wind.dk

If the images are served from Iran, there's probably not a lot to do - it appears that Iran is one of the few countries that hasn't signed the Berne Convention. This is not something I actually *know*, I just googled a little to check.

 

You can ask (as politely or impolitely as you like) the site administrator to remove the images and see what happens. Maybe he'll respect your wishes and remove them. Maybe he doesn't know that what he's doing is legal (if it really is served from Iran) and will remove them out of fear.

 

Maybe he'll ignore you and keep the images up. In that case there's nothing you can do legally. He may not do the right thing, but he's doing the legal thing. Again, all assuming the images are served from Iran. And assuming there are no bilateral copyright protection agreements specifically between Iran and your country.

 

Or you can wait until Iran signs the Berne Convention, they'll probably get around to it some day.

To my knowledge (which isn't much yet) the Japanese would pronounce it nee-koh-nn, with equal stress on all three syllables...

 

In Denmark it's pronounced Nee-konn just the same as Nike - Nee-keh (the exception for the latter being when we're discussing running shoes rather than greek goddesses, but why would anyone want to do that).

Johnson Cheung got it most precisely right. Maybe this guy preferred spending 20 minutes watching the news, walking his dog, or even making photographs to sell or for personal pleasure over spending it writing an explanation to Mr. Bond for no compensation. I'm writing this now with no expectation of getting anything in return, but I'm free to stop, and in many cases I wouldn't even have started.

 

There's even a good chance he'd end up spending more time explaining his technique to you than you would spend using it. That's not sharing information, that's just wasting time. I'm not saying this would happen for sure, but come on, how often have you seen some technique explained, thought you'd like to do the same, but never got around to actually doing it? It happens to me all the time, and so I can't blame anyone for wanting to know the recipients better before investing time in their education.

 

Responding to an email about getting his book is a different matter - he can make money that way, you could say it's his job.

"Colour means that the Nikon knows what the dominant colour in the scene is. A traditional meter will usually underexpose snow or sand, because it doesn't expect you to shoot a scene that averages to be so much brighter than normal."

 

Snow is approximately the same "colour" as a lump of coal, only much brighter. The Moon incidentally is almost exactly the same brightness as coal, i.e. very very dark.

 

The classic under-/over-exposure cases can't be solved with colour information, nor is there any need as a normal matrix meter living up to advertisements (which they don't) would perform just fine. Adding colour information to the metering can make a difference in special cases.

 

For a simple example, imagine a purely red area, using arbitrary units a "grey" meter could make a reading of 1 and a colour meter would get (3,0,0) (of which the average is one, when for a moment I erroneously give all three colours equal weight). The colour meter would expose for red giving less exposure, while the grey meter would cause overexposure in red to make the average right.

 

You could say colour metering solves in colour space the problem that matrix metering solves in the image plane space, where areas of different brightness can make a fool of a simple centerweighted meter.

 

But then, if you know how to use your centerweighted, nobody is going to make a fool of you...

Yup, none of the two are in focus, her arm behind them is. Focus is always at a specific distance only (with advanced cameras/lenses the plane of focus can be tilted, but you can't do that). Depth of field can give sufficient sharpness over a range of distances, for this stopping down is required.

 

In this picture the DOF is probably sufficient if focus is right. Make sure you know which focus area is in use and use it as described above. If the D100 focus sensors behave like the ones in the F80, you may need to use the central one, the four others are not quite as good in some circumstances (they'll do a bit of hunting and give up).

I love mine, I bring it with me almost everywhere, except for exclusively low light work and yet... <A HREF="http://www.wind.dk/photographs/gallerypage/Berlinale54/Y04M02W07F4P34.crop">Here's an image made with it on Sensia 100 and FM3a body</A> and there is of course a lot more detail in that picture than the web will tell. Handheld against a lamppost, the result is more due to luck than any quality of the lens, but I like it in use and I like a lot of the pictures I make with it.

"5x4 was closer to the golden mean, as was the 18x24 movie frame. Lots of people have thought 3x2, 35mm still proportion too wide for their taste" - now that's a new way of interpreting "closer to".

 

The golden mean is approximately 1.618, 3x2 is 1.5 (0.118 difference), 5x4 is 1.25 (0.368 difference) and 24x18 is approximately 1.33 (0.288 difference), so the standard 36x24 of 35mm film is the closest to the golden section we have in normal still image formats. Adding an extra sprocket hole (making it nine) would have got us 1.6875 with a difference of 0.0695, so if he really went for the golden mean, we'd have had an even wider format today.

 

Of course it doesn't matter a hoot in this discussion, but I just thought I'd put it right. Regardless of the dimensions however, framing is such an integral part of photography, it's weird to discuss it's importance. Imagine a photograph without framing - yeah well, it doesn't really exist, so without a frame, there's no picture.

 

But then what about the exact framing for the subject?

 

In most "fine art" photography it's obviously important, but in other categories it's often far more important than people are aware. Your students who say the cherry blossoms are beautiful and the boy is pretty, would they still say that if the image was framed differently? How about a closer crop - the cherry blossoms would be less dominant, maybe to insignificance. A wider crop - the boy would be too tiny to be recognizable. An off center composition - it might not fit the calm simplicity of the subject. Just because people don't say "this picture is good because of this and that and because it is framed just so" it doesn't mean they're not (maybe subconsciously) affected by the framing.

 

I don't know if the people in question are studying photography or visual arts, but if they're not, it's just the same as when I say I like Beethoven, I can't tell you why I think his 5th Symphony is great, because technically I can't tell it apart from the random cacophony of an orchestra tuning. Or why it's such a joy to read a book by Murakami, it's just a story...

 

In news photography the headline is usually the most important thing for people's perception of the image, with the caption coming second. Many prize winning news photos would never have been noticed if they were not connected with something important, because they could not stand on their own. But even so, the ones you remember I think are mostly the ones where the subject is not only interesting but the composition well-made too, whether by design or by chance. Also what you include or exclude in the photograph beyond the main subject can be significant.

 

So maybe it's not a matter of the photo as an object rather than a window on the world, but the photo as an object making you notice the world, whether it's the beauty of the cherry blossoms, the ugliness of war or whatever else can fit in a frame.

Yes, but we won't necessarily be right in doing so.

If you asked about shipping to Denmark, USPS (if I'm right in assuming this is the normal postal service) would be the only option. Sure DHL, UPS and FedEx will offer their services, but their services are useless at best.

 

There's no point in "tracking" your package to be informed it's currently in a plane over Kuwait, when the messenger has already left a note saying you can pick it up in a warehouse 17 miles out of town - after you've paid customs and an additional fee of $10 or $20 for something they knew they would have to do when they originally calculated the already inflated shipping cost.

 

Ordinary mail and packages are delivered by the postman, if you're not at home, they can be picked up at the local post office, never more than 10 minutes walk away. Any customs are calculated without additional fees.

 

After a few bad experiences and no good ones, I've completely stopped buying from people and shops who insist on using courier services, it's never worth the trouble.

 

If at least it was faster... but it ain't.

I can't think of any real friend who wouldn't gladly pay the cost of the print plus a dollar or two to cover part of the other expenses for a good picture, unless they really are broke.

 

You can always give volume discounts for people who just want digital files on a CD, something like $5 or $10 for 15 images, but I wouldn't on the prints.

 

If all you want to do is cover your expenses, there seems to be no need to bring copyright into it, not for $26 total.

 

All this assumes you did it primarily for your own fun. If you were expected to make photographs even if you didn't feel like it that evening, you should treat it as a (small) business and that means adding more overhead. Not this time maybe, but next time.

 

PS: What a beautiful yet sad and tragic story in your biography ;-)

Are you turning the right part? A polarizer has two parts, one with the actual filter which can rotate relative to the other which is mounted on the lens. The latter usually has a slimmer edge and it's this you need to unscrew.

<P>Wow, Bob Blakley asked for <EM>my</EM> theories! Like my interpretation makes a difference, whee, I'm important <CODE>:)</CODE> My previous post incidentally wasn't based on my beliefs, merely on what I read. So here are my beliefs in this matter:</P>

 

<P>First of all, "phased out" does not specify a time frame, it could be over five years, twenty years or maybe just one year, but to my knowledge it excludes the possibility of it happening overnight.</P>

 

<P>So yes, I believe they plan to stop producing film backs. I haven't got a clue when, but the reason will be low or no sales at the prices required to cover costs.</P>

 

<P>Yes, I believe they plan to stop producing systems with modular backs. I haven't got a clue when, but the reason will be low or no sales at the prices required to cover costs.</P>

 

<P>And yes, to the extent required, they'll re-design their current lines not to accept film. Why do I believe it? Because they've already done it, it's called the H1 D, and they've done it because they can sell it cheaper than a H1 with detachable digital back. Apparently it took'em all af two months to develop.</P>

 

<P>What I <EM>don't</EM> believe is that my guesses, beliefs or even my desires makes any difference to what Hasselblad's management decides - I don't even own a 'Blad! My hope is all this will bring second-hand prices further down to a level even I can afford - I really like film, and I'd like to have a medium format SLR...</P>

For the record, *all* my OMs have developed this problem. Of course I only have one and it's a bottom of the line OM-10, so just getting a quote for the cost of repair would be half the price of the camera...

 

So until I can fix it myself, I'm using my other systems.

<P>FYI, for at least one of their lenses, Nikon does indeed provide a protective filter as standard. The 45/2.8P comes with a 52mm NC - once the hood is on you wouldn't even know it was there when looking into it (<A HREF="http://www.wind.dk/photographs/gallerypage/Berlinale54/Y04M02W07F4P34.crop">example of a picture I like, made using that lens, filter and dedicated hood</A>). As to why they don't do it with all lenses, you might as well ask why they don't supply lenses with all their camera bodies, or camera bags with them or cable releases with tripods or whatever else... Presumably it must be a bad idea to carry your equipment in a padded bag, use a cable release with a tripod or simply to have a lens on the camera <CODE>;)</CODE></P>

 

<P>And now to answer the question, I virtually always have a filter on my lenses, it may already have saved one of them. Mostly I use B&W so many of the filters have some colour. I use multicoated if given the choice, and mostly B+W and Nikon. Hmm, now I think about it, make that only B+W and Nikon, the one old Leica filter I have doesn't see much use and a few others of questionable origin aren't on any of my currently favoured lenses. My colour filters are B+W and my plain protective filters are Nikon L37c's. My polarizer is also a Nikon.</P>

 

<P>Depending on what you photograph, you could consider getting a polarizer as "protective" filter. It's a lot more than that, and you'll need to be aware of it's effect. Some people will tell you it's horrible to use a polarizer on a wide angle, as a rule <A HREF="http://www.wind.dk/photographs/gallerypage/ottersjo/Y03M10W42FB3P08.scope">don't believe them</A> and just take off the filter for the shot, if it happens to have an undesirable effect.</P>

 

<P>Can I see a difference between filters? Between filters and no filters? Disregarding special effects (colour and polarization), I haven't bothered to investigate. Any flare - be it diffuse reduction of contrast or identifiable reflections - can usually be explained by dust, using a zoom with a gazillion elements, no hood or strong lights in view <A HREF="http://www.wind.dk/photographs/gallerypage/pretentious/Y04Q2P30">or nearly in view</A>. The dust is of course much easier to clean off a flat filter than a curved lens, not to mention it's much cheaper to change the filter if you damage it when cleaning.</P>

The article in short:

 

Another 60 people are going to be fired from the company in Göteborg (Sweden, not Switzerland) after 175 have already gone that way during the past year. That leaves 70 in Göteborg, where they're going to concentrate on fine mechanics (maybe just the R&D, my Swedish is incomplete) and assembly, the latter part becoming less important as they're concentrating on digital.

 

Office functions and digital product development is moved to Copenhagen, parts are to be manufactured by subcontractors, electronics by subcontractors in Asia, and film models are to be phased out to cut losses.

 

Also to reduce losses, rebates are reduced or removed (I don't know exactly what "slopas" means) and prices are increased to compensate for the weak dollar. Finally their new integrated digital camera is cheaper than a camera complete with separate digital back.

 

The sum of all this from the customer's viewpoint: They're going to produce less film cameras, eventually none, current prices are increased (maybe only in the US), they're going to streamline their digital cameras.

 

And now for the big question, why am I even reading the Wedding... Forum?

<p>Hmm, I'll try to answer your question in three different ways, depending on the interpretation of depicting a moment.</p>

 

<ol>

<li>

<strong>Depicting a moment from a part of the real world, i.e. news documentary.</strong>

 

<p>Decent cinematography is virtually impossible to do in an uncontrolled setting, so great documentary images will mostly come from still photographers. What's more, currently most documentary filming is done on video, and they could just as well do an interpretive shadow play as far as information content is concerned.</p>

 

<p>If it weren't for your previous question, I would have guessed this wasn't what you meant, since it is a very insignificant aspect of cinematography, now virtually non-existent. I'm not including non-news documentary like A Brief History of Time and such, that can be just as great as fiction movies.</p>

 

</li>

 

<li>

<strong>Depicting a very short interval of time, essentially a single photograph or a still frame from a movie.</strong>

 

<p>That's not what cinematography is about, the comparison is like comparing the taste of apples and omnibuses.</p>

 

<p>Now, I guess this definitely isn't what you mean.</p>

 

</li>

 

<li>

<strong>Still photographs versus entire movies or scenes from movies.</strong>

 

<p>This time it's more like an apples and oranges comparison, but at least they can both be eaten, so I'll give it a shot. However the main problem with the question now is the implicit assumption - one that also applied to documentary - that still photography produces greater results than cinematography. Where did that come from?</p>

 

<p>I've seen many great photographs, but few that came close to the pillars bursting through the fields of green in Brazil and nothing that compares to the full impact af spending three hours watching Il Gattopardo or marvelling at the movements and angles in Letyat Zhuravli.</p>

 

<p>On the other hand, great cinematography not only requires great talent and experience, it usually also costs a lot and those requirements are rarely combined. For most movies, Hollywood in particular, doing it "good enough" according to the established rules is all that's required and it's done with the same regularity - and financial reasoning - as product stills. And finally, if the other aspects of moviemaking, like telling a story, acting etc. are no good, even the greatest cinematography in the world won't make much difference.</p>

 

<p>Still photography on the other hand can be done by anyone with a few pounds to spare, literally in your kitchen sink. So there can easily be a lot more great photographs than great cinematographs, but that's just quantity.</p>

 

</li>

 

</ol>

 

<hr width="25%">

 

<p>Adam Weiss gave a birthday party as example, and indeed ordinary people can get lucky and make a great still photo - greater than planned for. Nobody gets lucky with moving pictures, when you're lucky what you planned works as hoped, when you're unlucky (without experience most of the time) it doesn't. Of course most of the time, you get neither a good video (I know, it's virtually an oxymoron) nor a great photograph.</p>

 

<p>The example however also mentions another aspect - how you experience the end product. You sit down to watch moving pictures and they are presented to you in a specific interval of time and in a specific order and then it's over. It happens in time. A still image is something you can put on your wall and see whenever you feel like it. You can watch it for as long or as short as you like. It's a different experience. You can watch the greatest photograph you can think of continuously for a couple of hours, but you can't experience the greatest moment of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony continuously in the same way, just to give an example of something else that happens in time. So is Beethoven inferior to, say Ansel Adams?</p>

 

<p>While we're on the subject of sounds, what do you remember best from the first landing on the Moon? An image? A movie? Or maybe a spoken sentence?</p>

 

<p>So the short answer is, there are no five reasons, because a photo moment is <em>not</em> inherently greater than a Cinematography moment. It's two different media.</p>

It probably wont be noticeable except under extreme conditions, like having the Sun in view, and probably only when used wide open. Even then you may not be able to see any degradation. If you have a hood for the lens, use it. A small crack should have a similar effect to a speck of dust, reflecting a little unwanted light into the lens.

<P>This may not be what you want to hear, but still, for what it's worth (pretty much nothing), here's my opinion:</P>

 

<P>If you're willing to carry a Leica with four lenses <STRONG>and</STRONG> an EOS with 3 f/2.8-zooms, the solution is very simple and obvious. Sell all of it and buy a medium format SLR system. It'll weigh less, give you accurate framing and produce a quality you couldn't even dream of with your 35mm equipment. In addition you'll suddenly have a lot of spare cash - enough to buy you lots of extra free time to find just the right view to photograph.</P>

 

<P>That's not what I'd recommend though, unless you really do want the best images for blowing up to large sizes (short of large format). If I were in your place, I'd leave the EOS at home and lacking the experience required to know how the Leica frames the image, I'd just forget about accurate framing. If necessary frame wider and crop later, or bracket.</P>

 

<P>The whole point is that what makes Leicas great can be very briefly summed up as very high optical quality <STRONG>in a small package</STRONG>. There are other things, ease of handling, pleasing mechanics, responsiveness, low noise, casualness etc. but those things don't seem to apply in this situation. The only really good reason to bring a Leica M for landscapes is the desire to travel as light as possible and still get some decent pictures.</P>

 

<P>An alternative solution would be to leave the M at home, bring the EOS system with polarizers, make a lot of pictures at f/8 and afterwards claim the deep blue of the sky and the intense autumn colours are due to the marvellous qualities of your Leica lenses. Most people will be very impressed and forever tell everyone about the superiority of Leica over everything else, and a few people will "know" you used a special polarizer designed for the Leica system. A very few people may actually be able to see that you haven't used a Leica at all, assuming you first tell them of that possibility.</P>

If he has paid the costs, the models haven't refused to pose for your pictures (whether you could use them or not) and you have made a calendar and portfolio for all of them, the original agreement as you have stated it, has been fulfilled by all parties.

 

If he wants more from you it follows you will need further compensation either for the extra work and costs or for giving up your property (material negatives or copyrights or both). The former is likely quite expensive, the latter depends on how much the negatives and rights are worth to you (from what you write I suspect that's very little) and how much they're worth to him (a bit more maybe, but probably not terribly much either).

 

Or have you only made a portfolio for the girl who met your expectations? If the other girls have spent time on posing for you (also if only for their portfolio, it's not their fault if you couldn't think of any other photographic use for them - just how ugly are they?) and your relative has spent money on materials, I'd say you were in breach of contract there, whether it be verbal or written. They have provided what they should and you can't give it back now. The easy solution if they agree to it, is to turn over the pictures without postprocessing. Otherwise you're still obliged to fulfill your part of the deal.

 

I'm no lawyer, this is based on what I believe is right.

<P>... in the sixties... perhaps.</P>

 

<P>I must admit, I've never understood this obsession with second-hand sale value. Although a Leica does come in handy in <A HREF="http://www.dfi.dk/dfi/english/featurefilms/reconstruction.html">Reconstruction</A>, the average Leica owner will probably be killed by a meteorite more often than really truly benefit from the resale value of his or her equipment - after taking the accumulated financial loss of the original purchase into consideration.</P>

 

<P>What such an old price list really shows, if it shows anything at all, is that Leicas have remained expensive while comparable equipment has come down in price.</P>

 

<P>For the record, death by meteorite is not as improbable as usually assumed, and Reconstruction is in <A HREF="http://www.wind.dk/film.descriptions/?handle=reconstruction.c_boe">my opinion</A> a very good movie - <CITE>"Never trust a man with a camera"</CITE> <CODE>:-D</CODE></P>

I'd heard about squeegees scratching negatives, so I just make sure I clean mine before every use, and haven't had a problem yet. The name is so cool anyway you just have to use them :)

 

(I'm sure someone will suggest using your fingers or a cloth or something. The important thing is to get rid of excess water in a way that works for you without scratching anything)

 

Using a wetting agent in the final rinse and on the squeegee should also ease the drying, but I've never tried *without* wetting agent, so I don't know from personal experience if it makes any difference.

 

After that, just hang the film to dry for a couple of hours or so. It curls less if the surrounding air is very moist, I use my bathroom and get the best results if I take a hot shower just before developing :D

 

Of course it takes a little longer to dry in moist air, something like three hours for me, but the moisture also reduces dust so there's no reason for rushing it.

If using a Microsoft e-mail client, switch off the instant viewing pane or what it's called (it's a damned nuisance anyway). Then don't open e-mails with attachments coming from people you don't know without checking them first - or even from people you do know, if it looks a little suspicious, they're not that hard to spot.

 

In fact modern e-mail carried viruses are so easy to spot it requires such a bare minimum of common sense that apparently humans are the only species that can't manage it.

 

Most of the e-mail viruses can be sorted out with a filter taking all of 30 seconds to create in Outlook Express.

 

You can still get anti-virus software, but do not rely on it - someone has to discover a virus before the antivirus software can be corrected to protect against it, and then the update needs to be distributed. In the meantime your only protection is common sense.

 

Or just switch to a non-Microsoft mail client - the only really good mail client ever to come from Microsoft is the Macintosh version of Outlook Express, which is just as safe as if it hadn't been made by Microsoft at all. So there's no real need to use an exposed piece of software.

 

For non-email carried viruses, a firewall, NAT, or just a plain router will offer most of the protection you need. If you have just one computer, a personal firewall of some kind is probably best for you.

I like the transitions to the highlight areas much much better in the Tri-X image, so much so, I'd toss the digital version immediately if this was the best it could be.

 

But without knowing what improvements can be made with reasonable postprocessing (of either image), it doesn't say so much.

 

It is of course a matter of taste, but I wonder just why you consider this particular digital image to be better than this particular film image. Suspecting trolls is the knee-jerk reaction around here, so maybe that's it...

Strangely enough, this reminds me of this <A HREF="http://imaginatorium.org/stuff/chand95.htm">Lens Test - the Chandlor 95mm f/2 for EOS mount</A>.

"This is why there are image bank type products, plus in Europe it's easy to find internet cafes where you can burn CDs from your cards."

 

Where? Please tell me where? I live in "Europe", so this information could become very useful to me.

 

My personal take on this, from my existing equipment I'd take a FM3a with 50/1.4 and if buying on a "money no object" basis, I guess it would be an M6 Classic or MP with 35/2 or 35/1.4.

 

Of course in reality, I would not consider bringing less than two lenses on any kind of extended trip, at least not until I get some good medium format equipment.