simon_crofts

September 1, 2012

Portra's razor sharp - your problem will be the scanner, you're never going to get reasonable results from a flatbed like this, especially with 35mm. Try scanning it on an Imacon or similar.

September 1, 2012

And before people start telling you not to put all your eggs in one basket, SD cards are based on flash memory. They are by far safer than hard-disk based storage devices

</blockquote>

I'll be the 'don't put all your eggs in one basket' misery boots. I wouldn't trust either an SD card or a single external disc drive. I've found SD cards to be fragile and easily corrupted - I lost all images from a trip when a transfer to computer went wrong, result was a destroyed card and I was told by the data recovery people that this was very common with SD cards which fail extremely easily, and that Compactflash cards tend to be more reliable. I don't know whether that's true, but after my own experience I don't trust SD cards an inch. They're also awfully easy to lose.

I wouldn't trust a single disc drive either. Multiple SD cards backed up to a disc via an iPad is the way I'd personally go, though of course a netbook would do the backing up too. And of course keep always keep the backup in a different bag from the originals.

September 1, 2012

Or an iPad - either with a higher capacity disc, or with an external Seagate disc.

August 28, 2012

I wouldn't let any usage at all for $20 - $60, let alone unlimited royalty free usage, effectively converting your image into a royalty free picture. The $750 mentioned above would I think be a minimum, proper market price is probably considerably higher than that.

The fact that there are bargain basement royalty free imagery available on the internet isn't relevant - there is a sea of free imagery available for that matter, that doesn't mean you should give your pictures away for free.

The reality is, if they're thinking in terms of $20 - $60, they're unlikely to be willing to pay a proper price, and the most sensible option is just to let them know that you're unlikely to be able to agree a price anywhere in their range, so you doubt that you'll be able to do business, walk away and not waste any more time on it. Time is money. In the unlikely event that they're actually willing to pay a proper price, they'll chase after you.

August 14, 2012

I wrote earlier that the contract language of "shall be a work for hire" is really about treating it as such

</blockquote>

There are a few points here. First of all - by law the arrangement isn't a work for hire. There is really little or no difference between the law treating something as being work for hire, and something being according to the law work for hire. If the contract had said that it was to be treated as such, when it wasn't, it would be a logical contradiction, and might cause problems with the validity of that part of the contract.

In other words, there is no difference between a contract saying that something is a work for hire, and a contract saying that something will be treated as a work for hire. If the law says that in fact it isn't a work for hire, then the contract saying that it shall be treated as such, or deemed to be such, would simply be wrong.

Luckily the contract doesn't say that. It says that, if the arrangement isn't a work for hire (it definitely isn't) then it goes on to say what the rights of the parties are. So the problem doesn't arise and is of theoretical interest only.

August 14, 2012

I suggest you read the US Copyright Office document I linked to.

</blockquote>

That government link pretty closely to agree with the Wikipedia article's description, and seems to confirm that this can't possibly be a work for hire. In what way do you think this says otherwise Jeff?

August 14, 2012

even that not going to work if the prospect is looking for the lowest possible price or can't tell the difference between "great" and " barely adequate", or if they just want to impose a set of unattractive t&c and are happy to abandon the idea or go elsewhere if the best photographer won't play

</blockquote>

The trick is to let them go elsewhere.

The market for photography is absolutely vast. Mindbogglingly big. The overwhelming majority of clients in that market don't want anything special, don't want to pay much if anything for photography, don't care much what photographs they get, just want the pictures without worrying about limits on what they can do with them. But they are probably not your target market. Your target market are the clients that care, that want photography in your style, that understand licensing and are willing to pay fairly.

A potential client approaching you expecting work on uninteresting terms means nothing. There will be loads of such reject clients. It doesn't matter how many there are, what matters is how many clients there are of the right sort.

There is even the potential that, if your work is sufficiently unique to set you apart, clients may have pretty much no choice but to use you and accept your terms, you might have a near-monopoly situation. Or perhaps you and a select handful of other photographers who will also have enough confidence in their own abilities not to yield and give all away to clients for nothing. From the client's point of view, it may seem unfair that a small group of individuals have them by the balls, but that's the nature of the free market.

So the target is to have sufficient income that you can tell the lesser clients to go away without worrying about it, a unique enough style and skills that you are in demand, and not spend any time at all thinking about the vast majority of people who aren't going to want to pay for you or do things on your terms, except for a brief email telling them they're not for you.

August 9, 2012

I use the 105mm f2.5, which is very good. Downside is, it's manual focus, upside is it's lightweight and unobtrusive. I considered using the 105mm f105 f2.8 - my wife uses it, and while I like the IS and the autofocus, the extra bulk and weight isn't worth it and in practise the manual focus isn't a problem. IS would be nice, but not worth the size and weight - for me.

70 - 200, I know exactly what you mean, tried it a couple of times, didn't like it at all.

Occasionally I use a 135mm f2 which has its moments, but is quite heavy.

August 9, 2012

We should also have got beyond having to use crude centre-weighted metering by now

</blockquote>

Personally I think of centre weighted, or spot, being the sophisticated solution, and matrix being the crude compromise. A bit like comparing the manual gearbox in a Ferrari to the automatic in a Ford and calling the former 'crude'.

August 8, 2012

In fact, it looks like there isn't a need for consideration in Scottish contract law at all, so all this talk of there not being consideration is doubly academic in this case.

August 8, 2012

Thanks Jeff, I'm an English lawyer, I don't need lecturing about consideration in the UK... also you're perpetuating a common misconception that the UK is one legal jurisdiction, it isn't. The OP seems to be in Scotland. However I suspect that Scottish rules on consideration are likely to be similar to England & Wales.

Consideration can involve promising to do something, or to give up a legal right, or to permit something that the other party wants to do and might otherwise not be able to do etc. So for example, allowing access to your premises to take pictures of food because the photographer thinks it might be good for his portfolio is good consideration because the restaurant is agreeing to provide something (access, waiving a right to object to the photographer entering their premises) and also because it provides some kind of benefit to the photographer (portfolio material).

Also, in the UK, if only one side offers consideration, it's not a valid contract.

</blockquote>

One side promises to provide access, and to be bound by the terms of usage of the license, the other side promises to take the pictures. There is consideration and there is a contract.

In fact, as I already mentioned, it wouldn't matter even if there wasn't a contract, since image use is protected by copyright and the restaurant can only use the images if they have a valid license covering the usage. If the contract was void, then it wouldn't help them. So it's of academic interest here. But there almost certainly is consideration and a contract.

By the way, you can also have unilateral contracts in English law, where only one side promises to do something. You can read about them <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract">here</a>. You'll note the example of consideration given there for a unilateral contract: "The consideration for the contract here is B's reliance on A's promise or B giving up his legal right to do whatever he wanted at the time he was engaged in the finding of the dog." Which is quite a tenuous consideration in monetary value terms, even quite tenuous in legal rights terms, but still regarded as valid consideration.

So consideration doesn't have to have an easily quantifiable monetary value. Not that it matters here anyway, just wanting to correct some misconceptions.

August 8, 2012

Agreed. Without consideration, it's just an agreement

</blockquote>

There almost certainly is consideration here, such as the restaurant agreeing to give access to allow the photos to be taken, or agreeing not to use the images in certain ways, so it'll be a legally enforceable contract, judging from the OP's description.

Even if it weren't a contract (which it is) the restrictions on use of the images would be enforceable under copyright law.

July 28, 2012

This is kind of arrogant. Lots of people want to obtain ownership of images they pay for.

</blockquote>

Sorry, I find your reply rather arrogant, and lacking any credibility.

Photographers have fought for decades for the right to copyright to their photographs. Many of them brilliant photographers, who also knew the business inside out.

Photographers' right to their copyright was hard won in legislation in the 1980's and nowadays amateurs of internet forums like this have a nasty habit of dismissing it as 'valueless' and trying to portray it as normal to give it away. Which it isn't, at least not among any photographers that I know, except perhaps at the very bottom of the market (or in certain very specific cases).

If you are going to try to undermine all that by telling us that giving away copyright is 'normal', then I would really like to know details of your photography business before taking anything you say seriously. How much do you earn from photographs a year? How does your particular business model work, and so on.

Otherwise, I find this kind of feeble dismissal of common sense, without even any attempt to justify your point of view if you have one, not worth the time of day.

July 26, 2012

I was missing Jacobs badly today. What I find maddening is shops that <a href="http://simoncroftsphoto.com/blog/?p=1631">offer you cameras that they can't actually sell</a>. What kind of business model is that?

July 25, 2012

when one woman held her purse in front of her face

</blockquote>

Almost certainly a hardened criminal on the run from enforcement agencies, afraid that you might put her on Facebook where the CIA face recognition software might pick her out.

Or: she was fantasising that she was a celebrity and you in the role of paparazzi.

I noticed with some people (usually I think ladies, but maybe that's just me being sexist) that they kind of really want to be photographed - but don't want to be photographed. The idea of the camera seems exciting, but they don't know how to react - so they get simultaneously excited and offended if you take a picture of them but even more offended (but not very excited) if you dare to ignore them and not take a picture.

I reckon there's a whole book out there to be written about the psychology of photography.

July 25, 2012

It's a pleasure Caroline, best just to explain politely and briefly to the client why giving copyright isn't needed, why it's not acceptable, but point out that she is full covered if she has a license to use the images how she wants, and that you wouldn't use the images commercially or in publicity without her agreement (the default position in law anyway, so not too hard to agree to). If she wants you to photograph her, she'll accept that, if not then don't waste time on it, just a short polite email.

You can even make a marketing point out of it. Personally, I wouldn't employ a photographer who cared so little about their images or their business, or who knew little about market practise that they would give copyright away without a thought, it tends to happen at the bottom end of the market - burn and gurn, dump and run etc., and it can look more professional if you can point out the very good reasons why you don't just hand over copyright. The same applies further up the market - where advertising agencies etc. might be wary of a photographer who isn't familiar with licensing practise in the market and is just willing to dump the images. It's partly a question of client perception, and a gentle, reasonable and polite letter explaining how things work is likely to reassure her and look professional. In the unlikely case that it doesn't (and I've never lost a client in this way), spend your time on other, more reasonable, clients.

July 25, 2012

There are other reasons to hang on to copyright, it's not just about whether you can promote yourself with the pictures. Scenarios may sound unlikely - but they do happen. What if you were to find the images being used to promote another business? That could be another photographer (let's say the client's sister decides to set up a baby photography business) you'd probably want to have the right to object. Or perhaps the client is setting up a business and wants to use the pictures to promote the business, and saw this as a cheap way to get hold of professional pictures without paying for a full advertising license. Or you might find that the pictures are going to be used in a magazine to illustrate an article - you might want either a separate payment for such use, or at the very least crediting as the author of the pictures.

She probably doesn't intend to do any of that, but she might. While most clients won't, sooner or later you will come across clients who will. Quite a few of my clients use the pictures we've taken of them in various family businesses. Happily I'm not aware of anyone yet who's wanted to use the pictures to set up a photography business, but sooner or later someone will. A couple of weeks ago a guest at a wedding who was shooting over my shoulder told me that he was planning to use some of the pics to set up a wedding business - I've absolutely no reason to believe that he would use any of my pictures alongside his own, but if he did then I would want to have the right to object. If I'd just given away copyright, I couldn't.

There are other reasons for not giving away copyright.

One reason is that clients need to be educated that it's not a normal thing to do. It's a perception thing.

Another is that the client doesn't NEED copyright (unless of course she really is going to set up a business using your pictures and doesn't want you to have the right to object). If she really is using the pictures just for family purposes, all that she needs is permission to use the pictures that is sufficiently wide that she can use them for what she needs, and agreement from you that you won't use them for your own promotion.

If you're going to be keeping copies of the pictures as a service in case she loses them, you don't want to be asking her for permission every time you make a back up.

In total, giving away copyright isn't just a question of whether you plan to use the pictures for self promotion. In fact, in the UK the law says that even if you have copyright you still need to get her permission if you want to publish the pictures, to use them in public promotional materials. So the question of copyright and use of the pictures for self-promotion are pretty much two separate issues.

June 26, 2012

"Just look at the top-rated photos"

Honestly, by far the best thing is simply not to look.

June 25, 2012

nothing stays the same except that everything keeps changing

</blockquote>

... and the more things change the more they stay the same. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

June 24, 2012

Interesting whether the Daily Mail paid for use of those images, given that that contemptible rag is notorious for copyright theft.

June 23, 2012

I guess this particular one can be cropped to be saved.

</blockquote>

That guy is the one thing that turns an otherwise dull picture into a really good one, not sure why you'd want to crop him out!

June 23, 2012

A lot of Mamiya 7's will have been used hard, simply because it's such a good camera, and ideal for demanding travel.

I've had mine for nearly 20 years, and it's had a hard battering in that time. But it's still going strong. In that time, of course it's had to be repaireds. Once the top plate needed replacing because I dropped it (or rather, it flew out of an improperly closed rucksack onto concrete). I did the same with a solidly built metal Nikon FM2 and a Contax G2 and the FM2 was a write-off, bent like a banana, while the G2 is barely working despite having been repaired. The Mamiya & came off best of the three. The plastic top plate of the Mamiya 7 absorbed the shock but cracked in the process. Happily it wasn't an expensive repair. Not a very scientific test, but I've no reason to complain about the survivability of the Mamiya 7 body.

I've had to have the rangefinder recalibrated two or three times. Not a particular problem.

The only serious working problem I have had was about three months ago while doing some demanding travelling. But that was a problem with the lens not the body - some screws were coming undone inside and the mount of the lens had shifted. Luckily some friends had a set of screwdrivers, opened the back of the lens, screwed it together, and it worked perfectly again.

Another failure I had last year was when I dropped it a second time. This far happily not far and onto carpet, but it was enough to break the separate viewfinder for the 43mm lens. Again, not a failure of the body, rather a lens accessory, and caused by me dropping it. Superglue sorted that one out.

BTW, I sound like a camera murderer - I don't think I make a habit of dropping cameras - I try to be careful with them and respect them - but over the years accidents happen.

It looks pretty battered now, but it's taken many thousands of pictures, been many thousands of miles, and the body has never stopped working. Of course, any camera can fail at any time, no matter who made it and what it's made of. But I've no reason to think it's going to give up any time in the near future.

June 4, 2012

You can check calibration very easily. Find a large room, preferable at least 8 metres long. At one end of the room, put something on the floor like a matchbox to mark your starting point. Look at the lens and see what distances are marked on it e.g.. 1 metre, 3 metres, 7 metres etc. Take a tape measure and measure out precisely those distances across the room from your starting point, and place a matchbox or similar at exactly each distance.

Once you have done that, place the Mamiya 7 on the floor with its focal plane mark coinciding with the starting point matchbox, and focus on e.g.. the 3 metre matchbox using the internal rangefinder. Focus carefully and precisely. Now look at the lens barrel: the lens should have focussed at exactly 3 metres according to the barrel markings. Repeat for 7 metres and any other focussing distances you may have marked on the barrel.

If the rangefinder and the lens barrel coincide for each distance, the lens is perfectly calibrated.

In practise, you may find that infinity may appear very slightly off, it shouldn't be a problem if it's a very minor misalignment.

You should repeat occasionally as calibration may drift off slightly with time or if the camera gets a bump.

May 17, 2012

Portra colour negative pushed four stops to 6400. The results were excellent. Of course there was grain, but not nearly as much as I expected.

February 23, 2012

Frank, you could try Cameratiks in Edinburgh. They recently repaired/serviced my Mamiya 7.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by simon_crofts