Hat Tip: ePhotozine
Christie's is currently holding an online auction of British Modern & Contemporary Photography.
The auction consists of 30 lots and includes some iconic images. (This includes well known images of Twiggy and David Bowie.)
Prices are in British Pounds. (The U.S. dollar equivalent is also listed.)
The auction lasts until 8:00 AM Thursday, May 14. American Central Time.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Facebook Doesn't Own Photos You Post (But They Might As Well.)
This one comes from a viral email that is apparently circulating stating the Facebook owns the photos you post to that site.
No. Facebook does not gain ownership of photos posted to their site. Ownership remains with the original owner.
But posting to Facebook does have ramifications when it comes to copyright.
Facebook's TOS state that posting images to their site grants Facebook a license to use that image. The actually language states "you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook."
It's the "tansferable" and "sub-licensable" parts that are important here.
Those terms allow Facebook to allow other people to use the images posted to Facebook without seeking permission from the person that originally posted it.
While you don't lose ownership of images posted to Facebook, you do lose a great deal of control. The only way to regain that control is to delete the images from Facebook, and that won't do anything to address the existence of copies elsewhere.
If you want to retain control of an image (including the right to license it for a fee) do not post it to Facebook.
No. Facebook does not gain ownership of photos posted to their site. Ownership remains with the original owner.
But posting to Facebook does have ramifications when it comes to copyright.
Facebook's TOS state that posting images to their site grants Facebook a license to use that image. The actually language states "you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook."
It's the "tansferable" and "sub-licensable" parts that are important here.
Those terms allow Facebook to allow other people to use the images posted to Facebook without seeking permission from the person that originally posted it.
While you don't lose ownership of images posted to Facebook, you do lose a great deal of control. The only way to regain that control is to delete the images from Facebook, and that won't do anything to address the existence of copies elsewhere.
If you want to retain control of an image (including the right to license it for a fee) do not post it to Facebook.
Monday, May 11, 2015
Blog Update: New Auction Related Pages
I have recently decided to start blogging a little more on auctions and have added several pages on the subject: an Auction Survival Guide, a page for Auction Tips, and a page on How to Find Auctions.
These pages are currently very much works in progress. The plan is to update them as I have time.
These pages are currently very much works in progress. The plan is to update them as I have time.
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Chance to win Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD Macro Lens
Digital Photography School is currently hosting a contest where the prize is a Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD Macro lens.
All you need to do to enter is leave a comment on the contest page describing why you want to win the lens and how you would use it.
(They do suggest visiting the lens information page first. I suggest using the page's link as the site does have ways to track whether you actually visit the information page in question.)
The lens is designed for "Canon, Nikon or Sony small-sensor cameras."
That means cameras with APS-C sized sensors.
All you need to do to enter is leave a comment on the contest page describing why you want to win the lens and how you would use it.
(They do suggest visiting the lens information page first. I suggest using the page's link as the site does have ways to track whether you actually visit the information page in question.)
The lens is designed for "Canon, Nikon or Sony small-sensor cameras."
That means cameras with APS-C sized sensors.
Monday, April 27, 2015
I'm Now on Etsy
I have recently opened an Esty store.
This store is a little different from the other selling sites listed. Those sites are where you can purchase copies of my photos or artwork.
Etsy is for other items.
I have been an avid auction attendee since the early 1990's. Selling on Etsy gives me the chance to make a little money from that hobby.
Etsy does allow sellers to offer digital files, so I might include some digital downloads there. (Images are one option but there are other options.)
This also gives me something to write about besides photography.
The photography news lately has been very limited, mainly covering new lenses and cameras. I currently don't have access to these items to review them myself and I have little interest in blogging based on reviews posted by someone else.
I did post links to those reviews at one time, but that became too time consuming when I started my day job.
I will continue to write on photography related subjects but will also include posts on other subjects, including Etsy updates.
For those looking for a place to sell photographic prints, Etsy is an option. Selling prints on the site does require you to print the images yourself. This does give you some control over the quality of the images sold. It also forces you to deal with the printing and shipping the prints.
Etsy does charge listing fees as well as charging a commission on sales.
The listing fee is only 20 cents per item and the listing lasts for four months.
Etsy also offers sellers a credit card reader. This allows sellers to allow buyers to buy directly from the seller while using their credit card. This is a viable option for anyone interested in direct sells to the public. (Like an art fair.)
All you need is a cell phone, an Etsy account and the credit card reader.
There is a per transaction fee when using the reader. (Roughly 3%.)
This store is a little different from the other selling sites listed. Those sites are where you can purchase copies of my photos or artwork.
Etsy is for other items.
I have been an avid auction attendee since the early 1990's. Selling on Etsy gives me the chance to make a little money from that hobby.
Etsy does allow sellers to offer digital files, so I might include some digital downloads there. (Images are one option but there are other options.)
This also gives me something to write about besides photography.
The photography news lately has been very limited, mainly covering new lenses and cameras. I currently don't have access to these items to review them myself and I have little interest in blogging based on reviews posted by someone else.
I did post links to those reviews at one time, but that became too time consuming when I started my day job.
I will continue to write on photography related subjects but will also include posts on other subjects, including Etsy updates.
For those looking for a place to sell photographic prints, Etsy is an option. Selling prints on the site does require you to print the images yourself. This does give you some control over the quality of the images sold. It also forces you to deal with the printing and shipping the prints.
Etsy does charge listing fees as well as charging a commission on sales.
The listing fee is only 20 cents per item and the listing lasts for four months.
Etsy also offers sellers a credit card reader. This allows sellers to allow buyers to buy directly from the seller while using their credit card. This is a viable option for anyone interested in direct sells to the public. (Like an art fair.)
All you need is a cell phone, an Etsy account and the credit card reader.
There is a per transaction fee when using the reader. (Roughly 3%.)
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Photoshop Can Determine the Subject Matter of Your Images.
Hat Tip: Popular Photography
I actually find this to be a bit disturbing and file it under just another reason not to use Photoshop.
It turns out that Photoshop will refuse to load images of currency. That requires Photoshop to determine the subject matter of any image the user wants to edit with the program. Couple that with Adobe's Cloud Computer model, which requires an active Internet connection to Adobe's servers in order to use the program and you have a nightmare for any paranoid individual.
Not only can the program determine when you are attempting to open a file containing the image of a banknote, but the program is in constant communications with the software company that owns the software.
Anyone else wondering whether the NSA also knows when you attempt to open a file containing a banknote image? Or maybe the Government mandates Adobe turn over information whenever the program flags a file as containing a banknote image?
(We have examples of them forcing companies to turn over information.)
Why would anyone use a program that stops working if you lose Internet service and examines the content of the files you edit? Especially if it flags content as "illegal".
Big Brother is here.
Its name is Adobe.
FYI, it is actually legal to possess digital images of U.S. banknotes. It has to be for non-fraudulent purposes and the image needs to be black and white instead of color. There is also a size requirement, but that seems to apply more to anything that is actually printed.
I actually find this to be a bit disturbing and file it under just another reason not to use Photoshop.
It turns out that Photoshop will refuse to load images of currency. That requires Photoshop to determine the subject matter of any image the user wants to edit with the program. Couple that with Adobe's Cloud Computer model, which requires an active Internet connection to Adobe's servers in order to use the program and you have a nightmare for any paranoid individual.
Not only can the program determine when you are attempting to open a file containing the image of a banknote, but the program is in constant communications with the software company that owns the software.
Anyone else wondering whether the NSA also knows when you attempt to open a file containing a banknote image? Or maybe the Government mandates Adobe turn over information whenever the program flags a file as containing a banknote image?
(We have examples of them forcing companies to turn over information.)
Why would anyone use a program that stops working if you lose Internet service and examines the content of the files you edit? Especially if it flags content as "illegal".
Big Brother is here.
Its name is Adobe.
FYI, it is actually legal to possess digital images of U.S. banknotes. It has to be for non-fraudulent purposes and the image needs to be black and white instead of color. There is also a size requirement, but that seems to apply more to anything that is actually printed.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Polaroid Announces New Mobile Photo Printer.
Hat Tip: Imaging Resource
My immediate reaction to Polaroid's new Zip photoprinter was "why?".
It's a mobile printer that prints 2" x 3" images. It's charged via a micro USB cable and prints roughly 25 images per charge.
The printer can link to android or iPhones via Bluetooth/NFC.
So basically, it's a device that turns your phone into a Polaroid camera with a single, 25 image, film pack. All for only $129.99
Oh, and you have to use Polaroid's paper which costs $14.99 for 30 sheets.
Okay, so I'm being a bit facetious.
The "printer" doesn't actual print. It actually activates ink embedded in the specialized paper. Plus, the printer will presumably draw power from the cable if the cable is plugged into a wall outlet instead of using the battery, allowing the device to print more than 25 images as long as a wall outlet is available. (It should also be able to use external portable batteries.)
This does strikes me as a very niche product. I don't see that many people being interested in a portable printer capable of only printing 25 images before it has to be recharged. It does appear to be a better option than the current alternatives, though.
You can purchase instant film cameras and film. The cheapest option for film seems to by Fuji's instant film at $8.99 for a 10 pack. That's $27 for 30 photos versus $14.99 when using Polaroid's new printer. Saving $12 per 30 images means the printer will pay for itself after roughly 300 images when compared to the alternatives.
This might be a product that certain photographers might be interested, with wedding photographers being the most obvious. Guests could obtain copies of photos taken at the wedding or reception while they were still on location. The couple could also personalize any keepsakes given out to guests with images taken during the ceremony.
The same is true for other events.
This does suggest a possible revenue source for event photographers. The photographer could rent the printer and sell the paper needed to print images at the event.
(For those wondering how someone could make money selling the paper. The $14.99 is the retail price. The photographer should be able to purchase it at the wholesale price. The difference is the photographer's profit margin on the paper.)
My immediate reaction to Polaroid's new Zip photoprinter was "why?".
It's a mobile printer that prints 2" x 3" images. It's charged via a micro USB cable and prints roughly 25 images per charge.
The printer can link to android or iPhones via Bluetooth/NFC.
So basically, it's a device that turns your phone into a Polaroid camera with a single, 25 image, film pack. All for only $129.99
Oh, and you have to use Polaroid's paper which costs $14.99 for 30 sheets.
Okay, so I'm being a bit facetious.
The "printer" doesn't actual print. It actually activates ink embedded in the specialized paper. Plus, the printer will presumably draw power from the cable if the cable is plugged into a wall outlet instead of using the battery, allowing the device to print more than 25 images as long as a wall outlet is available. (It should also be able to use external portable batteries.)
This does strikes me as a very niche product. I don't see that many people being interested in a portable printer capable of only printing 25 images before it has to be recharged. It does appear to be a better option than the current alternatives, though.
You can purchase instant film cameras and film. The cheapest option for film seems to by Fuji's instant film at $8.99 for a 10 pack. That's $27 for 30 photos versus $14.99 when using Polaroid's new printer. Saving $12 per 30 images means the printer will pay for itself after roughly 300 images when compared to the alternatives.
This might be a product that certain photographers might be interested, with wedding photographers being the most obvious. Guests could obtain copies of photos taken at the wedding or reception while they were still on location. The couple could also personalize any keepsakes given out to guests with images taken during the ceremony.
The same is true for other events.
This does suggest a possible revenue source for event photographers. The photographer could rent the printer and sell the paper needed to print images at the event.
(For those wondering how someone could make money selling the paper. The $14.99 is the retail price. The photographer should be able to purchase it at the wholesale price. The difference is the photographer's profit margin on the paper.)
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Disney Latest Corporation Caught in Copyright Controversy
Hat Tip: Amateur Photographer
The image in question is one taken of soldiers posted at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and shows those soldiers standing duty during a storm. (It was taken by Karen Markert and can be seen at her Smug Mug site.)
The image went viral after appearing on Facebook and many web sites reused it without the photographer's permission. This includes Babble, a site owned by Disney. (It was removed from that site after the photographer contacted it.)
The key issue here is "after it appeared on Facebook."
The Facebooks terms allow for reuse of photographs posted on that site. If the image had been posted by the photographer, Disney and the other sites would have had the right to use the image without asking for permission first.
Unfortunately, it appears that the image was posted by someone else instead.
That person did not have the ability to grant the right to use the image, but there may have been no way for the sites that reused the image to know that.
This points out one of the dangers of using images found on Facebook. While the terms of service grants people the right to reuse images posted to Facebook, there is no way to guarantee that the person posting the image has the ability to grant that right.
The image may have been posted illegally by someone engaging in copyright violation. That person can not grant rights to use the image and anyone that uses the image faces legal jeopardy. (They probably aren't engaging in "willful" violations which limits their legal exposure to a certain extent.)
Two things to remember about Facebook images.
1) Posting images to Facebook yourself invites use of those images by others. From Facebook's TOS: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)
That is legalese for "We can do anything we want with the contents you upload" including granting others the right to use it free of charge.
Facebook has the right to grant anyone it pleases the ability to use Facebook content without paying for its use, and they basically do so.
Never post anything to Facebook you don't want to be reused by someone else.
2) While Facebook may grant the ability to reuse Facebook content, they can only grant that right if the person that initially posted also has the ability to grant that right.
That usually means the photographer when it comes to images.
Anyone sharing Facebook content should be careful. They should ascertain whether the individual that posted the content was the actual copyright holder. Reusing content posted by someone engaging in copyright violation will subject you to legally jeopardy as well.
A quick image search on Google is often all that is needed to discover the origin of in image when someone engages in image theft. Take a few minutes to protect yourself.
The image in question is one taken of soldiers posted at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and shows those soldiers standing duty during a storm. (It was taken by Karen Markert and can be seen at her Smug Mug site.)
The image went viral after appearing on Facebook and many web sites reused it without the photographer's permission. This includes Babble, a site owned by Disney. (It was removed from that site after the photographer contacted it.)
The key issue here is "after it appeared on Facebook."
The Facebooks terms allow for reuse of photographs posted on that site. If the image had been posted by the photographer, Disney and the other sites would have had the right to use the image without asking for permission first.
Unfortunately, it appears that the image was posted by someone else instead.
That person did not have the ability to grant the right to use the image, but there may have been no way for the sites that reused the image to know that.
This points out one of the dangers of using images found on Facebook. While the terms of service grants people the right to reuse images posted to Facebook, there is no way to guarantee that the person posting the image has the ability to grant that right.
The image may have been posted illegally by someone engaging in copyright violation. That person can not grant rights to use the image and anyone that uses the image faces legal jeopardy. (They probably aren't engaging in "willful" violations which limits their legal exposure to a certain extent.)
Two things to remember about Facebook images.
1) Posting images to Facebook yourself invites use of those images by others. From Facebook's TOS: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)
That is legalese for "We can do anything we want with the contents you upload" including granting others the right to use it free of charge.
Facebook has the right to grant anyone it pleases the ability to use Facebook content without paying for its use, and they basically do so.
Never post anything to Facebook you don't want to be reused by someone else.
2) While Facebook may grant the ability to reuse Facebook content, they can only grant that right if the person that initially posted also has the ability to grant that right.
That usually means the photographer when it comes to images.
Anyone sharing Facebook content should be careful. They should ascertain whether the individual that posted the content was the actual copyright holder. Reusing content posted by someone engaging in copyright violation will subject you to legally jeopardy as well.
A quick image search on Google is often all that is needed to discover the origin of in image when someone engages in image theft. Take a few minutes to protect yourself.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Update to Story About Wedding Photographer Charging For Album Cover
Hat Tip: DIY Photography
Updating a story that dates back to January.
For those not familiar with the story. It involves a dispute between a wedding photographer and the couple. The photographer informed the couple that there was a charge for the cover to the wedding album that was part of the contract. The couple insisted that the photographer was contractually obligated to deliver a wedding album and they shold not have to pay for the cover.
And then the proverbial excrement hit the spinning cooling device.
The couple went public with the issue they had with the photographer, including news interviews.
The photographer has now sued for defamation asking for up to $1,000,000 in damages.
Personally, I think the photographer will have a very difficult time winning.
The couple said that the photographer wanted extra for the album cover. They also said she refused to deliver high-resolution copies of the wedding photos until they paid for the cover. They described it as having their images "held hostage".
From statements made by the photographer, those statements seem to be factual, although she would dispute the emotional charge of holding the images hostage. During the initial meeting after the wedding she did apparent inform the couple that there was a charge for the cover and that the images would not be delivered until the album was delivered.
She apparently expected no problems. This is how she normally handles weddings.
She did apparently try to reach an amicable agreement with the couple, including offering to absorb the cost of the cover. Those efforts were never mentioned by the couple.
The problem for the photographer is that those efforts don't change the initial situation, and the statements made by the couple factually match the initial situation.
Defamation requires more than just proving you were harmed by statements someone made about you. You must also prove the statements were false or made with reckless disregard for the truth. The photographer apparently can't do that.
The statements may have been made with malice, but they appear to have been factual (but not the entire story).
I think the only people winning when it comes to this lawsuit are the lawyers for both sides.
Updating a story that dates back to January.
For those not familiar with the story. It involves a dispute between a wedding photographer and the couple. The photographer informed the couple that there was a charge for the cover to the wedding album that was part of the contract. The couple insisted that the photographer was contractually obligated to deliver a wedding album and they shold not have to pay for the cover.
And then the proverbial excrement hit the spinning cooling device.
The couple went public with the issue they had with the photographer, including news interviews.
The photographer has now sued for defamation asking for up to $1,000,000 in damages.
Personally, I think the photographer will have a very difficult time winning.
The couple said that the photographer wanted extra for the album cover. They also said she refused to deliver high-resolution copies of the wedding photos until they paid for the cover. They described it as having their images "held hostage".
From statements made by the photographer, those statements seem to be factual, although she would dispute the emotional charge of holding the images hostage. During the initial meeting after the wedding she did apparent inform the couple that there was a charge for the cover and that the images would not be delivered until the album was delivered.
She apparently expected no problems. This is how she normally handles weddings.
She did apparently try to reach an amicable agreement with the couple, including offering to absorb the cost of the cover. Those efforts were never mentioned by the couple.
The problem for the photographer is that those efforts don't change the initial situation, and the statements made by the couple factually match the initial situation.
Defamation requires more than just proving you were harmed by statements someone made about you. You must also prove the statements were false or made with reckless disregard for the truth. The photographer apparently can't do that.
The statements may have been made with malice, but they appear to have been factual (but not the entire story).
I think the only people winning when it comes to this lawsuit are the lawyers for both sides.
Friday, April 3, 2015
Run Linux on Your Canon DSLR
Hat Tip: PetaPixel
The developers over at Magic Lantern have announced that they have gotten the Linux OS to successfully boot on Canon DSLR cameras.
The Magic Lantern team wasn't able to get beyond getting Linux to boot. That would require experience with modifying the Linux kernel and the developers at Magic Lantern apparently have no experience doing so.
They have released the information on how they accomplished this publicly. That means developers with Linux kernel experience should be able to develop a version of Linux capable of running on Canon DSLR cameras.
This creates the possibility of a great deal of customization when it comes to the software running on the cameras, including adding features not envisioned by Canon programmers.
The developers over at Magic Lantern have announced that they have gotten the Linux OS to successfully boot on Canon DSLR cameras.
The Magic Lantern team wasn't able to get beyond getting Linux to boot. That would require experience with modifying the Linux kernel and the developers at Magic Lantern apparently have no experience doing so.
They have released the information on how they accomplished this publicly. That means developers with Linux kernel experience should be able to develop a version of Linux capable of running on Canon DSLR cameras.
This creates the possibility of a great deal of customization when it comes to the software running on the cameras, including adding features not envisioned by Canon programmers.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Taking Real Estate Photos? Try This Trick.
Hat Tip: Shutterbug
A Florida couple trying to sell their home may have accidentally hit gold with their real estate photos.
The couples' 15-year granddaughter was taking the photos when she had the inspiration to include her grandmother. The results are priceless.
This does suggest something for those taking real estate photos, including professionals. Nothing beats staging when it comes to real estate, and the ultimate in staging is apparently an 86-year old grandmother.
Honestly, these photos scream "You too could be enjoying yourself in this home."
That is the goal of real estate photos.
A Florida couple trying to sell their home may have accidentally hit gold with their real estate photos.
The couples' 15-year granddaughter was taking the photos when she had the inspiration to include her grandmother. The results are priceless.
MY GRANDMA IS TRYING TO SELL HER HOUSE IN FLORIDA AND THESE ARE THE PICS I AM LAUGHING SO HARD pic.twitter.com/rONaIUyevS
— makenzie (@asapmakky) March 26, 2015
This does suggest something for those taking real estate photos, including professionals. Nothing beats staging when it comes to real estate, and the ultimate in staging is apparently an 86-year old grandmother.
Honestly, these photos scream "You too could be enjoying yourself in this home."
That is the goal of real estate photos.
Monday, March 16, 2015
Japanese Company Developing Synthetic Fluorite Process
Hat Tip: Imaging Resource
Yes, I realize the story is from Friday. I was busy this weekend. (I'm also busy working during the week at a physically demanding job. That's part of the reason I don't post regularly right now.)
Now, back to the fluorite (calcium fluoride).
Fluorite is a naturally occurring mineral that is mined from the earth. It's optical properties all it to be used to create lenses that suffer lower chromatic aberrations than glass-based lenses suffer. This obviously improves image quality.
The problem?
The vast majority of high-quality fluorite is mined in China.
The country has what amounts to a monopoly on the mineral. Any company that wants to buy pure fluorite in large amounts has to do business with that country.
A Japanese company (Iwatani Corp.) is attempting to develop a method for creating fluorite with a high enough purity for use in optical glass.
Iwatani developed a process for recycling the perfluorocarbon (PFC) gas created during the manufacturing of semiconductors. PFC gas is considered a harmful pollutant (it destroys ozone). The end result of this process is fluorite. Unfortunately, the fluorite created by this process lacks the purity necessary for optical uses.
The company recently announced it had been successful in creating highly purified fluorite, but the processing cost is currently cost prohibitive. (The resulting product is twice that of mined fluorite.)
It is now working on ways to decrease production costs.
Yes, I realize the story is from Friday. I was busy this weekend. (I'm also busy working during the week at a physically demanding job. That's part of the reason I don't post regularly right now.)
Now, back to the fluorite (calcium fluoride).
Fluorite is a naturally occurring mineral that is mined from the earth. It's optical properties all it to be used to create lenses that suffer lower chromatic aberrations than glass-based lenses suffer. This obviously improves image quality.
The problem?
The vast majority of high-quality fluorite is mined in China.
The country has what amounts to a monopoly on the mineral. Any company that wants to buy pure fluorite in large amounts has to do business with that country.
A Japanese company (Iwatani Corp.) is attempting to develop a method for creating fluorite with a high enough purity for use in optical glass.
Iwatani developed a process for recycling the perfluorocarbon (PFC) gas created during the manufacturing of semiconductors. PFC gas is considered a harmful pollutant (it destroys ozone). The end result of this process is fluorite. Unfortunately, the fluorite created by this process lacks the purity necessary for optical uses.
The company recently announced it had been successful in creating highly purified fluorite, but the processing cost is currently cost prohibitive. (The resulting product is twice that of mined fluorite.)
It is now working on ways to decrease production costs.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
Major Advance in Flat Lenses From Harvard
Hat Tip: ePhotozine (Original story at Digital Trends.)
Harvard has created a prototype flat lens capable of successfully focusing multiple wavelengths of light at the same point. Harvard refers to the planar lens design as an Achromatic metasurface lens.
Planar is just fancy language for flat. Achromatic when applied to lenses means the light is not separated into its constituent colors. Metasurface refers to the surface of a metamaterial, which is a material that has a structure that produces results that can't be produced by natural materials. It's geek speak to describe how the lens works.
Ordinary lenses work by utilizing a curved surface to bend light. The drawback with this method is that different wavelengths of light (perceived as different colors) bend different amounts when passing through these lenses. This forces camera lens manufacturers to utilize multiple components to correct for this splitting of the different colors.
(The Harvard news page has an illustration if you want a visual representation.)
Having to use multiple lenses increases the complexity of lens design and increases the amount of glass needed when manufacturing camera lenses. This increases the cost and weight of quality lenses.
Instead of utilizing curved glass to bend light, the Harvard design utilizes a flat lens with "antennas" on its surface. These antennas are what make the lens a metamaterial. Light bends as a result of hitting the antenna.
The initial prototype introduced in 2012 was only capable of bending a single wavelength of light. The research team addressed this limitation by utilizing antennas of different sizes/shapes. Each shape or size targets a specific wavelengths of light. The lens is capable of producing a photographic image by targeting the wavelengths corresponding to red, green and blue as these are the colors recorded by digital sensors. (The other wavelengths are ignored by the sensor and don't need to be effected by the lens.)
The result is a single lens capable of replacing the set of three lenses used in current lens design.
At the very least, this would result in much lighter lenses. It might also result in less expensive lenses as less material needs to be used.
Judging from the images on the Harvard site, the antennas appear to run parallel across the face of the lens. This would result in light being bent in a single direction only. This would not necessarily prevent the technology from being used for camera lenses. The easiest fix would simply be using a second lens set perpendicular to the first.
The lenses would need to be set so the antennas parallel to the edges of the sensor to ensure light hit the sensor correctly. This is a consideration not required by traditional round lenses.
Harvard has created a prototype flat lens capable of successfully focusing multiple wavelengths of light at the same point. Harvard refers to the planar lens design as an Achromatic metasurface lens.
Planar is just fancy language for flat. Achromatic when applied to lenses means the light is not separated into its constituent colors. Metasurface refers to the surface of a metamaterial, which is a material that has a structure that produces results that can't be produced by natural materials. It's geek speak to describe how the lens works.
Ordinary lenses work by utilizing a curved surface to bend light. The drawback with this method is that different wavelengths of light (perceived as different colors) bend different amounts when passing through these lenses. This forces camera lens manufacturers to utilize multiple components to correct for this splitting of the different colors.
(The Harvard news page has an illustration if you want a visual representation.)
Having to use multiple lenses increases the complexity of lens design and increases the amount of glass needed when manufacturing camera lenses. This increases the cost and weight of quality lenses.
Instead of utilizing curved glass to bend light, the Harvard design utilizes a flat lens with "antennas" on its surface. These antennas are what make the lens a metamaterial. Light bends as a result of hitting the antenna.
The initial prototype introduced in 2012 was only capable of bending a single wavelength of light. The research team addressed this limitation by utilizing antennas of different sizes/shapes. Each shape or size targets a specific wavelengths of light. The lens is capable of producing a photographic image by targeting the wavelengths corresponding to red, green and blue as these are the colors recorded by digital sensors. (The other wavelengths are ignored by the sensor and don't need to be effected by the lens.)
The result is a single lens capable of replacing the set of three lenses used in current lens design.
At the very least, this would result in much lighter lenses. It might also result in less expensive lenses as less material needs to be used.
Judging from the images on the Harvard site, the antennas appear to run parallel across the face of the lens. This would result in light being bent in a single direction only. This would not necessarily prevent the technology from being used for camera lenses. The easiest fix would simply be using a second lens set perpendicular to the first.
The lenses would need to be set so the antennas parallel to the edges of the sensor to ensure light hit the sensor correctly. This is a consideration not required by traditional round lenses.
Friday, March 6, 2015
Chance to Win $1,000 B&H Gift Card
PetaPixel is giving away a $1,000 B&H gift card.
All you have to do to enter the contest is follow the above link and leave a comment about what you would purchase with the card on the contest page.
Winner will be chosen randomly from those that comment.
1 comment per reader only. The contest is open to non-U.S. residents.
$1,000 is enough to purchase a decent digital camera kit and accessories.
All you have to do to enter the contest is follow the above link and leave a comment about what you would purchase with the card on the contest page.
Winner will be chosen randomly from those that comment.
1 comment per reader only. The contest is open to non-U.S. residents.
$1,000 is enough to purchase a decent digital camera kit and accessories.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Instagram Allowing More Intrusive Ads
Hat Tip: Imaging Resource
The Facebook owned photo sharing site recently announced they would now allow "carousel" ads with links. (Note on link, Ad Age limits the number of articles you can read each month if not a subscriber. It shouldn't be an issue for most people.)
"Carousel" ads are those ads with revolving images. Instagram will allow up to four photos per ad as well as "learn more" links.
That four ads to start with. I suspect that number is likely to increase.
Advertising revenue is how many web sites earn their revenues. The sites are always looking for ways to increase those revenues but there is a limit on the number of ads they can place on a page before they start antagonizing visitors.
Offering the option to upgrade ads is another way to increase ad revenue. Presumably these carousel ads will cost advertisers more than static ads.
The potential drawback for Instagram is that these type of ads are more intrusive than static ads. The constant motion can get annoying.
They also increase the processing demand on the visitor's computer. This can be problematic for individuals using older computers. Their computers may simply not be up to the increased demand, especially if a page includes multiple carousel ads.
The increase in ad revenue that comes from these carousel ads could be offset by losing users that get annoyed at the ads or just can't use the site due to increased performance demands.
They could also find more users relying on ad-blocking software when visiting the site.
The Facebook owned photo sharing site recently announced they would now allow "carousel" ads with links. (Note on link, Ad Age limits the number of articles you can read each month if not a subscriber. It shouldn't be an issue for most people.)
"Carousel" ads are those ads with revolving images. Instagram will allow up to four photos per ad as well as "learn more" links.
That four ads to start with. I suspect that number is likely to increase.
Advertising revenue is how many web sites earn their revenues. The sites are always looking for ways to increase those revenues but there is a limit on the number of ads they can place on a page before they start antagonizing visitors.
Offering the option to upgrade ads is another way to increase ad revenue. Presumably these carousel ads will cost advertisers more than static ads.
The potential drawback for Instagram is that these type of ads are more intrusive than static ads. The constant motion can get annoying.
They also increase the processing demand on the visitor's computer. This can be problematic for individuals using older computers. Their computers may simply not be up to the increased demand, especially if a page includes multiple carousel ads.
The increase in ad revenue that comes from these carousel ads could be offset by losing users that get annoyed at the ads or just can't use the site due to increased performance demands.
They could also find more users relying on ad-blocking software when visiting the site.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Getty Images in Financial Trouble
Hat Tip: Imaging Resource
Bloomberg posted an article yesterday on Getty's current financial issues. (The story cites two anonymous sources. Take that as a warning as to potential accuracy problems.)
Getty apparently burned through a third of its cash reserves during the last three months of 2014.
Getty took on $2.6 billion in debt to finance the $3.3 billion purchase of the company by Carlyle Group. The loan terms limits Getty's ability to borrow money when certain conditions are met. The 7% drop in the company's fourth-quarter earnings resulted in debt being more that 6 times earnings. This triggered a clause limiting Getty's ability to borrow against it's $150 Million line of credit.
The news caused the price of Getty's debt instruments to drop. (Bad news for those that own them.)
Frankly, the news doesn't surprise me. Getty has made some troubling moves since the Carlyle take-over. Those moves antagonized the people Getty needs to be successful (photographers) and part of their current issues can probably be traced to that antagonism.
Photographers ending their association with Getty leaves Getty with less material to sell or license. It could also result in the material still on hand being lower quality, lowering the price Getty can charge for those materials.
This seems to be reflected in the fact that Getty Images year over year profits are down 17%
Carlyle apparently thought they could leverage Getty's stock image library in order to turn the company into an Internet giant. Unfortunately, many of the moves made in an attempt to leverage that image library undermined Getty's core business, stock photography imaging.
Undermining your core businesses is never a recipe for success.
Bloomberg posted an article yesterday on Getty's current financial issues. (The story cites two anonymous sources. Take that as a warning as to potential accuracy problems.)
Getty apparently burned through a third of its cash reserves during the last three months of 2014.
Getty took on $2.6 billion in debt to finance the $3.3 billion purchase of the company by Carlyle Group. The loan terms limits Getty's ability to borrow money when certain conditions are met. The 7% drop in the company's fourth-quarter earnings resulted in debt being more that 6 times earnings. This triggered a clause limiting Getty's ability to borrow against it's $150 Million line of credit.
The news caused the price of Getty's debt instruments to drop. (Bad news for those that own them.)
Frankly, the news doesn't surprise me. Getty has made some troubling moves since the Carlyle take-over. Those moves antagonized the people Getty needs to be successful (photographers) and part of their current issues can probably be traced to that antagonism.
Photographers ending their association with Getty leaves Getty with less material to sell or license. It could also result in the material still on hand being lower quality, lowering the price Getty can charge for those materials.
This seems to be reflected in the fact that Getty Images year over year profits are down 17%
Carlyle apparently thought they could leverage Getty's stock image library in order to turn the company into an Internet giant. Unfortunately, many of the moves made in an attempt to leverage that image library undermined Getty's core business, stock photography imaging.
Undermining your core businesses is never a recipe for success.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Higher Megapixel Count Not Necessarily Bettter
Shutterbug has an interesting article today on just what increasing megapixel counts actually means when it comes to digital photography.
The article is largely in response to Canon's introduction of a full-frame camera boasting 50 megapixel resolution. That pixel count puts the full-frame camera in the same league as many medium format cameras, but Canon can offer their camera at a much lower price.
The Canon 5DS and 5DS R have price tags under $4,000. The cheapest medium format camera with at least 50 MP resolution costs just over twice that. As an additional bonus, the lenses should also have similar price differences. (The lenses for the smaller full-frame cameras need smaller lenses. Less glass usually equals lower price. Emphasis on "usually").
The 50 MP offerings from Canon do look like an attempt to compete with medium format cameras without actually creating a medium format camera. The move makes a certain amount of sense given all the Canon lenses currently available for Canon full-frame cameras.
There is a drawback here, though.
A 50 megapixel full-frame sensor requires smaller individual photoreceptors when compared to a 50 megapixel medium format camera. This impacts performance at higher ISO settings. Some photographers will find a camera with a lower pixel count more suitable for the images the capture.
The article is largely in response to Canon's introduction of a full-frame camera boasting 50 megapixel resolution. That pixel count puts the full-frame camera in the same league as many medium format cameras, but Canon can offer their camera at a much lower price.
The Canon 5DS and 5DS R have price tags under $4,000. The cheapest medium format camera with at least 50 MP resolution costs just over twice that. As an additional bonus, the lenses should also have similar price differences. (The lenses for the smaller full-frame cameras need smaller lenses. Less glass usually equals lower price. Emphasis on "usually").
The 50 MP offerings from Canon do look like an attempt to compete with medium format cameras without actually creating a medium format camera. The move makes a certain amount of sense given all the Canon lenses currently available for Canon full-frame cameras.
There is a drawback here, though.
A 50 megapixel full-frame sensor requires smaller individual photoreceptors when compared to a 50 megapixel medium format camera. This impacts performance at higher ISO settings. Some photographers will find a camera with a lower pixel count more suitable for the images the capture.
Monday, February 16, 2015
Deal Alert: Save on PNY Memory at Amazon
Amazons deal of the day features up to 50% off on PNY memory cards and power banks.
The sale includes USB drives and both SD and micro SD cards.
One of the USB drives offers 256 GB of storage for $69.95. The 128 SD card is currently $48.99.
The sale includes USB drives and both SD and micro SD cards.
One of the USB drives offers 256 GB of storage for $69.95. The 128 SD card is currently $48.99.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Italy Confiscates "Lost" Da Vinci Painting
Hat Tip: The Telegraph
The painting in question is a portrait of Isabella d'Este and has been attributed by some art experts as having been painted by Leonardo Da Vinci. It turned up in a Swiss bank vault in 2013 along with hundreds of other art pieces.
The current owner of the painting was attempting to sell it when the Italian Police had it seized with the cooperation of Swiss officials.
The reason? The painting was "illegally exported" and needed to be secured before it was sold.
The assertion by Italian authorities that the painting was illegally exported seems to be extremely dubious. The painting was lost for 400 years. Nobody knew where it was until it turned up in Switzerland. There is no way for the Italian authorities to know when it was exported. The painting could very well have left Italy in the 17th century.
There is no official record of this painting. What proof could they possibly have that it was "illegally exported"?
They can't even prove it was ever in Italy.
Then there's this gem:
Unless we are dealing with a painting that has been stolen, I think it's fairly clear who owns it. That would be the person from which the Italian authorities seized it.
This case does point out some of the problematic art laws that exist in some countries.
The owner of a work of art can't treat it as their property. It is instead treated as public property and can be confiscated if the owner attempts to export it.
And it's not just Italy. This is true of any member of the Euro Union or signatories to 1970 UNESCO convention.
One big problem I have with these laws/treaty is that they are applied to works that predate them. Countries are using them to confiscate art that was exported from their countries before the laws went into effect.
There is something about that behavior that strikes me as just plain wrong.
The painting in question is a portrait of Isabella d'Este and has been attributed by some art experts as having been painted by Leonardo Da Vinci. It turned up in a Swiss bank vault in 2013 along with hundreds of other art pieces.
The current owner of the painting was attempting to sell it when the Italian Police had it seized with the cooperation of Swiss officials.
The reason? The painting was "illegally exported" and needed to be secured before it was sold.
The assertion by Italian authorities that the painting was illegally exported seems to be extremely dubious. The painting was lost for 400 years. Nobody knew where it was until it turned up in Switzerland. There is no way for the Italian authorities to know when it was exported. The painting could very well have left Italy in the 17th century.
There is no official record of this painting. What proof could they possibly have that it was "illegally exported"?
They can't even prove it was ever in Italy.
Then there's this gem:
“Once it arrives back in Italy, we will conduct further investigations to establish who really owns the work,” Italian prosecutors said in a statement.
Unless we are dealing with a painting that has been stolen, I think it's fairly clear who owns it. That would be the person from which the Italian authorities seized it.
This case does point out some of the problematic art laws that exist in some countries.
The owner of a work of art can't treat it as their property. It is instead treated as public property and can be confiscated if the owner attempts to export it.
And it's not just Italy. This is true of any member of the Euro Union or signatories to 1970 UNESCO convention.
One big problem I have with these laws/treaty is that they are applied to works that predate them. Countries are using them to confiscate art that was exported from their countries before the laws went into effect.
There is something about that behavior that strikes me as just plain wrong.
Monday, February 9, 2015
Corning Upgrading Gorilla Glass Scratch Resistance
This is slightly off-topic when it comes to photography, but I though it was worth mentioning.
In response to the artificial sapphire used by Apple in its Touch ID sensor, Corning is working to increase the scratch resistance of its Gorilla Glass.
While artificial sapphire is harder than glass (making it virtually scratch-proof) production costs and other concerns have prevented its use in electronic device screens. Glass costs far less to produce and can be given shatter-resistance and scratch-resistance properties depending on how it is produced. This gives Corning an advantage over artificial sapphire if it can create a glass that is strong enough and resistant enough to scratching to make sapphire pointless.
The challenge for Corning has to do with the physical properties of glass, including its natural hardness rating.
Glass typically has a hardness between 6 and 7 on the Mohs scale. Quartz particles are one of the main components of dust and it has a hardness of 7. For a material to be scratch-resistance, it needs to exceed the hardness of quarts. This means achieving a hardness over 7.
Silica when melted does not crystallize when melted and then cooled to form glass. Glass is sometimes referred to as a super-cooled liquid instead of a solid. There are also other materials added to the silica that can alter the properties of the glass. This additives are used to produce desirable properties in the end product, but can negatively effect the glass's hardness.
Corning can take a couple of approaches when attempting to produce scratch-resistant glass.
The first involves finding additives that increase the hardness of the finished product. (Similar to how adding carbon to iron produces steel.)
The second approach would be to apply a scratch-resistant coating to the exposed glass. A thin layer of aluminum oxide comes to mind.
In response to the artificial sapphire used by Apple in its Touch ID sensor, Corning is working to increase the scratch resistance of its Gorilla Glass.
While artificial sapphire is harder than glass (making it virtually scratch-proof) production costs and other concerns have prevented its use in electronic device screens. Glass costs far less to produce and can be given shatter-resistance and scratch-resistance properties depending on how it is produced. This gives Corning an advantage over artificial sapphire if it can create a glass that is strong enough and resistant enough to scratching to make sapphire pointless.
The challenge for Corning has to do with the physical properties of glass, including its natural hardness rating.
Glass typically has a hardness between 6 and 7 on the Mohs scale. Quartz particles are one of the main components of dust and it has a hardness of 7. For a material to be scratch-resistance, it needs to exceed the hardness of quarts. This means achieving a hardness over 7.
Silica when melted does not crystallize when melted and then cooled to form glass. Glass is sometimes referred to as a super-cooled liquid instead of a solid. There are also other materials added to the silica that can alter the properties of the glass. This additives are used to produce desirable properties in the end product, but can negatively effect the glass's hardness.
Corning can take a couple of approaches when attempting to produce scratch-resistant glass.
The first involves finding additives that increase the hardness of the finished product. (Similar to how adding carbon to iron produces steel.)
The second approach would be to apply a scratch-resistant coating to the exposed glass. A thin layer of aluminum oxide comes to mind.
Friday, February 6, 2015
Canon Dominating Photography News Today
The news on the various photography web sites has been largely dominated by the latest releases announced by Canon.
This includes the announcement of
A new Canon 11-24mm F/4L USM Wide-Angle Zoom Lens
2 new Canon Rebel cameras
2 new Canon EOS 5DS Cameras (50MP sensors.)
(Pop Photo just happens to be the first site in my RSS feed. The other sites cover the announcements as well. I just didn't see the need to link to all the articles.)
I'm also a bit amused at the timing of the posts. The posts were all times to be published at roughly 10:00pm Central last night. On most of the sites that announced the releases, not just Pop Photo. Apparently that's when Canon's news embargo was lifted.
There are a few product announcements not covered by Pop Photo. Imaging Resource has a post on the PowerShot SX 410 IS, ELPH 350 HS, and G3 X.
They also have first impression reviews on the EOS 5DS cameras (the links are at the bottom of the post.)
Digital Camera world goes into detail comparing the new Canon 5DS full-frame cameras to Nikon's D810. While the Canon now offers larger resolution (50.6mp vs. 36.3) there are still valid reasons to choose the Nikon over the Canon. The higher resolution requires certain concessions in other areas and those concessions could result in the Nikon being a better choice for some photographers.
Canon also announced the EOS M3. This is a mirrorless camera that will only be available in Asia for the time being.
This includes the announcement of
A new Canon 11-24mm F/4L USM Wide-Angle Zoom Lens
2 new Canon Rebel cameras
2 new Canon EOS 5DS Cameras (50MP sensors.)
(Pop Photo just happens to be the first site in my RSS feed. The other sites cover the announcements as well. I just didn't see the need to link to all the articles.)
I'm also a bit amused at the timing of the posts. The posts were all times to be published at roughly 10:00pm Central last night. On most of the sites that announced the releases, not just Pop Photo. Apparently that's when Canon's news embargo was lifted.
There are a few product announcements not covered by Pop Photo. Imaging Resource has a post on the PowerShot SX 410 IS, ELPH 350 HS, and G3 X.
They also have first impression reviews on the EOS 5DS cameras (the links are at the bottom of the post.)
Digital Camera world goes into detail comparing the new Canon 5DS full-frame cameras to Nikon's D810. While the Canon now offers larger resolution (50.6mp vs. 36.3) there are still valid reasons to choose the Nikon over the Canon. The higher resolution requires certain concessions in other areas and those concessions could result in the Nikon being a better choice for some photographers.
Canon also announced the EOS M3. This is a mirrorless camera that will only be available in Asia for the time being.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
The Value of Professional Photojournalism
In response to all the recent cuts made to their photography staffs by news media organizations:
In short, there is a great deal of difference between the output from professional photojournalists and other photographers (especially amateurs.)
Eliminating staff photographers, especially those that routinely produce high quality images, can negatively impact the quality of the images used by a news outlet. Using "amateur" images, in turn, undermines the reputation of the news organization utilizing them.
A news organization using amateur or low quality images are themselves seen as amateur or lacking in quality.
It's this last point that news organizations can't seem to grasp.
(Hat Tip: PetaPixel)
In short, there is a great deal of difference between the output from professional photojournalists and other photographers (especially amateurs.)
Eliminating staff photographers, especially those that routinely produce high quality images, can negatively impact the quality of the images used by a news outlet. Using "amateur" images, in turn, undermines the reputation of the news organization utilizing them.
A news organization using amateur or low quality images are themselves seen as amateur or lacking in quality.
It's this last point that news organizations can't seem to grasp.
(Hat Tip: PetaPixel)
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Youtube Playlists
I've been working a little on YouTube creating photography related playlists.
I add videos whenever I come across anything interesting and/or informative. I currently don't have any videos that I personally have uploaded to YouTube (I don't have a great deal of time to dedicate to photography right now and really don't have the equipment to produce videos.)
The playlists are meant to provide a service to those looking for good photography videos. The individual videos are controlled by the person (or company) that uploaded them to YouTube.
I add videos whenever I come across anything interesting and/or informative. I currently don't have any videos that I personally have uploaded to YouTube (I don't have a great deal of time to dedicate to photography right now and really don't have the equipment to produce videos.)
The playlists are meant to provide a service to those looking for good photography videos. The individual videos are controlled by the person (or company) that uploaded them to YouTube.
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Sports Illustrated Lays Off Photography Staff
The latest in staff photography lay-offs is a bit of a shocker. A newspaper laying-off staff photographers is one thing, but Sport's Illustrated getting rid of it's staff of photographers?
The images the magazine uses it one of the few things that separate it from the sports section of the local newspaper. Without the iconic images, SI is just another news source. Worse, it's a news source dealing with stale news when compared to the daily newspaper.
SI's plan apparently is to replace the six staff photographers they just fired with freelancers (with the possibility of hiring the laid-off photographers on a freelance basis.) The problem for SI is there is no guarantee that the laid-off photographers will agree to work as freelancers. There is also no guarantee that any other freelancer used by SI will be able to reproduce the quality of the current staffers.
Another problem is that many of the freelancers available will also be producing images used b SI's competitors. The magazine could very well wind up looking like every other sports news outlet.
There is something to be said about branding, and this move could hurt Sports Illustrated's brand.
This could very well prove to be an extremely shortsighted move on the part of Sports Illustrated management.
The images the magazine uses it one of the few things that separate it from the sports section of the local newspaper. Without the iconic images, SI is just another news source. Worse, it's a news source dealing with stale news when compared to the daily newspaper.
SI's plan apparently is to replace the six staff photographers they just fired with freelancers (with the possibility of hiring the laid-off photographers on a freelance basis.) The problem for SI is there is no guarantee that the laid-off photographers will agree to work as freelancers. There is also no guarantee that any other freelancer used by SI will be able to reproduce the quality of the current staffers.
Another problem is that many of the freelancers available will also be producing images used b SI's competitors. The magazine could very well wind up looking like every other sports news outlet.
There is something to be said about branding, and this move could hurt Sports Illustrated's brand.
This could very well prove to be an extremely shortsighted move on the part of Sports Illustrated management.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Adobe Moving to 64-Bit Only Version of Lightroom
Hat Tip: PetaPixel
Adobe tends to be the go to platform for digital image professionals.
The company recently announced that Adobe Lightroom 6 would no longer support 32-bit operating systems. You'll need a 64-bit OS in order to use the software.
The company officially lists Mac OS 10.8 or higher and 64-bit versions Windows 7 or later as being supported.
(Windows did produce 64-but versions of Windows Vista. That OS is not listed as being capable of running Lightroom 6.)
There are valid reasons to limit a graphics program like Lightroom to 64-bit operating systems. 64-bit operating systems are capable of accessing much larger amounts of RAM than their 32-bit counterparts. This can greatly increase performance of memory intensive programs like Lightroom.
Adobe has made the announcement in advance of releasing Lightroom 6 in order to give users a chance to switch to a 64-bit OS.
Adobe tends to be the go to platform for digital image professionals.
The company recently announced that Adobe Lightroom 6 would no longer support 32-bit operating systems. You'll need a 64-bit OS in order to use the software.
The company officially lists Mac OS 10.8 or higher and 64-bit versions Windows 7 or later as being supported.
(Windows did produce 64-but versions of Windows Vista. That OS is not listed as being capable of running Lightroom 6.)
There are valid reasons to limit a graphics program like Lightroom to 64-bit operating systems. 64-bit operating systems are capable of accessing much larger amounts of RAM than their 32-bit counterparts. This can greatly increase performance of memory intensive programs like Lightroom.
Adobe has made the announcement in advance of releasing Lightroom 6 in order to give users a chance to switch to a 64-bit OS.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Nikon D750 Service Advisory
Nikon has finally announced an official service advisory for the D750.
The service advisory page will allow D750 owners to check whether their camera is one affected by the banding issue (it only shows with strong back lighting so some photographers may not have noticed the banding even on affected cameras.)
Only cameras with certain serial numbers are affected. Some of those cameras were serviced before being sold. Those cameras will have a black dot inside the tripos socket.
One caveat from Nikon.
All DSLR cameras are subject to a certain extent to the type of artifact seen in the D750.
It's just that the effect seen in some D750 models was exceptionally pronounced and needed to be addressed.
The service advisory page will allow D750 owners to check whether their camera is one affected by the banding issue (it only shows with strong back lighting so some photographers may not have noticed the banding even on affected cameras.)
Only cameras with certain serial numbers are affected. Some of those cameras were serviced before being sold. Those cameras will have a black dot inside the tripos socket.
One caveat from Nikon.
All DSLR cameras are subject to a certain extent to the type of artifact seen in the D750.
It's just that the effect seen in some D750 models was exceptionally pronounced and needed to be addressed.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Chance to Win Lensbaby Lens at DIY Photography
DIY Photography has teamed with Lensbaby in a contest giving away a Composer Pro w/Sweet 50 and a Special Edition Spark lens.
Just follow the link and fill out the contest entry.
You can get additional entries by sharing the story.
The contest is open until Jan. 26.
Just follow the link and fill out the contest entry.
You can get additional entries by sharing the story.
The contest is open until Jan. 26.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Another Photographer Contract Story Making the Rounds
Earlier this week it was a story about a photographer being sued by the model he photographed.
Now, it's a wedding photographer demanding money for the cover of the wedding album.
The written contract between the photographer and couple includes deliver of a custom photo book. After the wedding, the photographer demanded additional money for the photo album's cover. The price was "at least" and additional $150.
The couple balked when it came to paying the extra fee and the photographer threatened to withhold delivery of the CD containing digital copies of the wedding photos that is included in the contract. The are also threatening to charge the couple an additional "archiving" fee of $250.
The couple went to the news media.
The best defense the photographer has been able to come up with: "It's in the order form."
Several problems for the photographer here.
1) The order form does not constitute the contract between the parties. The actual written contract does and that document obligates the photographer to deliver a photo album as part of the services paid for by the couple.
2) The photographer was in control of the contents of the contract. Under contract law, any ambiguity in contracts terms are resolved in favor of the other party. The theory here is that the party in control of writing the contract is the party in position to clear up any ambiguity.
The contract says the photographer must deliver a photo album, with specified dimensions and a certain number of pages and images. There is no mention in the contract when it comes to additional costs related to the album.
3) The price the photographer is charging. That's "at least" $150. For the cover. Do some shopping for custom photo albums. You can get an album with the specifics laid-out in the contract and a custom cover for less than the amount the photographer is charging for the cover alone.
That is not going to go over well if this goes to court. It photographer really looks as if they are double charging for the album
4) Industry standards. This also goes to determining what the party means by certain terms. In the case of any ambiguity, courts will look at the standard practice within the industry in question. From the NBC 5 story on this when talking to another wedding photographer "he has never heard of a photographer charging extra for an album 'cover'."
In other words, the industry standard is not to charge for the album's cover. Since that is not part of the contract the photographer has no business doing so.
5) Bad publicity. In an attempt to get an additional $150-$400 from the couple, the photographer is receiving thousands of dollars in negative publicity. Just losing one client as a result of the publicity will result in the photographer losing far more revenue than they will get out of the couple.
6) The photographer is also refusing to comply with the terms of the contract when threatening to withhold the CD they are obligated to send to the couple. This is not only breach of contract, it borders on extortion. Which is illegal.
The photographer is also charging for services that don't appear to be part of the contract with the "archiving" fee. If it's not part of the contract you can't charge for it. The other party has not agreed to pay for the service.
The photographer is on shaky legal ground, and now faces serious damage to their business reputation as a result of the bad publicity involved.
Now, it's a wedding photographer demanding money for the cover of the wedding album.
The written contract between the photographer and couple includes deliver of a custom photo book. After the wedding, the photographer demanded additional money for the photo album's cover. The price was "at least" and additional $150.
The couple balked when it came to paying the extra fee and the photographer threatened to withhold delivery of the CD containing digital copies of the wedding photos that is included in the contract. The are also threatening to charge the couple an additional "archiving" fee of $250.
The couple went to the news media.
The best defense the photographer has been able to come up with: "It's in the order form."
Several problems for the photographer here.
1) The order form does not constitute the contract between the parties. The actual written contract does and that document obligates the photographer to deliver a photo album as part of the services paid for by the couple.
2) The photographer was in control of the contents of the contract. Under contract law, any ambiguity in contracts terms are resolved in favor of the other party. The theory here is that the party in control of writing the contract is the party in position to clear up any ambiguity.
The contract says the photographer must deliver a photo album, with specified dimensions and a certain number of pages and images. There is no mention in the contract when it comes to additional costs related to the album.
3) The price the photographer is charging. That's "at least" $150. For the cover. Do some shopping for custom photo albums. You can get an album with the specifics laid-out in the contract and a custom cover for less than the amount the photographer is charging for the cover alone.
That is not going to go over well if this goes to court. It photographer really looks as if they are double charging for the album
4) Industry standards. This also goes to determining what the party means by certain terms. In the case of any ambiguity, courts will look at the standard practice within the industry in question. From the NBC 5 story on this when talking to another wedding photographer "he has never heard of a photographer charging extra for an album 'cover'."
In other words, the industry standard is not to charge for the album's cover. Since that is not part of the contract the photographer has no business doing so.
5) Bad publicity. In an attempt to get an additional $150-$400 from the couple, the photographer is receiving thousands of dollars in negative publicity. Just losing one client as a result of the publicity will result in the photographer losing far more revenue than they will get out of the couple.
6) The photographer is also refusing to comply with the terms of the contract when threatening to withhold the CD they are obligated to send to the couple. This is not only breach of contract, it borders on extortion. Which is illegal.
The photographer is also charging for services that don't appear to be part of the contract with the "archiving" fee. If it's not part of the contract you can't charge for it. The other party has not agreed to pay for the service.
The photographer is on shaky legal ground, and now faces serious damage to their business reputation as a result of the bad publicity involved.
Friday, January 16, 2015
Arkansas Law Maker Proposes Law Banning Drone Photography
Hat Tip: PetaPixel
A bill was introduced in the Arkansas legislature yesterday that would outlaw the use of drones to capture information from private property. This includes photographing that property but also includes recording sounds, capturing information about odors, etc.
It also prohibits the distribution of ownership of that information. (Including ownership and distribution by the press.)
The law then provides "exceptions" to the blanket prohibition.
Personally, I think the law would fail a Constitutional Challenge as it is currently written.
Any photographer interested in drone photography living in Arkansas might want to contact the state legislature.
A bill was introduced in the Arkansas legislature yesterday that would outlaw the use of drones to capture information from private property. This includes photographing that property but also includes recording sounds, capturing information about odors, etc.
It also prohibits the distribution of ownership of that information. (Including ownership and distribution by the press.)
The law then provides "exceptions" to the blanket prohibition.
Personally, I think the law would fail a Constitutional Challenge as it is currently written.
Any photographer interested in drone photography living in Arkansas might want to contact the state legislature.
If You've Never Experienced Megapixel Envy...
For those photographers that have never experienced megapixel envy, take a look at this camera.
Granted, it'sthe size of a car but it still has a 3200 megapixel resolution. That's roughly 100 times the resolution of your typical full frame DSLR.
The camera is set to be part of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope and is scheduled for completion in 2022. It is being funded jointly by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. (Don't ask me why the DOE is involved. It certainly doesn't seem to involve anything energy related.)
The current plan is to place the telescope and camera on Cerro Pachón in Chile.
The camera still needs to achieve final funding approval by the DOE. The decision on actually funding should occur this summer.
Granted, it'sthe size of a car but it still has a 3200 megapixel resolution. That's roughly 100 times the resolution of your typical full frame DSLR.
The camera is set to be part of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope and is scheduled for completion in 2022. It is being funded jointly by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. (Don't ask me why the DOE is involved. It certainly doesn't seem to involve anything energy related.)
The current plan is to place the telescope and camera on Cerro Pachón in Chile.
The camera still needs to achieve final funding approval by the DOE. The decision on actually funding should occur this summer.
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Project Bluebook Files Now Available Online
Hat Tip: Daily Mail
Yes, this is a little off topic but I think it's worth mentioning.
The U.S. Air Force Investigations into UFO sighting (Project Blue Book) are now available online. The files include some UFO pictures.
You don't necessarily need to be interested in UFOs to examine the photos. You can simply be looking to exercise your photo analysis skills by determining what the UFO actually is. (I'm pretty sure one of the UFO images is the result of problems that occurred during the film development process. The UFOs look suspiciously like the rings left behind by some kind of liquid drying on the negative.)
Many of the files are just reported sightings without any images. You'll have to hunt a little to find UFO photographs.
Yes, this is a little off topic but I think it's worth mentioning.
The U.S. Air Force Investigations into UFO sighting (Project Blue Book) are now available online. The files include some UFO pictures.
You don't necessarily need to be interested in UFOs to examine the photos. You can simply be looking to exercise your photo analysis skills by determining what the UFO actually is. (I'm pretty sure one of the UFO images is the result of problems that occurred during the film development process. The UFOs look suspiciously like the rings left behind by some kind of liquid drying on the negative.)
Many of the files are just reported sightings without any images. You'll have to hunt a little to find UFO photographs.
Monday, January 12, 2015
Photographer Being Sued By Model
Photography related stories have been a bit spares lately, and I've been a little busy. I will post on any story that catches my eye if I get the chance.
That being said, this one caught my eye today over at PetaPixel:
Help: I Am Being Sued for Nearly $500,000 by a Model I Photographed!
You'll need to head over to PetaPixel for the details, but I'll post my response here.
The model's case against the photographer appears to rest on a supposed oral agreement between the two of them. The problem for the model is that she signed a model release allowing the photographer to use the images in the way the photographer used them (uploading to a stock images site for sale). Her case rests on an oral agreement that the photographer denies making, that being an agreement that the images would not be used for certain purposes, primarily related to porn.
The photographer states he would not have made that promise as there was no way for him to ensure the promise was kept.
Quickly skimming the complaint results in contradictory statements made by the model.
Paragraph 37) declares that the model release included an integration and/or merger clause. The following paragraph states that is did not contain such a clause.
The inclusion of such a clause is extremely important in this case. The clause states that the written document includes all the terms agreed to by the parties. This specifically excludes any terms not put in writing and included with the contract.
An integration or merger clause would prevent the model from suing based on an oral agreement.
I suspect that there is no integration clause in this case. It does not appear to be included in any standard model release form available on the Internet.
It might be time to include one.
The photographer is currently raising funds for his legal defense.
He apparently did have liability insurance, but the company is refusing his attempts to get them to fund his legal expenses. (This is from the comments on the PetaPexel story.)
Two things to take away from this story:
1) Liability Insurance is only as useful as the Insurer's reliability. Insurance with a company that refuses to pay out is worse than no insurance at all. You're out premiums in addition to any other losses
2) Standard contracts are not necessarily the best way to go. In this case, modifying the contract to exclude oral agreements might be a good idea.
That being said, this one caught my eye today over at PetaPixel:
Help: I Am Being Sued for Nearly $500,000 by a Model I Photographed!
You'll need to head over to PetaPixel for the details, but I'll post my response here.
The model's case against the photographer appears to rest on a supposed oral agreement between the two of them. The problem for the model is that she signed a model release allowing the photographer to use the images in the way the photographer used them (uploading to a stock images site for sale). Her case rests on an oral agreement that the photographer denies making, that being an agreement that the images would not be used for certain purposes, primarily related to porn.
The photographer states he would not have made that promise as there was no way for him to ensure the promise was kept.
Quickly skimming the complaint results in contradictory statements made by the model.
Paragraph 37) declares that the model release included an integration and/or merger clause. The following paragraph states that is did not contain such a clause.
The inclusion of such a clause is extremely important in this case. The clause states that the written document includes all the terms agreed to by the parties. This specifically excludes any terms not put in writing and included with the contract.
An integration or merger clause would prevent the model from suing based on an oral agreement.
I suspect that there is no integration clause in this case. It does not appear to be included in any standard model release form available on the Internet.
It might be time to include one.
The photographer is currently raising funds for his legal defense.
He apparently did have liability insurance, but the company is refusing his attempts to get them to fund his legal expenses. (This is from the comments on the PetaPexel story.)
Two things to take away from this story:
1) Liability Insurance is only as useful as the Insurer's reliability. Insurance with a company that refuses to pay out is worse than no insurance at all. You're out premiums in addition to any other losses
2) Standard contracts are not necessarily the best way to go. In this case, modifying the contract to exclude oral agreements might be a good idea.
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
2015 CES Product Announcement Updates
For those interested in keeping up with product announcements, Amateur Photographer has a blog dedicated to the 2015 Consumer Electronics Show that is currently ongoing in Las Vegas.
Check the blog for updates on the new products announced at the show.
Check the blog for updates on the new products announced at the show.
Sunday, January 4, 2015
Free Photo Mosaic Software
Hat Tip: SLR Lounge
For those looking for free software to create photo mosaics, you might want to try AndreaMosaic.
It's free to use for both personal and commercial purposes. There are a couple of minor limitations. First you need to credit the software when showing the mosaic or when distributing prints. (The credit does not need to be part of the image. Just including on the web page the images is on or including on a statement shipped with a print.) Second, you are expected to contact the creator if the mosaic is published for a large audience so it can be included in the list of artwork created using the software.
I have tested it a little and found it fairly easy to use. Plus, there is a manual included with the download.
One caveat.
The quality of the mosaic produced does depend to a certain extent on the images available to the program when creating the mosaic.
There are also a few upgrades that you need to pay for if you want to use them.
The first is a bonus pack that increases the number of tile patterns available when using the program. The second is a "Professional Version" for those looking to create mosaics larger than those supported by the free version. The free version supports images up to 200 megapixels and up to 30,000 tiles. It also supports a library with up to 100,000 images. (The images drawn on when creating a mosaic.)
Those limits a large enough that most users won't need the Professional Version.
For those looking for free software to create photo mosaics, you might want to try AndreaMosaic.
It's free to use for both personal and commercial purposes. There are a couple of minor limitations. First you need to credit the software when showing the mosaic or when distributing prints. (The credit does not need to be part of the image. Just including on the web page the images is on or including on a statement shipped with a print.) Second, you are expected to contact the creator if the mosaic is published for a large audience so it can be included in the list of artwork created using the software.
I have tested it a little and found it fairly easy to use. Plus, there is a manual included with the download.
One caveat.
The quality of the mosaic produced does depend to a certain extent on the images available to the program when creating the mosaic.
There are also a few upgrades that you need to pay for if you want to use them.
The first is a bonus pack that increases the number of tile patterns available when using the program. The second is a "Professional Version" for those looking to create mosaics larger than those supported by the free version. The free version supports images up to 200 megapixels and up to 30,000 tiles. It also supports a library with up to 100,000 images. (The images drawn on when creating a mosaic.)
Those limits a large enough that most users won't need the Professional Version.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)