August 22, 2014, 08:07:00 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Hillsilly

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 49
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang 650-1300mm
« on: April 14, 2014, 04:56:45 AM »
Good to hear some others like the SX50.  I mentioned that I was pleasantly surprised by the IQ in another post  and was laughed out of town.  I'm not saying the SX50 is the be-all and end-all, but for those who are severely focal length challenged, or don't want to carry a 400 to 600mm lens around, or don't want to spend a lot of money I think it is a great option for getting to 1200mm (in 35mm equiv.).

Question: Based upon what you mentioned above.  In those instances if the OP wanted to include the photos they took in a portfolio or as an example of their work they would have to gain some form of written permission of the pro, or maybe even have to pay the pro, to be able to display the photos they took?

The OP would need to determine who the copyright owner was and get their permission.  Unless the agreement between the bride and groom and the pro specifies otherwise (and you'd need to review the contract to find out), under Australian copyright law, the bride and groom would own the copyright and as such the OP would need their permission.   Given that the Bride and Groom like the photos, the logical step would be to get their ok.  If he was to get the approval from the pro, too, there would never be any risk of problems.

And then there is a grey area.  Just because the Bride or the Pro might own the copyright, it doesn't mean that they own the OP's photo files.  I'd have to think about this more, but if the Bride and Groom own the copyright, that just means that they have the right to reproduce or use the images taken by the pro and the ability to prevent others from copying or publishing the photos.  But it doesn't necessarily give them ownership of the files produced by the pro.  They are the pro's property.  Similarly, in the absence of an agreement between the OP and the pro, the photos made by the OP are the OP's property (even if he might not own the copyright).  If the OP simply displays the files on his computer for prospective clients, he's not reproducing them and there might not even be a copyright issue.  We also allow people to convert things they own to different formats for personal use without copyright issues.  Arguably, the OP could also print the images and have them displayed in his home for his own personal enjoyment, and if potential clients inadvertently see them, well...

Am a bit late to this thread but having had a skim through the comments most of them are laughably misguided in terms of the legal rights of the professional photographer over the OP.

Under Australian copyright law, the OP gained sole copyright over the photos that he took as soon as he pressed the shutter. That gives him unfettered rights to commercially exploit his photos.

The only way that the professional could restrict those rights is by virtue of a contract containing explicit terms prohibiting him from using/selling the photos. There is no way that the a court would read in such an onerous term into the very loose arrangement described here. I very much doubt that there is any contract between the OP and the pro photographer governing the shadowing arrangement, but there clearly is no term covering assignment of copyright or prohibition on exploitation of photos.

The one legal claim to the photos of the OP would be from the part of the bride. If we changed the facts a bit here and the OP wanted to sell his photos to a bridal magazine, the bride may be able to restrain this by bringing an action for breach of confidence. However, even this would be a pretty weak action given the reluctance of Australian courts to recognise any tort of privacy. Her only strong action would be against the professional (who she has a contract with) for his negligence in allowing the OP to tag along without requiring him to enter into a contract to restrain his use of the photos. But I digress.

The only issue at stake here is the OP's ethics. And personally I think the professional is the one who should be grateful that the bride isn't tempted to take him to VCAT for stuffing up the coverage:

Think a lot of the comments here are fuelled by "professionals" feeling a bit insecure about second shooters :P

[FWIW I'm in my final year of a law degree]

Once you've got a few years' IP law under your belt, you might see things differently.  I'd argue that the OP took the images as an agent of the pro photographer (as he would have been under the supervision and guidance of the pro and his attendance at the event would have been under the pro's direction), and consequently the pro owns the copyright (subject to the contract with the bride and they are the client, depending on the wording of the contract, you might find that they already own the copyright - take a look at s35(5) of the Copyright Act.)

Given the circumstances, I have a hard time seeing how the OP could own the copyright.  I suspect he'd argue that as the person pressing the shutter button, he was the creator and therefore the owner.  But given that this would have been a private event, with the OP attending under the direction of the pro photographer, if this ever became a serious issue, I'd suggest the pro (or the bride and groom) would have the winning argument. (Law degree and 20+ years experience.)

Back to the OP, I'm happy that you discussed it with the pro (even if it wasn't 100% your desired outcome).  We'd have 2 or 3 people come and do work experience with us from high schools and universities each year.  And while we're not in a photography related industry, everyone that works with us always acts on their best behaviour and we're delighted to have them, even though a certain percentage will ultimately become direct competitors.  But we like doing it.  Not only do we identify potential employees, but it is always useful having contacts in other firms or different specialities.  Hopefully, you've kept the relationship with the pro on a good footing as you never know when your paths might cross again.

I've got the same as the OP - the Intuos pen & touch.  Mine is the small one (CTH-480).  For me, even the small one is too big and I've decreased the area being used. 

I'm a recent convert to Wacom tablets.  I have no idea why I didn't buy one earlier.  The pressure sensitivity of the tablet and stylus when used with tools such as brushes and the eraser, allow me to do much more precise adjustments.  The quality of my post production results have improved dramatically.  (But then, I like doing a lot of PP.  If you're a straight out of camera shooter, this might be less important).

FWIW, I purchased the tablet after watching a couple of YouTube videos in which a photographer, Terry White, showed how he used it for portrait adjustments.  It was one of those - "Wow! can do that?  And so easily?" moments (As anyone who has ever struggled to do really fine, small adjustments with just a mouse, can appreciate).  Since then, I've come across a number of other videos to help refine techniques.  Not being a professional photographer, I'm out of the loop when it comes to the equipment that many people use.  But I'm surprised that you don't see more people recommending tablets.   

Canon General / Re: My Canon Story
« on: March 19, 2014, 12:57:15 AM »
I'm curious to see the IQ difference between the 28-105 and the L, haha.

The 28-105 was my first ever lens that was wider than 35mm.  When I bought it, I couldn't believe how wide it was  - my first thought was "wow!".  Before buying some L lenses (and switching to digital, which turned me into a pixel peeper), I used to think the 28-105 was pretty good, but in comparison, it struggles at the wider end.  Still, mine served me well for 10+ years.

C'mon, the guy is over 70 years old.  Give him a break!  At least he's getting out and doing something he enjoys, and if he's got the ability to have other people do the hard lifting, good on him.

Photography Technique / Re: What could I do better?
« on: March 17, 2014, 04:13:48 AM »
You're settings look fine to get a sharp, high quality image (1/1000, ISO 400, F8.0).  But I'd still suggest trying to bump the shutter speed up.

I've often thought that Canon cameras have trouble focusing on furry animals.  (At least they do for me...a quick google search suggests that I might be the only one...).  But, like you, I  use lenses with smaller apertures and know that the camera's AF system is not at its peak - I suspect that is the reason I get more than the occasional improperly focused photo.  Using AI Servo mode and taking a few shots helps with getting a higher number of keepers.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: March 14, 2014, 12:53:42 AM »
I'm curious if anyone who likes the idea of a MF Canon would like the idea of a fixed lens camera in MF--something like a giant G1X but with 40Mp and great low light capability?  Would you be interested if it had a wide-to-normal zoom lens, and cost under $3k?
Adjusted for inflation, many fixed lens MF cameras sold for more than $3k.  Given that there was interest in the past, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some interest now.  Still, I'd do it differently.  People buying MF are after two things - the "look" and the improved image quality.  Drop the zoom and put the best, widest aperture lens you could build for that price range.  Rather than one camera, release an ultra wide, wide and normal lens versions. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: March 11, 2014, 10:40:03 PM »
Well it's certainly feasible to pack a square sensor within the 35mm full frame image circle and that would yield about 20 % or so more pixels at the same density....
Interesting idea, but only a limited number of lenses might currently work with this.  Most lenses are optimised to cover the existing rectangular sensor shape with image quality falling dramatically outside of this area.

I think Canon will get into MF at some point.  Now that everybody has a DSLR, there must be an ever increasing number of wealthy people who feel the need to raise above the mainstream.  Turning up to the next family gathering with a 500+mp Canon MF camera is the logical way.   Canon can even develop a new projector system for the new camera that can display the image across an entire wall.  And 500mp could be enough to ensure the image doesn't look pixelated.  It would be just like being there.  (especially if you buy the 3D add-on camera for three times the price).  Hasselblad have already recognised this trend of people not caring how much things cost (hence the Lunar and Stellar).  Canon won't be far behind.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: B&H or Adorama
« on: March 11, 2014, 10:18:06 PM »
B&H send me their catalogues, which I like looking through.  So all things being equal, I favour B&H and its been a while since I've ordered from Adorama.  But I've never had any problems with either.   (Although, I have noticed an increasing incidence of them not wanting to post some items outside of the USA, including some Canon items.  Hopefully not a long term trend.).

Canon General / Re: In need of a "walk around" camera
« on: March 07, 2014, 01:30:28 AM »
No, the X100S does not have a speedy AF system.  It's really great at some things, but that's not one of them.  That said, anyone else with an X100S want to chime in on this?

I've got an X-E1, a two year old and a four year old (and another one due in six weeks).  The X-E1 has slightly worse AF capabilities than the x100s, but I have no hesitation bringing it instead of a DSLR on family trips (in fact, it has essentially replaced my other cameras for everything except sports and wildlife).  Sure, my Canon's will get AF faster nearly all of the time, whereas the X-E1 is slower (and I've got a 60mm lens that is v-e-r-y slow), but the X-E1's AF speed is still more than adequate.  The x100s is said to be better.  The X-t1 is significantly better (especially if you are using focus tracking).

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: An Era of Mergers?
« on: March 02, 2014, 06:59:27 PM »
I have a hard time seeing Samsung as one of the smaller players. Maybe not so big in photography yet, but it'd be foolish to bet against them. They might not go after the pro market, but possibly pretty much everything else. Time will tell.
I think I would generally agree with this.  Right now they're a smaller fish.  But Samsung is willing to manufacture in numerous mature markets.  I would expect their camera market share to gradually grow over time, especially at the entry level in the nearer future.  The recent Canon announcement to exit low end cameras should benefit them.
Yes - I meant that Samsung were currently a smaller player in the camera industry.  Overall, they have a stated goal of becoming the largest manufacturer of retail goods in the world.

....At this point I feel the duty to summarize my learnings from your posts...

That's a good summary.  Overall, it is difficult to argue that crop sensors will produce a better image than a full frame sensor.  But given that we're on page 3 with vocal proponents on each side and the "Full Frame vs Crop Sensor" topic is up to page 13, you could take that to mean that a crop sensor will produce excellent results and that you will probably only notice a difference if comparing two images side by side.  In the real world, where an image stands on its own, a crop sensor produces images that are more than acceptable to everyone.

Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 25, 2014, 11:19:05 AM »
Many of his contemporaries and most of the critics disliked Beethoven and his work.  Yet time has an interesting way of identifying quality and greatness.  Perhaps our great-great-great-great-grandchildren will look upon Miley Cyrus in the same way?  But personally, I think that her reputation will pale in comparison to her dad's.  I'm certain "Acky Breaky Heart" will be considered the peak of late 20th century music.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 49