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.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
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)