This is in response to an article on the Amateur Photographer website.
A U.K. based media chain is in the process of eliminating many of its staff photographers. There plan to rely heavily on pictures sent in by readers or taken off of Social Media sites. A huge kerfuffle arose as a result of an article that appeared in the Guardian defending the move.
The articles stated that newspapers (especially the weekly newspapers run by the media chain involved) should only employ freelance photographers. They had no need for staff photographers, and could get by largely using photographs from other sources.
The professional photography community excoriated the author.
The very idea that a news organization can rely on outside photographers is ludicrous. How are they supposed to guarantee that anyone photographs a subject if they don't send a photographer to take photos?
Not having a staff photographer forces a newspaper or media chain to rely on dumb luck when it comes to having pictures to run with a story, especially for events that are scheduled in advance. Relying on dumb luck is not a sound business model.
The idea that "everybody taking pictures" means that the professional photographers are redundant when it comes to new is also extremely demeaning to professional photographers.
There is a difference between someone that takes photos and a professional photographer.
A Professional photographer knows how to do more than simply record events as they occur.
Saying that staff photographers are redundant because everyone takes pictures is akin to saying that staff reporters are redundant because everyone can write a report.
This is ironic since the author of the article defending eliminating staff photographers happens to be a journalism professor. If the ability to write a report was all that was needed to be a reporter, the author of this idiotic article wouldn't have a job. His job relies on there being a different between writing a report and being a profession reporter.
It is telling that he fails to recognize the distinction when it comes to the other branch of journalism.
There is also a certain amount of risk involved in this move. Media outlets can only guarantee an image's copyright status when dealing with the photographer on a personal basis. Relying on images sent in from unknown individuals or taken off of social media prevents this.
Ask Getty why this matters.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Monday, January 27, 2014
Off Topic Post: Quentin Tarantino Sues Gawker for Copyright Infringement
Hat Tip: Hollywood Reporter
This does have some relevance when discussing photography. Copyright law covers photography the same way it covers things like movie scripts.
The complaint filed by Tarantino's lawyers can be viewed on the Hollywood Reporter web site in .pdf form. I find some of the language used amusing. I especially like the accusation of "predatory journalism" and "violating people's right to make a buck."
That is not language used by a professional attorney. That is language used by a Drama Queen.
I get the distinct impression that Tarantino was heavily involved in drafting the complaint.
The complaint basically boils down to Tarantino complaining that Gawker had the audacity to include a link to the script that someone else had posted online in their online article about the script being leaked.
Script leaks happen all the time in Hollywood. They usually result in creating interest in the film.
So Tarantino scraps the film after the script for his film is leaked?
Sounds like he didn't like the response he was getting from the people that read it and is now looking for a way to make money off of it that doesn't involve actually shooting the movie.
He apparently has reached the conclusion that the movie would be a money looser.
Why Does This Matter?
The cause of action against Gawker is something called "contributory infringement." Gawker itself did not engage in copying or disseminating the script. No copying on their part means no copyright violation.
They're being accused of something akin to aiding and abetting. Photographers should keep this in mind when dealing with cases involving unauthorized use of their material. The person copying and disseminating the material may not be the only party subject to a suit for damages.
The problem I see Tarantino having is that he hasn't named the actual party responsible for the copyright violation and he's going to have problem showing damages.
The movie script only has value to Tarantino if he makes the movie. He chose not to do so. His actions are why the script lost it's value, not Gawker's actions in linking to the upload. And any argument that leaking the script harmed Tarantino will face a large uphill struggle.
It's not like knowing the text of a script will prevent people from seeing the Movie. How many people read the Harry Potter books before watching them on film?
This does have some relevance when discussing photography. Copyright law covers photography the same way it covers things like movie scripts.
The complaint filed by Tarantino's lawyers can be viewed on the Hollywood Reporter web site in .pdf form. I find some of the language used amusing. I especially like the accusation of "predatory journalism" and "violating people's right to make a buck."
That is not language used by a professional attorney. That is language used by a Drama Queen.
I get the distinct impression that Tarantino was heavily involved in drafting the complaint.
The complaint basically boils down to Tarantino complaining that Gawker had the audacity to include a link to the script that someone else had posted online in their online article about the script being leaked.
Script leaks happen all the time in Hollywood. They usually result in creating interest in the film.
So Tarantino scraps the film after the script for his film is leaked?
Sounds like he didn't like the response he was getting from the people that read it and is now looking for a way to make money off of it that doesn't involve actually shooting the movie.
He apparently has reached the conclusion that the movie would be a money looser.
Why Does This Matter?
The cause of action against Gawker is something called "contributory infringement." Gawker itself did not engage in copying or disseminating the script. No copying on their part means no copyright violation.
They're being accused of something akin to aiding and abetting. Photographers should keep this in mind when dealing with cases involving unauthorized use of their material. The person copying and disseminating the material may not be the only party subject to a suit for damages.
The problem I see Tarantino having is that he hasn't named the actual party responsible for the copyright violation and he's going to have problem showing damages.
The movie script only has value to Tarantino if he makes the movie. He chose not to do so. His actions are why the script lost it's value, not Gawker's actions in linking to the upload. And any argument that leaking the script harmed Tarantino will face a large uphill struggle.
It's not like knowing the text of a script will prevent people from seeing the Movie. How many people read the Harry Potter books before watching them on film?
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Fujifilm Patents New Color Filter Array for Digital Cameras
Hat Tip: DP Review
Fujifilm has a history of designing (and using) digital camera sensors that diverge from the traditional design used by almost every other digital camera manufacturer.
The sensor used to in digital cameras are actually only capable of detect how much light hits the sensor at each light receptor (pixel). The light hitting the sensor has to be filtered so that different pixels are hit by different colors of light. Some are hit by red, others by green or blue. These values are then used to render a color image.
Bayer Pattern
Most digital cameras use a Bayer pattern in the filter used to produce color information.
This regular pattern works well, most of the time. Problems can occur when photographing something that also has a regular pattern, like a window screen. The two patterns interact with each other to form an artificially pattern, called a moire pattern, in the end image. (Diagonal lines of alternating colors for example.)
Sensors that use this Bayer pattern will use a "low-pass" or "anti-aliasing" filter in front of the sensor to avoid this pattern in the end image. This filter works by slightly blurring the light as it paces though the filter.
This results in slight loss of detail.
X-Trans Filter
This is a color filter developed by Fujifilm to address moire. It replaces the regular pattern found in the Bayer filter with a less regular pattern.
This enables Fujifilm to remove the low pass filter without increasing the risk of moire patterns occurring when using their cameras. This increases the level of detail the camera can capture slightly.
The Latest Patent
The latest sensor patent filed by Fujifilm combines a sensor array that utilizes different pixel sizes with a filter that utilizes clear filters as well as colored.
The addition of clear filter areas and larger pixels should make the sensor more sensitive in low light conditions, lowering noise taken in low light.
The downside is a sensor that is more complex to manufacture. This should increase its cost when compared to the Bayer based sensors used in other cameras.
It also looks like the sensor may have more open space when compared to the Bayer sensor. (This could just be due to the drawing used in the patent.)
Alternatively, Fujifilm might be able to produce similar result simply by alternating the filter used with the current sensor. Adding clear areas and using a a pattern like this:
might allow Fujifilm to emulate the results of the patented sensor without have to increase manufacturing costs.
BTW, if you're wondering why the green areas are larger than the blue and red, that's because the human eye is more sensitive to that wavelength (color) of light than the other two
Fujifilm has a history of designing (and using) digital camera sensors that diverge from the traditional design used by almost every other digital camera manufacturer.
The sensor used to in digital cameras are actually only capable of detect how much light hits the sensor at each light receptor (pixel). The light hitting the sensor has to be filtered so that different pixels are hit by different colors of light. Some are hit by red, others by green or blue. These values are then used to render a color image.
Bayer Pattern
Most digital cameras use a Bayer pattern in the filter used to produce color information.
This regular pattern works well, most of the time. Problems can occur when photographing something that also has a regular pattern, like a window screen. The two patterns interact with each other to form an artificially pattern, called a moire pattern, in the end image. (Diagonal lines of alternating colors for example.)
Sensors that use this Bayer pattern will use a "low-pass" or "anti-aliasing" filter in front of the sensor to avoid this pattern in the end image. This filter works by slightly blurring the light as it paces though the filter.
This results in slight loss of detail.
X-Trans Filter
This is a color filter developed by Fujifilm to address moire. It replaces the regular pattern found in the Bayer filter with a less regular pattern.
This enables Fujifilm to remove the low pass filter without increasing the risk of moire patterns occurring when using their cameras. This increases the level of detail the camera can capture slightly.
The Latest Patent
The latest sensor patent filed by Fujifilm combines a sensor array that utilizes different pixel sizes with a filter that utilizes clear filters as well as colored.
The addition of clear filter areas and larger pixels should make the sensor more sensitive in low light conditions, lowering noise taken in low light.
The downside is a sensor that is more complex to manufacture. This should increase its cost when compared to the Bayer based sensors used in other cameras.
It also looks like the sensor may have more open space when compared to the Bayer sensor. (This could just be due to the drawing used in the patent.)
Alternatively, Fujifilm might be able to produce similar result simply by alternating the filter used with the current sensor. Adding clear areas and using a a pattern like this:
might allow Fujifilm to emulate the results of the patented sensor without have to increase manufacturing costs.
BTW, if you're wondering why the green areas are larger than the blue and red, that's because the human eye is more sensitive to that wavelength (color) of light than the other two
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
New Youtube Video on How Digital Cameras Work
The people over at the Head Squeeze Youtube Channel recently uploaded a video on how digital cameras work. The video features James May of the BBC show Top Gear.
I do have a couple of comment.
First, the video is a little off when it comes to the resolution available 10 years ago. 3 to 4 megapixel cameras were readily available in 2003/2004. The 5 megapixel Olympus E-1 came out at the end of 2003. The more consumer oriented, 4 Megapixel HP Photosmart 850 dates to fall of that year. (Price was about $500 at the time).
The 1 megapixel era is closer to 15 years ago.
Oddly enough, this is about the time that the singing bass was popular. (Watch the video)
Secondly, the "My Cat Looks Like Hitler" web forum?
Okay
Just couldn't leave that one alone. Actually found one.
Edit: Forgot the hat tip on this.
The Pop Photo writer had a similar response to the 1 megapixel statement.
I do have a couple of comment.
First, the video is a little off when it comes to the resolution available 10 years ago. 3 to 4 megapixel cameras were readily available in 2003/2004. The 5 megapixel Olympus E-1 came out at the end of 2003. The more consumer oriented, 4 Megapixel HP Photosmart 850 dates to fall of that year. (Price was about $500 at the time).
The 1 megapixel era is closer to 15 years ago.
Oddly enough, this is about the time that the singing bass was popular. (Watch the video)
Secondly, the "My Cat Looks Like Hitler" web forum?
Okay
Just couldn't leave that one alone. Actually found one.
Edit: Forgot the hat tip on this.
The Pop Photo writer had a similar response to the 1 megapixel statement.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Another Way to Sell Your Photography or Artwork
Shutterbug recently posted an online article on Photography eBooks.
It's a fairly lengthy article and includes Question/Answers from several professional photographers that have published eBooks. It also includes links to the photographers' works as well as links relevant for those looking to publish their own eBook.
Photography eBooks represent another option when it comes to making money off of photography. (The information is applicable to non-photography eBooks as well.)
I haven't tried this yet, but here are some of my thoughts on the subject.
First, you'll need a fairly large number of quality photographs to make this work. With a calendar you can get by with 12 or 13 good photos. A book is going to require far more than that. The exact number will depend on the number of pages involved as well as the number of photos on each page. A good eBook could require several hundred quality photos.
That is a great deal of time and effort.
Remember, there is no reason why the individual photos can't be offered for sale while you are accumulating enough for a book. Offering the photos for sale (or displaying them on a website) can help create interest in the book once it's finished.
Secondly, books covering a limited subject are probably easier to market.
My suggestion is concentrating on local subjects. There is less effort needed. Think about the subjects that the local tourist board would advertise when trying to generate interest. The local tourist board might be interested in working with a photographer working on photographing local subjects. They might even be interested in offering the eBook for sale on their website.
Non-tourist subject will work as well and may offer logical outlets for the sale of the book. For example, geology enthusiasts might be interested in a mineral photography eBook and there are websites dedicated to the subject.
Think about the potential outlets for the book before starting it.
If you want advice from people that have actually published eBooks, read the Shutterbug article.
It's a fairly lengthy article and includes Question/Answers from several professional photographers that have published eBooks. It also includes links to the photographers' works as well as links relevant for those looking to publish their own eBook.
Photography eBooks represent another option when it comes to making money off of photography. (The information is applicable to non-photography eBooks as well.)
I haven't tried this yet, but here are some of my thoughts on the subject.
First, you'll need a fairly large number of quality photographs to make this work. With a calendar you can get by with 12 or 13 good photos. A book is going to require far more than that. The exact number will depend on the number of pages involved as well as the number of photos on each page. A good eBook could require several hundred quality photos.
That is a great deal of time and effort.
Remember, there is no reason why the individual photos can't be offered for sale while you are accumulating enough for a book. Offering the photos for sale (or displaying them on a website) can help create interest in the book once it's finished.
Secondly, books covering a limited subject are probably easier to market.
My suggestion is concentrating on local subjects. There is less effort needed. Think about the subjects that the local tourist board would advertise when trying to generate interest. The local tourist board might be interested in working with a photographer working on photographing local subjects. They might even be interested in offering the eBook for sale on their website.
Non-tourist subject will work as well and may offer logical outlets for the sale of the book. For example, geology enthusiasts might be interested in a mineral photography eBook and there are websites dedicated to the subject.
Think about the potential outlets for the book before starting it.
If you want advice from people that have actually published eBooks, read the Shutterbug article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)