simon_crofts

<p>Hi Ric, I like to use film a lot for personal work too :) But end up using digital quite a lot of the time.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Would you care to describe the technique you used for that photo?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There was no big technique there, it was just about balancing flash with ambient light. The flash was about 4m from the subject, guide number about 36. So I chose f8 (36 divided by 4), but so as not to get too long a shutter speed I increased the ISO to 200 and decreased flash to half power. The shutter speed was then 1/25th. I had the camera in aperture priority and let the shutter speed look after itself, with -1 exposure compensation to make it a bit moody. It's all there in the EXIF data! :)</p>

<p>Here's one taken on medium format slide (couldn't afford to get it wrong!) using guide number calculation for the flash on a pigeon flying past:<br>

<img src="http://www.croftsphoto.com/Krakow.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Even as liberal as the U.K. is I can't believe you can legally snap somebody's photo (even at a wedding) and use said image to promote yourself commercially.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes you can. This is exactly what many/most photographers' sites do. Look at the website of any photojournalist. You'll find plenty of photos of people who haven't given their consent to appearing on the website. Even in the US!</p>

 

<p> </p>

<p >Hello John, I'm not confusing anything. I'm a lawyer, I know English/Welsh law pretty well. I like to be fairly precise about it, but at the same time I'm trying to simplify things a bit while explaining them for the sake of clarity, so there are always exceptions in extreme case scenarios, most of which I already mentioned.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><strong>"(a special veto power they enjoy under The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988)"</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p >First: to be accurate, the bride and groom don't have a power of veto. It's just that the images can't be published without their consent. There is a difference, though it is perhaps a subtle one, but just want to keep it accurate.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><strong>"Your response above tells us nothing about the rights, if any, of guests and the use of their likeness <em>where no such veto was exercised</em>."</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p >I did address this, so will have to repeat myself a bit. The guests generally have no overall rights to prevent use of their likeness. In fact, in English copyright law, there is no concept of being able to prevent use of your likeness. And whether or not the bride and groom have consented to use is a completely separate issue.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><strong>"You mean to tell us, if a UK wedding couple hiring a photographer doesn't prevent the photographer from publishing or selling the wedding photos, the guests have no say whatsoever as to the use of their likeness <em>in any circumstance</em>?"</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p >Under English law, there are exceptional circumstances where the guests themselves might have the ability <em> </em>to stop you using the images<em></em>. I already alluded to them. But they're rather unusual cases. The first is a rather extreme case under the Human Rights Act which I already mentioned, which allows them to keep privacy in a situation where they might expect it. I mentioned the situation at a wedding where that might apply - if you catch a couple of guests having a bit of sly sex upstairs then they could stop you publishing photos of it. Another case where it might just apply is in the case of a celebrity who was expecting quiet a quiet family moment at a wedding and finds his/herself splashed over the tabloids. Generally at a wedding the guests are not being caught in a private moment unless they're doing something a bit unusual/embarassing or the moment is particularly private for some reason, so the Human Rights Act will not normally apply to wedding guests.</p>

<p >The other case where a guest could object is where you use the images in a way that is defamatory - if you use them in an advert that suggested that they were a mass murderer perhaps.</p>

<p >Also, if you use their images in an advert, then the rules of the Advertising Standards Authoruty say you should get permission from anyone who appears in an advert. This isn't strictly legally binding on you as a photographer as you're not a member of the ASA, but any advertising agency etc. that used their image without permission might get into hot water with the ASA's membership rules. They might even have their membership suspended in an extreme case, which would be embarassing for them. But it's not a legal issue for the photographer.</p>

<p >There are other odd exceptions: I already mentioned possible problems othat might arise from posting images of certain children eg. who are Wards of Court. </p>

<blockquote>

<p >"Can you cite some authority that permits this extraordinary power to use images of people that will ordinarily require a model release"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Usually in the UK you don't actually need to get a model release to publish photos of people. The same applies to guests at a wedding. There are exceptions where you do need model releases, which I've summarised above, and in practise especially for commercial use a client is going to want to see a model release before using an image, so if you don't have a model release it will seriously undermine the commercial use of the image. What clients are mostly worried about though is being sued for defamation in case their use of the image implies something about the person that is harmful to their reputation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Where in the act, or any other legal authority for that matter, does it say that failure of the person to excise the right to ban publication in this setting means that someone else's likeness in such an image can be used without a model release when a model release is otherwise needed? Where exactly are you getting this trump other people's right power from?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Trying not to repeat myself too much, but the cases where a model release is needed legally are pretty limited in the UK. Even your extreme case of:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"advertisements in a Depends undergarment commercial showing that Depends are safe to wear at weddings"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>might not strictly speaking legally need a model release unless the way the image was used was actually defamatory to the person appearing in the ad. If the person was actually wearing the said garment at the wedding, then they'd find it hard to build a case. Of course, if you were photographing up a skirt etc. to get the photo then it would be a different matter... ;)</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>At times we change things. An example, I will set the flash (and camera) to manual, then with my light meter measure the flash at my desired distance, set the camera aperture to the flash reading. Not zooming the flash, I walk about with the flash ready to go adjusting for the ambient, maybe zoom the lens as well. Sounds similar to your aperture suggestion.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Ric, yes, it's a very similar approach - only I don't need the flash meter, because (unless you change the ISO or manual power setting of the flash), the flash meter will always tell you to use exactly the same aperture for a given distance of the subject from the flash.</p>

<p>I also use it for street photography a lot. Because I know the subject to be lit by flash will most likely be somewhere between 2 and 4 metres away, I know exactly what aperture I will need to expose the flash correctly, and can just flip between the aperture for 2m and the one for 4m,or something in between. It's very fast, and I am absolutely sure that the flash exposure will be accurate, so it saves film. And I don't need to do a test exposure, look at a histogram, or use a light meter first. And there's no pre-flash delay you get with TTL. So it works quite nicely.</p>

<p>So, with a small flash with a guide number of only 16, I know that for street photos I can use an aperture of f8 if the subject is 2 metres away, or f4 if it's 4 metres away, an aperture in between if the subject is somewhere in between those distances, and the flash exposure will be pretty much consistently spot on.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>While I don't know what the law is in the UK, it is unlikely people there are granted powers to simply and unilaterally waive other people's rights, whatever those rights may be</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is not the case of someone being given power to waive other people's rights. It is the bride and groom who have the right to object to the images of guests being published, the guests themselves generally have no right to object. Therefore it is the bride and groom, not the guests, who must give the consent to publication of the photos of the guests. In the UK.</p>

<p>I also use your approach of switching to shutter or aperture priority and relying on TTL, and of course I agree that there isn't one correct way of doing it.Shutter priority is especially useful outside on a bright day to stop the camera going above the maximum sync speed. I'm not contradicting you and don't disagree with anything you said, just expounding the benefits of one particular approach among many.</p>

<p>TTL has it's advantages, though of course TTL can also be a bit erratic, and can be thrown right out for example by shiny objects reflecting flash back.</p>

<p>Just to expand on the guide number approach a bit, it requires a moment's more thought, but has advantage of more consistency. It's best to ignore manufacturers' guide numbers and determine your own - just set a subject two metres away, set camera to ISO 100 flash at full power, and see what aperture you need to get correct exposure (with flash zoomed in and out). Then multiply the f-stop by two to get your guide number. Reason to do the test at two metres rather than one is that many lenses won't go down to f32 or so.</p>

<p>For taking pics outside the guide number approach works especially well because you're likely to be wanting to use the flash at full power to get a small enough aperture to get a long enough shutter speed so that shutter speed is above the sync speed. So with practise, you will know that on a bright day a sync speed of 1/250th will give typically f11, which means that there's little point in using a flash with guide number of 30 on a subject more than about 4 metres away, the flash just isn't powerful enough.</p>

<p>The beauty of the system is that you always know what f-stop to use based on subject distance:<br>

1 metre - f32<br>

2metres - f16<br>

4 metres - f8<br>

8 metres - f4<br>

16 metres - f2<br>

more than about 25 metres - forget it (or bump the ISO up).<br>

And if the required f-stop is wide enough to take your sync speed above the camera's maximum flash sync, it means your flash simply isn't powerful enough and it won't manage it in TTL or anoy other mode.<br>

With a zoom flash, just deduct a stop or so from the above when you're zoomed out. You can determine the exact amount to adjust by doing a one-off test at home against a wall two metres away, zoomed in and zoomed out.</p>

<p>As I say, I also appreciate the advantages of TTL, but there are also many cases when you want consistency from shot to shot, perhaps making a minor adjustment here or there. An example is when doing group photos, or on a more static creative or fashion shoot. Using TTL often just isn't consistent enough compared to manual.</p>

<p>Here was a portrait I took recently using a manual/guide number approach. Using manual meant I could keep retaking the shot from different angles without the proportions of flash to ambient light varying, and using guide numbers meant no flash meter was needed:-<br>

<img src="http://www.croftsphoto.com/Joe03.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>

 

<p>It may sound similar to privacy, or endorsement of produce, but it's actually a different issue legally.</p>

<p>In the UK, we have privacy provisions under the Human Rights Act. The privacy provisions wouldn't normally apply to wedding guests unless there was a pretty extreme set of circumstances going on (eg. a couple of guests having sneaky sex in an upstairs bedroom, then yes they might have the right to stop you publishing the photos under Human Rights Act).</p>

<p>So far as endorsement of products laws is concerned, it's a matter of the rules of the Advertising Standards Authority, and general libel law.</p>

<p>The provision that I was quoting that requires permission from the bride and groom is totally separate from these two - in a sense it is a kind of privacy law provision, but it's one that is very specific and just applies to commissioned social photography like weddings, and it a quite separate provision from the general sweep of privacy legislation in the UK.</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_copyright_law">A quick look in Wikipedia</a>, Canadian law does seem to have this oddity about the commissioner owning copyright:-</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"There is also separate provision for the copyright ownership of photographs. In particular, unless a contract exists to the contrary, the copyright of any engraving, photograph or portrait is owned by the person who ordered the work once payment is made. The copyright is owned by the author until payment is made. This only applies to works that were "made for valuable consideration""</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eeek!</p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p>p.s. - I should have clarified, in the UK, copyright is with the 'author' ie. the photographer, unless he/she assigns it away. The exception is if the photographer is taking the pictures in the course of employment as an employee, in which case copyright is with the employer.</p>

<p>I'm surprised to hear that copyright law in Canada gives copyright to the person commissioning rather than the photographer, that sounds odd, but I don't know enough about Canadian law.</p>

<p>Hi John, it's actually a separate issue from copyright. The assumption is that copyright has remained with the photographer (though of course, the photographer may have given it away, but it's another issue).</p>

<p>Assuming that copyright remains with the photographer, there are then two issues - the first is whether there is any restriction on the photographer using the images. For example, if he/she wanted to use the images in a national advertising campaign implying that the person in the image was a victim of AIDS, then there would be model release issues... The next problem is that for images commisioned for 'private and domestic purposes' eg. wedding photos, no one, not even the copyright holder, is allowed to publish the photos without permission from whoever commissioned the images ie. the bride and groom.</p>

<p>So it's a bit of a separate question from who owns copyright. Of course, in the US things will work a bit differently, but generally speaking UK and US law work in a fairly similar way, with subtle differences (for example 'fair use' concepts are different in US and UK).</p>

<p>In the UK it's correct. You don't need a model release in order to post an image of someone on a website - otherwise photojournalism couldn't exist. In the UK model releases are only normally needed for certain kinds of advertising use (which doesn't include your own website), or if you're going to be using the images in a potentially libellous way.</p>

<p>You do however need consent of the bride and groom because of S.85 of the Copyright Act:-</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"A person who for private and domestic purposes commissions the taking of a photograph or the making of a film has, where copyright subsists in the resulting work, the right not to have-</p>

<p id="pt1-ch4-pb4-l1g85-l1p1-l2p1-l3p1">(a) copies of the work issued to the public,<br /> (b) the work exhibited or shown in public..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So, as long as you've got permission from the person who commissioned you (usually the bride and groom at a wedding), you're OK.</p>

<p>This is of course about the UK, where the original poster is based. The US may be more restrictive.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>As long as the bride and groom have agreed, it's OK to use pictures of guests too. Make sure that the bride and groom's consent is worded so it does cover all images from the wedding, not just the ones with them in.</p>

<p>There are potential problems of photos with children in - mainly that they might be 'wards of court' or otherwise subject to child protection eg. if they've been subject to abuse, taken from the original parents and adopted, and the original parents are hunting for them. I've had a situation like this before with wedding images, and was careful not to use any pictures with those children on my website and in a magazine. I only became aware of the potential issue because I discussed it with the bride and groom before posting the images.</p>

<p>Have you tried viewing it under a tungsten only light source? If so, is the cast still there?</p>

<p>There is a common problem with prints printed with inkjets that they have a green colour cast under daylight which shifts to magenta under tungsten. It's due to the way the inks flouresce. The phenomenon is called 'metamerism', and is quite different from the cool/warm colour change you normally get between daylight/tungsten. More recent inks have reduced the effect, but it still exists.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The SB-800 manual, page 42-43, about guide numbers is a bit mind boggling. As an example on page 43 it reads:<br /> f/stop (aperture)=Guide number (GN) x ISO sensitivity factor divided by Shooting distance (m/ft)<br>

Notice the part, sensitivity factor, down page 43 it gives you sensitivity factors at different ISOs. What if you change ISO?"</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This bit of the manual may sound mind-boggling, but actually it's saying just the same as I was saying in my post above. They're expressing it as a formula which makes it sound complicated, but it's actually very simple.</p>

<p>Translating it, you have to:<br>

(1) find out the guide number for your flash (expressed in metric at ISO 100), let's say it is 36.<br>

(2) leave your camera at ISO 100 until you get more confident with the technique.<br>

(3) guess the distance to your subject. Let's say it's 8 metres.<br>

(4) divide the guide number by the number of metres to your subject. I this case we have 36 divided by 8 = 4.<br>

(5) take that as your f-number, and set f4 on the lens. The shutter speed for the ambient light is whatever you camera's aperture priority meter wants to set (with a bit of minus dialled in so that the ambient isn't too bright)</p>

<p>Now if we want to get clever we can change the ISO a couple of stops and open the aperture up a couple of stops to compensate. Or if we have a zoom flash and are zoomed out, open up the aperture a stop or so to compensate for the weakening of the flash.</p>

<p>So don't be put off by the scary use of formulas in the manual, they're just saying the above in short form!</p>

<p>Ah Parv, sorry didn't see your post before I responded. Of course, if you can disengage the zoom then it's even simpler.</p>

 

<p>Hi Ric, good point. I'm using mainly Quantum, so no automatic zoom there, but the guide number does change as I fit different heads. In practise it's not a really a problem, as the change is constant - you need to do one shot to establish guide number at full telephoto and one at full wide angle. The difference will most likely be around one to two stops. If using bare bulb on the Quantum I just have to remember to open up the aperture a bit.</p>

<p>Manufacturers tend to quote their headline guide number full zoomed in because it sounds more impressive, so in practise you'll probably be taking their quoted guide number for zoomed in and opening up a bit when you're zoomed out. Try it once or twice fully zoomed in and fully zoomed out and you'll soon get a feel for how much to tweak the aperture. Once you know the adjustment to make, it will always be the same wherever and whenever you take a photo.</p>

<p>With ISO, that's why I suggest keeping the camera at 100 ISO, to keep things simple in your head. But of course, if you want to use say 800 ISO, just close the aperture down 3 stops (not the shutter speed).</p>

<p>There is a quick and accurate way to balance flash and ambient, without having to use a flash meter. It involves knowing the guide number of your flash, and setting your flash to manual full power (for simplicity's sake). Let's say the guide number of your flash at 100ISO is 30 (metric). You need to have this number 30 hammered into your head so you know it without having to think.<br>

Set your camera to aperture priority and ISO 100, with -2/3 stop dialled in (to slightly underexpose the ambient light). Guesstimate the distance to your subject. Let's say it's 4 metres. Divide 30 by 4, gives you 7.5. Set the camera to the nearest f stop, which is f8. Your exposure, both flash and background will be perfectly exposed every time. In practise, you can make the calculation really fast in your head, much faster than using a flash meter. If you want to use a different ISO, like ISO 400, just close your aperture down a couple of stops.<br>

With practise, you will want to allow a bit for the fact that manufacturers exaggerate the guide numbers of their flash, so if they say it's around 36, then assume that's really around 30.</p>

<p>Wierdly enough, Googling "David Aten" and "photographer" throws up diddley squat. ;) Do you 'publish' your photos under a pseudonym? ;) :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Actually, Simon Crofts, your ip address matches another person's here... (Anyone want to guess who?)<br /><strong>SIMON CROFTS: A member of the photo.net community since September 26, 2009</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just catching up on this - whether or not my IP address matches someone elses, I really couldn't tell you. I haven't posted on photo.net before September 26th this year, under my own or any other name. If you want to find out who I am, Google me. I'm posting under my own name.<br>

So much for the conspiracy theories...<br>

Simon</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I produce the image, he hears the shutter, he looks and me, I look at him, he does not move and neither do I. For about 20 seconds we look at each other and judge the next move. We feel each other, we scan each others eyes to see what we are thinking.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe he's just wondering whether you're the zoo keeper come to bring him his feed? ;)</p>

<p>For a photo essay, some publishers won't consider it if it's been published anywhere at all before. That's probably relatively rare though - most wouldn't mind so long as their competitors haven't published it, or at least it hasn't been published in the country they're working in.</p>