April 17, 2014, 01:19:18 AM

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 - unfocused

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 117
Photography Technique / Re: Shooting and model release form use
« on: April 02, 2014, 11:50:45 PM »

Lawyers spend a lot of time trying to understand the ambigiously and sometimes contradictory legislation on this issue.  Many of the laws are vague and, post 911, can be interpreted far stricter than in other times. Unfortunately, the courts have been inconsistant in their rulings on many cases.

I disagree with this notion as it concerns the need of model releases, defining of a public or private space, and what defines uses of images for commercial or advertising purposes. Local courts may try to interpret existing laws but the Supreme Court is pretty clear about these issues and as far as I have heard has ruled consistently.  Can you state cases that show ambiguity?

In my experience it's pretty b&w as to when I need a model release and how I can use an image that I take. I've never had a problem. If you need further clarification I would recommend checking out ASMP as they will have resources that will provide the definitive answers concerning these issues.

Yes, it isn't as difficult as people make it out to be. As I explained previously, people confuse right to privacy with appropriation.

Right to privacy is almost never an issue with photographers (unless you are into taking pictures with hidden cameras in women's shower rooms – in which case you have more serious problems). Right to privacy only comes into play if a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy -- as in the shower case above.

If you are in a public place there is no assumption of privacy and therefore you can't demand privacy. Anyone can take your picture and there isn't much you can do. (It is possible that a picture could libel someone, but it is very difficult to prove and generally would involve an image that has been manipulated to defame someone. A picture that is merely unflattering is not libelous. This is for ordinary citizens. If you are a public figure, you have even fewer protections. And, public figure can be broadly interpreted. For example, if you have been accused of committing a crime, win the lottery, survive a train wreck, etc., you are likely to become a public figure, whether or not you want to be.)

Model releases aren't really of any value for privacy issues. In fact, just having a model release wouldn't necessarily make you immune to charges of libel, because libel has more to do with the use of the image, not the circumstances of how it was taken.

Model releases are transactional in nature. They are designed to assure that the person posing for the picture receives fair compensation for the use of their image, name, etc. They are not needed for editorial content or artistic works. Magazines, Newspapers, television stations, etc. do not need model releases. Artists – and that would include street photographers – do not need model releases. Publications and artists are free to profit from their works without any model release. And, remember, the Supreme Court has applied the term artist very liberally so that it even includes strippers.

Model releases only come into play when images are used for commerce. The example I used before was the case of someone at a car show waxing their car with "Brand X" wax and you selling the picture to "Brand X" for an ad campaign. That requires a model release.

Confusion does arise because people don't know what is or is not a public place. Shopping malls are private property and they have a right to restrict or forbid photography on their property. I have seen shopping mall security guards run news crews off their parking lots. Disneyland is private property so they have a right to restrict/regulate photography on their property. Obviously Disneyland takes a more liberal view, but remember you really don't have any "right" to photograph on their property. They are allowing you to do so, but if you violate their rules, they have every right to stop you or remove you from the premises.

In recent years, some entities have become more restrictive in what they allow people to photograph. Again, this comes down to what is or is not a public place and whether or not you are "appropriating" their product for private financial gain. This is the area where things can be rather nuanced, but they are also very specific situations that most of us are unlikely to encounter on any regular basis.

There are any number of quite good resources available for reading up on this topic. But, generally, people make too much of it.

EOS Bodies / Re: New DSLR and PowerShots in May [CR2]
« on: April 02, 2014, 11:32:17 AM »
Reading some tea leaves:

  • May is not a good time for the 7DII: too close to Photokina, but yet, not quite close enough.
  • If it is a Rebel/XXXD it will almost certainly have the 70d sensor.
  • They've milked the T3i for a long time, yet it is still the number one selling DSLR on Amazon. Seems like a dilemma to me.
  • Canon is disappointed by the SL1 sales. A safe approach might be to make the SL2 the next camera with dual pixel sensor.
  • If it is not the 7DII, then I think that increases the odds that the 7DII will have a new sensor.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Announces Acquisition of Samyang
« on: April 01, 2014, 01:41:13 PM »
stop it... it´s lame.

I don't know which I find more unbelievable: 1) that someone thought this was funny in the first place; or 2) that someone else thought it was funny enough to re-post it on CR.

Photography Technique / Re: Shooting and model release form use
« on: March 31, 2014, 11:06:47 PM »
Distant Star's answer is correct. To expand a bit.

This is a common topic and lots of guidelines are available. Here is the simplified explanation.

If you are in a public place, you don't have a right to privacy in the U.S.

Thus, images for editorial or artistic purposes can be used without release and generally courts have provided a broad interpretation of editorial or artistic purposes. 

But, you do have a right to your name, your face and your reputation. Someone can't appropriate these attributes for financial gain without compensating you, no matter where you are.

Therefore, images of a recognizable person cannot be used without a release if the purpose is to sell or endorse a product, service, person, etc.

Example: I go to a public car show held at a local park. I take pictures and later post those pictures on my website without anyone's permission. No problem.

Joe Smith calls and wants a print of one of the pictures for his study. It happens to show a car owner waxing his Ford. I sell him a print. No problem -- artistic purpose.

John Smith is editor of Ford Lovers Digest. They are doing a story on the car show. They saw my picture of the Ford and its owner online and want it to illustrate the article. They pay me $100. No problem. Editorial purpose.

Smith Car Wax sees the picture in Ford Lovers Digest. Their wax can is clearly visible. They want to use the picture in some ads. They pay me $1,000. Problem. They are appropriating the car owner's reputation and image to promote a product without compensating him. He can sue and I'll be a defendant in the lawsuit.

However, to get technical, the person isn't suing because of any right to privacy. They are suing because someone is making money off their good name without fairly compensating them.

PowerShot / Re: Canon EOS Smart 1 Phone - April Fools Joke? :)
« on: March 31, 2014, 11:43:57 AM »

I do wonder why Canon hasn't partnered with a phone manufacturer yet. Given that the cameras are the biggest differentiating factor in smart phones, it seems like a "Canon Inside" branded phone could be a big seller.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: March 30, 2014, 11:47:40 PM »
One thing that has been missing from this discussion is: Why now?

Canon has been making 35mm format cameras since the 1930s. No doubt they have researched the medium format market hundreds of times over the past 80 years and have never decided to make the leap.

It would have made more sense for them to get into medium format probably sometime in the late 1970s - early1980s. The medium format market was much larger (at that time, almost all wedding and portrait photographers used medium format and Pentax actually did get into the market around that time); it would have been much simpler to produce a competitive medium format camera during the film era and the difference in quality was much greater then as well; the market conditions were similar to today (the SLR rage of the 60s and 70s was slowing down, as was the global economy).

Yet, Canon (or Nikon) has never felt compelled to go after the medium format market. Why would they pursue it today, when the required investment would be much greater and the likely return much smaller?

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: March 28, 2014, 04:59:28 PM »
I'll bite on this...

I think you make some very valid points.

Of course, only time will tell. But I have a hard time imagining that even with the presumed cost reductions in sensors (which folks more knowledgeable than I am have said are unlikely to be significant in the foreseeable future), that Medium Format will overcome the other limitations you reference, particularly because some of the limits result from the basic physics of the size.

I'm also not quite so anxious to presume the death of APS-C. I think it is always risky to bet against "good enough" in favor of "better." There are junkyards full of products that were better that lost out to good enough.

It's hard to look at the current quality of APS-C sensors, the relative sales and the 100-year plus march towards ever smaller and more efficient electronics and believe that the long-term trend will be towards larger, rather than smaller.

I think we may be better able to see the future of the crop format when the 7DII finally surfaces.

Looking at the medium format market today, it takes quite a leap of faith to think it will break out of the narrow niche that it lives in currently.

Still, I think your observations are valid and I certainly appreciate the way you have articulated them in a fair and unemotional manner.

Good job.

Another achievement by the world’s first camera manufacturer.

World's first camera manufacturer? I don't think so.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
« on: March 26, 2014, 04:33:27 PM »
...I'm not sure where you get your viewpoint. I shoot advertising images and I do use a 5dmk3, but the files are almost always on the edge of usability...a large proportion of the professional advertising market..

How big is that market?  Is it big enough to drive Canon's R&D and marketing strategy?  Maybe Canon is willing to let that market go (for a while) to avoid making a costly mistake.

...I guess they could, but I would have thought there's credibility in owning the top end of the market.


I don't disagree. I think it's just a question of what that credibility might be worth...especially during difficult economic times.

My perspective is this: The entire professional market has been shrinking. I don't think anyone can deny that. Some segments may be growing, but even in the growing areas, they are more price sensitive than ever before.

That's not just photography, but just about everywhere. Companies want to get the most for their money and are slashing expenses everywhere they can.

That's reduced the overall market for professional photographers...it's reduced the budgets that are available to hire professional photographers...and it's reduced the resources available to companies like Canon. Those who are at the top of the market may be feeling this less than others as you may have clients who are less price sensitive, but I strongly suspect that for the bulk of the market, photography, like any service, is under intense pressure to hold down costs.

I think, but certainly don't know, that Canon has concentrated on the markets first where they can sell the most at the best profit. I think the 5DIII was perfectly suited to that strategy. The improved autofocus met pent up demand and the improved high ISO performance made it attractive to event and wedding photographers, which is probably the largest remaining pool of professionals out there.

The D800 to me, has always seemed like a fine camera, but it didn't appear to have as clear of a market. I can understand the appeal of advertising shooters but just how large is that market? My sense is that it is concentrated in large cities and I can't believe that the numbers are anywhere close to the numbers of wedding and event photographers. Professional landscape photographers are an even tinier subset of the professional base.

So, my premise is simply this: I think Canon went first for the largest market with the 5DIII. They actually "over-delivered" based on what people were demanding. (Go back and read threads from when the 5DIII first came out and see how many wedding photographers were ecstatic over the ISO performance and how many others were stunned that Canon would put almost the same autofocus as the 1DX in the 5DIII.)

The high megapixel market is a niche market. For those who need it, it is critically important. I understand that. I just don't know how many people need it.

So, this all goes back to my main premise, which is that the most cost effective approach for Canon would be to take an existing model (either the 1DX or the 5DIII) and produce a High Definition or HD version. That would allow them to maximize some production efficiencies while meeting the more narrow needs of those who want or need a higher definition body.

Long post I know, but trying to explain my reasoning. If you can show me where I am wrong, please do. You know the market better than I do and perhaps I'm totally off base, but so far, no one has been able to show me that.

EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
« on: March 26, 2014, 12:41:55 PM »
This actually makes sense to me, although I've been skeptical about Canon's "need" to release a high megapixel full frame camera.

I'll go back to a prediction I make quite a while back – I can see Canon releasing a "5D HD" that offers a pixel density somewhere in the same neighborhood as the 7D (46 mp), perhaps a little less. Same body, same basic functionality (with a slower frame rate likely) just a new sensor and maybe a little faster processor.

It would give customers a choice, but keep their production costs down since many of the components could be shared by both bodies.  Canon has seen the D800 sales figures, so they know that high megapixels aren't in huge demand, but they probably also know there is a small subset of customers that will pay a premium for more resolution. Give them what they want, but keep the production costs down.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: March 25, 2014, 07:49:35 PM »
Like I said, it just seems to me, that professional cameras, will all move to even larger sensors in the future.


Because not enough consumer level cameras will sell...because those people use smartphones and tablets (or whatever the fad will be at the time) to take pictures.  Again I'm not saying Canon will replace 35mm format sensors, with something 50 to 60mm, or larger in width.  I'm saying it seems like it would be between 36mm and 50mm...like 40 to 45mm.  And it won't be in widespread use...for quite a while...8 to 10 years is my prediction.  But I'm not predicting the demise of Sony in the meantime...Nikon might be another story, though!

You keep repeating this assertion. People keep saying they disagree. They give their reasons...which are well thought out and logical. You consistently reject their views, but don't offer any evidence to support your position.

You say if Canon offers this amazing super camera at a fraction of the cost of its competitors it will create the market and suddenly everyone will want this imaginary camera. What makes you so sure Canon could offer such a camera at a fraction of the cost of its competitors? And, what makes you so sure moving to a larger sensor would suddenly become the end-all and be-all of all photographers, when so many people on this forum are saying "no thanks."

If anything, the trend has been toward smaller sensors. Full frame sells only a small fraction of APS-C and even then, one of the main reasons why full frame is popular is because it is consistent with the traditional size of 35mm film cameras. It's a size that has been tested and proven in the marketplace. Why would the world suddenly want a new size with all the compromises and additional costs it would entail?

It's fun to debate these sort of esoteric issues for entertainment purposes, but really, just repeating the same assertion time and time again without anything to back it up gets a little tedious. 

Lenses / Re: Should I buy the 35L now or wait for the price drop?
« on: March 25, 2014, 12:56:11 PM »
If you defer your lens purchases based on rumors that a lens may be replaced, you could be waiting a long time to buy a lens. See the 100-400 zoom for example.

If you want an investment, buy stock or real estate. If you want to take pictures, buy cameras and lenses.

Yeah, Canon Price Watch did a blog post a few years back showing that Canon lenses outperformed the stock market, but I wouldn't be sinking my retirement money into lenses.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think I'd enjoy anything I bought nearly as much if I worried about what the resale value might be.

Think about all those poor Beanie Babies that never got played with because their young owners were hoping to pay for college with them. They are all sitting in plastic bins in attics or selling on eBay for pennies on the dollar.

Well that didn't last long. Hope some folks got in on the deal.

Another reason to use Canon Price Watch's e-notification system.

Pricewatch Deals / Act Fast 600RT now in stock at Canon Refurbished
« on: March 24, 2014, 04:29:12 PM »
The 600 RT just came back into stock at the Canon Refurbished Store. 20% off! Canon Price Watch lists about 30 in stock. Better act fast.

See. Canon is offering a new mirrorless camera body. :)

Seriously, I'm impressed with Canon's all out effort to open up new markets in the face of the collapse of the point and shoot market. This is the kind of aggressive approach that has led them to dominance in the marketplace.

It's interesting also because it serves as a reminder of how little we all know. While people on the forum endlessly debate dead or dying markets (medium format, anyone?) Canon forges ahead.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 117