requiem

<p>Alan, the lens is 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6. I have a predecessor of it somewhere in a closet and 35mm is right in the middle of its range; there's no way it would make f/3.5 at 35mm. (Max aperture for the current model at 35mm is probably f/5.)</p>

<p>To the OP: Counting in full stops goes: 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, so about 3 stops between f/1.8 and f/5. You can't subtract the numbers directly; just count the hops along the scale instead. (Both 1.8 and 5 are 2/3rds of the way to the next full stop.)</p>

<p>The OP, in a <a href="00aqvo?unified_p=1">separate post</a>, described the task as simple product and package images on a white background, 36 in total. This suggests minimal artistic input, particularly if the images are being used for a regulatory filing or other non-marketing purpose (e.g. electronic product labeling). Arjen is certainly unlikely to have use of much of them, as the company's copyright on the packaging would be in play.</p>

<p>Such cases seem well-suited for "work for hire" treatment; Arjen should certainly charge for his time, skill, and effort, but holding a veto on future use is probably being counted as a liability by the company. If the images are as basic as Arjen's other post implied, someone within the company is almost certainly considering handing the job to an intern. Barring a sufficient disparity in image quality, legal freedom at no cost generally outweighs restricted licenses that come with a bill.</p>

<p>To Arjen: If there is more of an artistic element involved, and these are something you'd like to include in your portfolio, be sure to license those rights from the company as well. As Mark suggested, this isn't about setting restrictions, it's about making sure each side has the rights they need under the current copyright regime.</p>

<p>Many people are concerned about their privacy for various reasons. If this is a concern, I would suggest that they use a passport (shows age, but no address) instead of a driver's license. Otherwise, they're flashing their address to every clerk that demands to check ID (assuming they aren't paying cash, or buying alcohol).<br>

Note that this doesn't preclude them from also providing an address if desired. (People with a genuine need or desire for privacy will likely have a few addresses available for this purpose.)</p>

<p>Brad,</p>

<p>As Matt mentioned, distance affects perspective, not focal length. The effect you get mention in video when moving closer while zooming out is due only to the change in distance. The only purpose of zooming out (changing focal length) at the same time is to keep the subject from growing too large for the frame.</p>

<p>Zooming changes focal length, and yes, does magnify the image.</p>

<p>The distortion in perspective (due to distance) is a function of ratios; looking at the turkey picture above, the camera-to-turkey distance is 12 inches, and the camera-to-human distance is ~48 inches. If the picture was taken from 20 feet away, the respective distances would be 252 inches and 288 inches. The 4x ratio in the first case is enough to make the turkey head seem quite large relative to the human, while the 1.14x ratio in the second case would enlarge the turkey head only minimally.</p>

<p>Ty,</p>

<p>After reading all the postings last night (and the few this morning), and visiting your Flickr page, I have a question and two suggestions. My question is, is the watermark and text used on your Flickr site the same as on the images presented for the birthday party?</p>

<p>I consider a small signature or other mark, similar to what a painter might apply to their work, entirely appropriate. Your markings, in contrast, are rather extensive, and I would argue make the images largely unsuitable for anything beyond use as a proof for ordering prints. Further, the large "Robbins Gallery" logo does create a fairly strong impression that the photos may be in a [public, commercial] gallery somewhere; your assurances that this is not the case would need to be particularly well-conveyed to convince people otherwise.</p>

<p>My second suggestion is that if you are truly worried about copyright infringement, you should bulk-register your images with the copyright office. (Essentially, every few months you send in a CD with low-res copies of all the photos you have taken in that time.) While neither this, nor placing a copyright notice on your images, is necessary to gain copyright protection, it does greatly enhance your legal position when infringement occurs.</p>

<p>You should still be able to use your Sunpak. With the cameras you have listed (and with the Nikon D5000) you have the option of setting the exposure manually.</p>

<p>For product photography (what it seems you are doing), my preference is to have the camera and the flashes set to manual control. That way I have full control over all the variables in the scene, and can replicate the shot every time. (To clarify, this means not taking advantage of the xTTL functionality, which is why the Sunpak could still be used.)</p>

<p>To expand on Lex's answer, there are two auto-ISO options on the D40. The "ISO auto" option in the custom settings menu (CSM) is likely enabled, and it is completely different from the auto option in the pulldown list where you set the ISO to 200. (The auto in the pull-down list is disabled when in PSAM modes anyway.)</p>

<p>If you do use an auto ISO setting, the one from the CSM is likely better, as it only kicks in when the shutter speed drops below a minimum you can set. E.g. You can have it only bump the ISO when shutter speed drops below 1/30.</p>

<p>Joel,</p>

<p>I'm using FF 3.0.8 here, on 2.6.27-11-generic i686, using KDE4. I still have the window titlebar, task bar, and address bar visible. FWIW, the Javascript (it's not flash) tries to open the window with all menu bars, the location bar, and the statusbar disabled.</p>

<p>It is possible to override this in your settings; for example, setting dom.disable_window_open_feature.location to true in "about:config" will always keep the location bar visible.</p>

<p>My advice? Keyboard shortcuts. alt-tab, alt-f4, alt-[leftarrow], etc. are your friends.</p>

<p>Jim,</p>

<p>The Lanham Act established prior use of a mark as a defense against infringement, but limited to the area where that prior use happened. (In the past, some courts have considered this a complete defense, but there may be a trend to consider it as merely reducing the weight of the registration so as to allow the issue to be decided based on the accused's common law rights to the mark.)</p>

<p>Part of the fun of trademark law is its common law basis; registration of a mark doesn't grant the right to use it so much as it creates a presumption of ownership. In any case, Dan doesn't have prior use on his side, so it's a moot point.</p>

<p>Note: IANAL, which is why a real one might look at my preceding post, or this, and sighing, shake their head.</p>

<p>My two cents:</p>

<p>The guy registered his mark back in 2003/4. Since it looks like you started using it within the past year, that's a problem. I started typing this post with the intention of explaining how since you appear to operate in different geographical regions you shouldn't have a problem, but his registration changes that.</p>

<p>My guess is that if both of your businesses are limited primarily to your respective communities, there is room for an agreement to be reached. You should have a chat with an attorney about this issue, and ideally post back with the results (but perhaps in the business forum).</p>

<p>Further reading:<br>

http://www.uspto.gov/go/tac/doc/basic/<br>

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm<br>

http://www.abanet.org/buslaw/blt/2006-05-06/wilcox.shtml</p>

<p>I recall seeing on Strobist someone doing this for a Christmas card some time back:<br>

http://zachhodges.com/blog/twilight-christmas-how-we-did-it/</p>

<p>Nish,</p>

<p>Try this: Picture a frame of 35mm film in your mind, sitting at the back of the camera. It's a good-sized rectangle, and the light from the (FX) lens is bathing it in a nice big circular spotlight. Now, imagine a DX sensor. It's a smaller rectangular chip, a bit brownish like the film, with some gold traces at the edges. You could take some glue and stick it on the frame of 35mm film, and it would sit right in the middle with a nice brown border of film showing on every side.</p>

<p>So, you've got your DX chip glued to the film. Keep imagining that spotlight coming through the lens, and drawing a picture of the scene on the combined chip and film. See how part of the image is drawn on the film that borders the chip? See how the image on the chip would be "cropped" compared to what the film would catch? Good. Now for the part you were puzzled by.</p>

<p>We're going to replace the FX lens with a DX lens. The film and DX sensor are still sitting there like before. What I want you to picture now is that spotlight coming through the lens. It's still throwing a circle of light over the film and sensor, but now the circle is smaller. Before you could easily see the corners of the film, now they are in shadow. But, the DX sensor sitting in the middle of the film is still well-covered by the spotlight, and you can see every corner, even the little gold traces at the edges. Now, just like before, imagine the same scene being drawn on the combined chip and film. Since the corners of the film are in shadow, the picture on the film will also be dark in the corners. But, parts of the film bordering the DX sensor will still be in the spotlight, and the parts of the image that didn't fit on the DX sensor will be drawn on them.</p>

<p>(A little long, I know, but hopefully it helps.)</p>

<p>A small point and shoot would supply much of your needs, but is less good when the light is low or when you want a faster shutter response. If you want to develop as a photographer, I'd suggest a lightweight SLR so it 1) is easy to carry wherever you go and 2) gives you the opportunity to try out different lenses and settings.</p>

<p>For your uses (photographing things you encounter on the street), I'd suggest a Nikon D40 (~$400 with 18-55mm kit lens), but paired with the new 35mm f/1.8 lens ($200). This is very lightweight (0.5 kg?) and easy to carry. (Unfortunately it won't auto-focus with Nikon's older non-AF-S lenses.)</p>

<p>Next up on the scale is the D90 (~$1150 with 18-105mm lens), weighing about 1 kg. An alternative to the D90 might be the D200. It's an older model, but from a more pro-oriented line and would put more controls at your fingertips.</p>

<p>While there are differences between these cameras, I think you'd be very happy with the image quality of any of them.</p>

<p>Geoff:<br>

I'm assuming you are outside the US, as it appears such commissioning rules exist, or existed, in Commonwealth countries and are somewhat analogous to the US "works for hire" idea. It would be especially helpful if you could provide a citation, as the laws vary from country to country.</p>

<p>For lighting through the bottles, I would suggest reviewing the method described here:<br>

http://ritz.webphotoschool.com/Bouncing_and_Reflecting_Light_through_Glass/index.html</p>

<p>In short, passing more light through the bottles will help a good deal with the reflections. The link describes placing a white bottle-shaped cutout behind the bottle and bouncing an overhead strobe off it. As to sharpness, that's down to your aperture, distance of the subject, and on which part of the subject you are focusing. Plug your numbers into an online depth of field calculator to ensure you have sufficient DOF, and make adjustments as necessary.</p>

<p>To understand focal length, point a flashlight at a wall. See the circle it makes? The focal length setting on the flash affects the size of the circle. Take some underexposed shots of your flash aimed at a wall using different zoom settings to see the effect. (If you are using an 85mm lens, it has a much narrower field of view than a 24mmm lens, and there's no point wasting extra light with a wider beam. The narrower beam will also give you greater reach.)</p>

<p>As to aperture, realize the flash dumps its light in 1/1000th of a second or less. The means your camera's shutter speed is largely irrelevant, but adjusting its aperture will control how much of that light makes it to the sensor. Smaller hole, less light. If you're wedded to a given aperture, you can still adjust the amount of light by either changing the distance from the flash to the subject, or by changing its power. (This gives you three variables to play with, in the same way shutter speed, aperture, and ISO can be varied to give the same exposure value.)</p>

<p>Finally, I'd suggest wandering over to Strobist and working through the "Lighting 102" exercises.</p>

Hello Matt,

It depends on how you use the photo. Use in fine art is perfectly acceptable. Use to sell cars is... less so.

The rule of thumb I'd use is "would the mystical power of the trademark influence a buyer's decision"? In other

words, trademarks create certain expectations in a buyer's mind about a product's quality. Would you trust a

delivery to FedEx? Perhaps. Would you feel hurt if a flakier business used the FedEx logo and you decided to

trust them because of the logo? Almost certainly.

My own opinion is that selling these photos as art is not a problem. Some feisty young attorney may send you a

letter about it, mostly to show that Chevy is still defending the mark, in which case you'd contact your own

attorney and he'd likely draft a reply explaining why your use is allowable, and that would most likely be that.

(Note: were you to add color /only/ to the BelAir name could suggest you were using the value of the mark to

help sell the image. Just a thought, IANAL.)

Finally, this advice is worth about what I got paid for it, and you should consult a real attorney in case

you want someone to point fingers at later. You may also find a more extended discussion here:

http://www.danheller.com/model-release-copyrights.html

Hello David,

There are sites like the one below with instructions; either they will work smoothly or you'll encounter some odd

situation that will eat up time:

http://www.myfirstmac.com/index.php/mac/articles/how-do-i-share-files-between-my-mac-and-pc

The setup can be a bit tedious; my own preference is to either:

a) Use a portable USB hard drive; you'll have to copy files twice, but it saves futzing with an unfamiliar

(and potentially unsafe) computer. (And you gain a backup!)

b) Enable SSH access on the Mac and keep a copy of WinSCP on a thumbdrive; once the computers are both on the

same network I just punch in the IP address of the Mac, username, and password. (For safety you can set up a

dummy account on the Mac with an expendable password.)

I agree with Walt, especially about the music.

Poorly-implemented flash has a number of issues. Mostly it breaks the web's navigational conventions (back/forward buttons, address bars, bookmarking), but it also adds limitations (opening in new windows or tabs, enlarging fonts, platform specific requirements). Tasks are often better accomplished using CSS which provides the potential of degrading gracefully without needing an alternate version.

One other comment I'd like to make is that I (and I suspect others) do not surf the web purely for recreation with unlimited time to sit back and "absorb the experience". If I'm trying to find a particular item (either for reference, or to show someone else), flash is nearly always a hindrance. (I have an especial peeve with navigational elements that scroll or fade in; even a 1 second load time is about 0.8 seconds too slow, but then I'm an ex-gamer.)

Amber,

For using flash, set the camera to its max sync speed and set the aperture to give you an exposure 1 or 2 stops below ambient (so you don't overexpose once you add in flash). Put the flash on, say, 1/4 power and take a test shot. If the subject is too bright, dial down the power or use a smaller aperture. If the background is too dark, lengthen the exposure time. When shooting outdoors the process is essentially the same, but you'll be using much smaller apertures if you can't find shade.

In either situation, if you're moving around a lot and have the flash on-camera, Bob's suggestion about ETTL is likely your best bet. I'd also suggest spending some time reading David Hobby's blog (Strobist); it's well worth it.

To autofocus you will need lenses with an internal motor. ("silent wave motor", "hyper-sonic motor", etc., depending on brand.) For Nikon that means AF-S type lenses (or AF-I). Sigma lenses with HSM will also work.

The D40 is perfectly fine; if you can't get excellent shots with it, well, I wouldn't blame the camera.

<p>Tim, you should register the copyrights. If you find it necessary to file suit, you must have first registered

them. It also enables statutory damages for later infringements. If you don't have a model release, that is an

extra negotiating point for you, and more liability for them. (There's no reason you can't get a model release

after the fact; I would however get it <em>before</em> you grant the business permission to use the picture. I doubt

your friend would sue you, but at least this way you don't end end up taking on unnecessary liability.)[0]

</p>

<p>

If you're not going to use a lawyer, I suggest staying polite, reasonable, and keeping good records. I'd also

suggest contacting local photographers to see what they would charge for similar use. If you can negotiate a

reasonable fee, you both benefit. Finally, depending on the store's location, having your name visible may

generate more dollars than just a usage fee. That's another item you can use when negotiating.[1]

</p>

<p>

Michael: To quote copyright.gov, "If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior

to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in

court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner." You

should also take Jon's advice and use the DMCA. It's a rather effective club.

</p>

<p>

[0] IANAL, my thoughts are just my opinions on how a reasonable world should work.<br/>

[1] As the copyright holder, you obviously don't need to negotiate. As a member of a business community, you may

still find it a good idea.

</p>

Joseph, the others make good points, but in your example photo it appears that the camera is focusing behind the

hands. My guess is that the AF got confused. What are your AF settings, and do you happen to have it set to

lock focus?