On eating one's own dogfood...

I just ran across this article about how Sony has an ad running in Outside Magazine for a new DSLR they're marketing, the Sony A700. What's interesting about the ad is that there is pretty strong evidence that the photo they chose to use in the ad -- presumably as a way of showing the power of the A700 -- was actually a photo taken in 1965 before Sony cameras existed. In fact, it was most likely taken using a Nikon, based on other work that the photographer did around the same time.

What I find hard to understand about this is why Sony didn't hire someone to go take some photos with the camera that they're actually marketing in the ad. Sony isn't exactly the starving underdog; I'm fairly certain they could afford it. Crazy talk, I know.

Judging from the pile of equipment they have on display in the ad, it stands to reason that they're trying to appeal to the semi-pro and pro markets with this camera... which also happen to be markets that have a pretty high likelihood of noticing the fact that you used a relatively recognizable 40 year old photo in your ad for a camera made by a company that didn't even make cameras that long ago.

Link: http://www.cnet.com/8301-13556_1-9818927-61.html

On eating one's own dogfood...

I just ran across this article about how Sony has an ad running in Outside Magazine for a new DSLR they're marketing, the Sony A700. What's interesting about the ad is that there is pretty strong evidence that the photo they chose to use in the ad -- presumably as a way of showing the power of the A700 -- was actually a photo taken in 1965 before Sony cameras existed. In fact, it was most likely taken using a Nikon, based on other work that the photographer did around the same time.

What I find hard to understand about this is why Sony didn't hire someone to go take some photos with the camera that they're actually marketing in the ad. Sony isn't exactly the starving underdog. Crazy talk, I know.

Judging from the pile of equipment they have on display in the ad, it stands to reason that they're trying to appeal to the semi-pro and pro markets with this camera... which also happen to be markets that have a pretty high likelihood of noticing the fact that you used a relatively recognizable 40 year old photo in your ad for a camera made by a company that didn't even make cameras that long ago.

Link: http://www.cnet.com/8301-13556_1-9818927-61.html

Photographer's rights

I keep reading stories about photographers being harassed for taking photos in public places. It happens a lot.

So, I thought I would find some documentation that clearly articulates exactly what photographer's rights are. Below, I've included in its entirety the text from "The Photographer's Right" published by Bert Krages II, an attorney. It is available as a downloadable PDF from his site.

He describes the document as follows:

The Photographer’s Right is a downloadable guide that is loosely based on the Bust Card and the Know Your Rights pamphlet that used to be available on the ACLU website.

I've added my own emphasis to key parts of the document by highlighting them in red text.

---

The Photographer’s Right
Your Rights and Remedies When Stopped or Confronted for Photography

Updated November
2006

About this Guide

Confrontations that impair the constitutional right to make images are becoming more common. To fight the abuse of your right to free expression, you need to know your rights to take photographs and the remedies available if your rights are infringed.

The General Rule

The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks.

Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations. Whether you need permission from property owners to take photographs while on their premises depends on the circumstances. In most places, you may reasonably assume that taking photographs is allowed and that you do not need explicit permission. However, this is a judgment call and you should request permission when the circumstances suggest that the owner is likely to object. In any case, when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request.

Some Exceptions to the Rule

There are some exceptions to the general rule. A significant one is that commanders of military installations can prohibit photographs of specific areas when they deem it necessary to protect national security. The U.S. Department of Energy can also prohibit photography of designated nuclear facilities although the publicly visible areas of nuclear facilities are usually not designated as such.

Members of the public have a very limited scope of privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, rest- rooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes.

Permissible Subjects

Despite misconceptions to the contrary, the following subjects can almost always be photographed lawfully from public places:

• accident and fire scenes
• children
• celebrities
• bridges and other infrastructure
• residential and commercial buildings
• industrial facilities and public utilities
• transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
• Superfund sites
• criminal activities
• law enforcement officers

Who Is Likely to Violate Your Rights

Most confrontations are started by security guards and employees of organizations who fear photography. The most common reason given is security but often such persons have no articulated reason. Security is rarely a legitimate reason for restricting photography. Taking a photograph is not a terrorist act nor can a business legitimately assert that taking a photograph of a subject in public view infringes on its trade secrets.

On occasion, law enforcement officers may object to photography but most understand that people have the right to take photographs and do not interfere with photographers. They do have the right to keep you away from areas where you may impede their activities or endanger safety. However, they do not have the legal right to prohibit you from taking photographs from other locations.

They Have Limited Rights to Bother, Question, or Detain You

Although anyone has the right to approach a person in a public place and ask questions, persistent and unwanted conduct done without a legitimate purpose is a crime in many states if it causes serious annoyance. You are under no obligation to explain the purpose of your photography nor do you have to disclose your identity except in states that require it upon request by a law enforcement officer.

If the conduct goes beyond mere questioning, all states have laws that make coercion and harassment criminal offenses. The specific elements vary among the states but in general it is unlawful for anyone to instill a fear that they may injure you, damage or take your property, or falsely accuse you of a crime just because you are taking photographs.

Private parties have very limited rights to detain you against your will and may be subject to criminal and civil charges should they attempt to do so. Although the laws in most states authorize citizen’s arrests, such authority is very narrow. In general, citizen’s arrests can be made only for felonies or crimes committed in the person’s presence. Failure to abide by these requirements usually means that the person is liable for a tort such as false imprisonment.

They Have No Right to Confiscate Your Film

Sometimes agents acting for entities such as owners of industrial plants and shopping malls may ask you to hand over your film. Absent a court order, private parties have no right to confiscate your film. Taking your film directly or indirectly by threatening to use force or call a law enforcement agency can constitute criminal offenses such as theft and coercion. It can likewise constitute a civil tort such as conversion. Law enforcement officers may have the authority to seize film when making an arrest but otherwise must obtain a court order.

Your Legal Remedies If Harassed

If someone has threatened, intimidated, or detained you because you were taking photographs, they may be liable for crimes such as kidnapping, coercion, and theft. In such cases, you should report them to the police.

You may also have civil remedies against such persons and their employers. The torts for which you may be entitled to compensation include assault, conversion, false imprisonment, and violation of your constitutional rights.

Other Remedies If Harassed

If you are disinclined to take legal action, there are still things you can do that contribute to protecting the right to take photographs.

1. Call the local newspaper and see if they are interested in running a story. Many newspapers feel that civil liberties are worthy of serious coverage.
2. Write to or call the supervisor of the person involved, or the legal or public relations department of the entity, and complain about the event.
3. Make the event publicly known on an Internet forum that deals with photography or civil rights issues.
   

How to Handle Confrontations

Most confrontations can be defused by being courteous and respectful. If the party becomes pushy, combative, or unreasonably hostile, consider calling the police. Above all, use good judgment and don’t allow an event to escalate into violence.

In the event you are threatened with detention or asked to surrender your film, asking the following questions can help ensure that you will have the evidence to enforce your legal rights:

1. What is the person’s name?
2. Who is their employer?
3. Are you free to leave?
4. If not, how do they intend to stop you if you decide to leave? What legal basis do they assert for the detention?
5. Likewise, if they demand your film, what legal basis do they assert for the confiscation?

Disclaimer

This is a general education guide about the right to take photographs and is necessarily limited in scope. For more information about the laws that affect photography, I refer you to the second edition of my book, Legal Handbook for Photographers (Amherst Media, 2006).

This guide is not intended to be legal advice nor does it create an attorney client relationship. Readers should seek the advice of a competent attorney when they need legal advice regarding a specific situation.

published by:

Bert P. Krages II
Attorney at Law
6665 S.W. Hampton Street, Suite 200
Portland, Oregon 97223
www.krages.com
© 2003 Bert P. Krages II


Link: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Photo gallery: My nephew's 6th birthday

I thought I would take a break from going on about lens distortion or some other potentially dry topic and just share some photos.

I took photos at my nephew's birthday party at a place called Pump It Up that looked ridiculously fun for kids (and adults, if only we were allowed... if only). It's basically an indoor facility with a bunch of inflatable jumpy-type things.




Two main factors contributed to making this event a bit challenging from a photography perspective.

1. Bad/low light
2. Fast moving objects (i.e. kids)
   

Not really the greatest combination of factors. Additionally, the really high ceiling made bouncing flash off of it not a very viable solution, and I don't really like using direct flash because I don't like the harshness it adds to the photos. What did help was using a fast lens -- the fastest lens I have right now (on loan) is a Nikon 50mm 1.4, so I tried using that as much as possible. I also shot mostly in shutter priority mode to help reduce blurry shots by choosing a minimum shutter speed of about 1/125 of a second. 1/125 isn't nearly fast enough to freeze all kinds of action, but given the bad light situation I couldn't really go faster than that without having the photos come out too dark from lack of sufficient light. So it was a bit of a balancing act. The following photos are some of the more successful ones of the day.

Note: there are a couple of photos that use the mouse-over effect that won't work in your feed reader. Just click through to the post if you wish to see the before/after shots.



I decided the only way to get some good action shots was to join the kids in the jumpy-house. I survived despite many near misses.





I love this photo! Note: No children with pengiun stuffed animals were harmed during the taking of this photo.






Sometimes cropping helps you focus your intentions with the photo. By mousing over this photo you can see how I chose to remove everything that I felt was only serving to add eye-noise and distractions to the main focal point of the image -- which in this case is my nephew Drew.





I love the look of anticipation in my nephew's face as he nears the top of the obstacle.




Here's another cropped image -- mouse-over it and see what I chose to take out. Again, I felt like the focus of the image should be the boys in the chair/throne.



















Earlier in the day about 10 minutes into the festivities, Scott collided with another kid and got a fat lip. I think every six year old reserves the right to lick the frosted candle with their fat lip.













My sister's creation: A cupcake inside of an ice cream cone. I don't have to tell you that these went over really well with the gang.



Scott invited the other kids to help him open gifts, who were only too willing to join the fun.

For more, visit the full gallery: http://picasaweb.google.com/antman/ScottS6thBirthday

DXO Optics Pro

When I first bought my DSLR and started gathering a little in-depth knowledge about photography, I quickly found myself overwhelmed by lots of buzzwords. "Chromatic aberration", "vignetting", "fringing", "lens flare", "distortion", "noise" -- just to name a few. These are all things I was never even aware of in the point & shoot camera world.

Luckily, there are some good pieces of software that can help you mitigate some of these problems without having to necessarily become an expert in each one. Why am I advocating that you not become an expert in each of these topics? Take a look at a snippet of an explanation of chromatic aberration by PA van Walree:

"When different colors of light propagate at different speeds in a medium, the refractive index is wavelength dependent. This phenomenon is known as dispersion. A well- known example is the glass prism that disperses an incident beam of white light into a rainbow of colors [1]. Photographic lenses comprise various dispersive, dielectric glasses. These glasses do not refract all constituent colors of incident light at equal angles, and great efforts may be required to design an overall well-corrected lens that brings all colors together in the same focus. Chromatic aberrations are those departures from perfect imaging that are due to dispersion. Whereas the Seidel aberrations are monochromatic, i.e. they occur also with light of a single color, chromatic aberrations are only noticed with polychromatic light."

Had enough? That's just the introductory paragraph of the document. It continues on in great technical detail. If you're fascinated by the nitty gritty and the paragraph I've quoted only intrigues you more, then I'd hate to be the one to dissuade you from learning more. But my point is that you don't have to be an expert in this stuff just to take a decent photograph. For most people, chromatic aberration can be distilled down to "some parts of your photos have purple colored edges."

Chromatic aberration is just one of the many optical irregularities that DXO Optics Pro addresses. It's the software I've chosen to use, and I'm extremely happy with the results it provides. I'll try to illustrate the benefits of the software by showing you some photos before and after being processed by DXO Optics Pro, and some of the optical issues that it resolved in the images.

Let's start with lens distortion. Here's what DXO has to say about it:

"A perfect lens would render straight lines as straight, no matter where they occur. Most practical lenses aren’t that good, though, and instead bend lines outwards (barrel distortion) or inwards (pincushion distortion). Wide-angle lenses and wide-range zoom lenses often suffer particularly badly from this."

I have some good examples of lens distortion in my photo collection, as I have primarily used a wide-angle zoom lens. Disclaimer: these pictures were chosen not because they are particularly good photos, but because they most succinctly illustrate the issues being discussed.

Initially the images you see are the unaltered images that came out of my camera. By moving your mouse over the image you'll be able to see the photo after it was corrected with DXO. Sometimes without having the photos side-by-side (or in this case, overlayed each other) it's difficult to notice the subtleties, but boy do they become apparent when you can flip your mouse over them and immediately see the before/after in full effect.

NOTE: If you mouse over the images and see no change in your feed reader, you may need to click-through to the full blog post.

Here we go with some barrel distortion examples:








Take a look at the balcony before you mouse over the image below. Once you mouse over it, you should see the balcony straighten up into a horizontal line.




Now take a look at pincushion distortion.

Pay close attention to the lines on the doors and the piping to the left of the doors.







Next, there's vignetting. Here's a quick note from DXO to keep in mind as you look at the images:

"Most lenses are brighter in the center than at the edges, especially when wide open. This is especially pronounced with wide-angles and some long telephoto lenses. This phenomenon is known as light fall-off or vignetting."

Moving on to lighting:

Sometimes DXO can turn what seems like a lost cause into a usable image.







Link: http://dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro

Getting married?

Then you might be looking for wedding photographers, right? It just so happens that I have a recommendation.

Nate & Jaclyn are a husband & wife team working out of San Diego that do some of the most impressive wedding photography I've seen to date. These people rock. It won't take you long to realize how strong their foto-fu is after spending 10-15 minutes browsing through some of the work they showcase on their blog. Really -- it's worth it. I have a lot of "How Do They Do That?" moments as I look through their stuff. It's pure photogasmic joy. They also have a couple of separate sites set up to showcase their wedding photography and portrait work. I enjoy their blog more though because it's a combination of their professional wedding work as well as their recreational & family photography. Some weeks ago I wrote a post about photoshop textures by Jesh De Rox -- I think they frequently use his textures in their photos for some pretty dramatic effects.

One of the reasons I enjoy their blog so much is because it's obvious that they love what they do. Their attitudes and their photos are dripping with enthusiasm, and I have a lot of respect for anyone who attacks their job with that kind of zeal. I would hire these guys in a second and fly them out for my wedding -- if only I had found them sooner.

Link: http://www.theblogisfound.com/
Link: http://www.theimageisfound.com/

They also have what they call "shootshops", which are basically workshops that they give to share some of their knowledge with the hoi polloi. I missed the last one that took place in San Francisco, but I plan to make it to the next one.

Lens rentals... by mail!

I just found about this place, www.borrowlenses.com. It's a great idea -- you can rent lenses without leaving your house, and just wait for them to arrive in the mail. No driving to the local camera shop, and no dealing with the snobby holier-than-thou camera shop guy. They offer lots of good Canon and Nikon options. It's like Netflix for lenses!

Best of all, their prices are really reasonable. And for those who are local to the SF bay area, they offer local pickups for shorter rental periods if you wish.

They also offer a consignment program. If you have any extra camera bodies, lenses, or other equipment that you aren't using very much, you can make money from them by letting borrowlenses.com rent them out on your behalf.

I haven't tried it yet, but it's got the makings of being a great service.

Link: http://www.borrowlenses.com/