tell you to get a permit. If you simply go out and shoot, they usually

won't question you (though as Robert's post indicates, there are some

exceptions). What Stephen describes is similar to what I've heard from

many who sell photos taken in CA parks. I'd speak with a few others who

sell photos from NC state parks to see if their experience is the same as

Stephen's.

<p>

Access before or after hours or to areas closed to the public is a special

case that usually requires a permit, even on U.S. federal public lands. Of

course, many federal lands don't have hours of operation, so the issue

often doesn't arise.

<p>

Lauren, many, if not most, other state parks and similar public lands have

laws similar to the one Vincent cited. I agree that when applied to

landscape or wildlife photographers, these laws are unnecessary,

unreasonable, and essentially unenforceable (how does a ranger tell if the

photographer intends to sell the photos?). As several posters have

suggested, few of these laws were ever intended to cover nature

photographers—the problem is that we're essentially invisible, and

not even considered when the laws are adopted. After a bit of time,

though, the original intent is forgotten, and some enforcement personnel,

especially those whose raison d'etre is the exercise of authority, look for

the most restrictive possible interpretations. The way most

“commercial photography” regulations are written, it's easy to

interpret them as including any photography intended for sale.

<p>

The best way to get more reasonable laws is to make public comment when the

laws are proposed. More than a few people who have managed to do this have

found those proposing the laws quite receptive to limiting the permit

requirements to potentially disruptive activities, which usually was the

actual intent. It's not always easy to participate, though, because these

lawmaking efforts are often far under the radar, especially when they

involve administrative rules. The regulation for photo permits in

California State Parks is a good example. When it was proposed in 1990, no

relevant written comments were submitted, and there were no public comments

at the hearing, so the regulation was issued essentially as proposed. Once

a law has been adopted, getting it changed is much tougher. A very strong

case could be made for changing California's regulation, and California

statutes provide for petitioning such a change. Unfortunately, rulemaking

is usually an onerous process, requiring many staff hours to change

anything more substantial than a typo. And California is facing severe

fiscal problems, threatening to close 48 state park units (one

assemblywoman has even introduced a bill to sell the closed units). Though

I don't think they're averse to fixing a rule, it's not exactly their top

priority. I'm sure the situation is similar in many other jurisdictions.

<p>

Although a “don't ask, don't tell” approach to permits may not

be ideal, it may be the most practical option given the difficulty in

getting laws changed. It seems to have worked fine for Stephen just as it

has for many professional nature photographers in California. Moreover,

it's probably not violating the intent of most permit laws, regardless of

how they actually read. Again, I'd try to speak with a few others who

shoot in NC state parks.

Robert, the people at Fort Point misspoke. Photography in National Parks

is governed by 36 CFR 5.5(b), which requires a permit only when the

photography is for commercial advertising <em>and</em> uses models or props.

That situation may change. In August 2007, new rules were proposed that no

longer tie the permit requirement to commercial advertising, leaving some

question as to who is a model and what is a prop. Public comments pointed

out this and other potential problems, and the U.S. House of

Representatives even held a hearing on the matter, so I suspect that a new

rule will be proposed sometime this year.

<p>

As for California state parks, Title 14, §4316 of the California Code

of Regulations requires a permit for all photography for “commercial

(profit and sale) purposes.” As I mentioned in my previous post, this

probably wasn't the original intent, but the law reads as it reads. The

details are discussed to death in the photopermit.org thread that I linked,

so I won't repeat them here.

They don't define “commercial,” and it's difficult to imagine

that the intent was to include landscape and similar nature photography.

However, there's no way to be sure without reviewing the legislative

history, and even that might not answer the question. California state

parks have a similar law; in their case, the legislative history makes it

clear that the regulation was intended only for commercial filming and

large-scale, potentially disruptive commercial still shoots. Yet the

regulation defines “commercial” as being for “profit and

sale,” and that's the way park personnel interpret it.

It's not aggressively enforced, though, probably because commercial intent

is very difficult to ascertain, let alone prove, without reading the

photographer's mind. There are a few zealots among enforcement personnel,

however, as discussed in <a

href="http://www.photopermit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3660">this

thread</a> on photopermit.org.

<p>

I agree with Tony that they're unlikely to go after you if you start

selling photos—the law regulates the taking rather than the sale.

I'd guess they have more pressing issues than monitoring web sites to see

if images for sale may have come from NC state parks. But if you were to

go back and shoot additional images with the intent of selling them, and

were approached by a park ranger who asked if you planned to sell them,

you'd need to decide how to answer. I think they'd pretty much need to

take you at your word, and even if you admitted you were shooting for sale,

they might just tell you to get a permit. And you might not ever be

approached. Personally, I try to avoid lying to peace officers, because

it's often a good way to make a minor problem a major problem. If you do

want to take your chances, though, I'd leave the

VinceHorneCommercialPhotography tags off your camera bag ...

<p>

I'd suggest speaking with several other photographers who shoot for sale in

NC state parks and see how they approach it. In California state parks,

almost no nature photographers get permits, and the policy almost appears

to be “don't ask, don't tell.” Perhaps the situation is similar

in North Carolina. But California charge no fees for permits, so there's

little incentive to involve themselves in extra paperwork. If you don't

like subterfuge, you could simply contact state park headquarters and ask

how they apply the law to nature photographers. I'd guess they'd say you

need a permit, but you don't lose much by asking.

<p>

Limited licensing is reasonable, especially for a contest winner. But here

there seem to be almost no limits, and rights are granted by anyone

entering the contest. I'm annoyed by disingenuous language such as

“entry in the contest and/or acceptance of the grand-prize

package” when what is clearly meant is simply “entry in the

contest.”

<p>

Again, though, the giveaway pales in comparison with the virtually

unlimited indemnity and forfeiture of almost all legal remedies—all

for the slim possibility of a $500 gift certificate.

<p>

I usually hesitate to attribute to malice what's adequately explained by

incompetence. It's quite possible that the contest organizers didn't

intend such unreasonable terms, but rather got them from a consummate CYA

attorney and never gave the matter much thought.

<p>

Nonetheless, the terms read as they read, and that Don got a hostile

response is most disappointing. For what it's worth, I've been a life member of the Sierra Club for over 25 years.

The terms are simply outrageous. The photographer grants all rights of use

for any purpose, without promise of compensation or even credit. In

addition, the photographer agrees to indemnify the Sierra Club and anyone

else granted use for all claims of any kind (including, presumably, claims

that are completely frivolous). At a glance, this would appear to include

a claim of defamation for use of a possibly altered image in a context that

the photographer cannot ever have envisioned and over which he has no

control. Although the likelihood of such a scenario is probably quite low,

anyone thinking of entering should ask himself one question: Do I feel

lucky?