Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 7 topics

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Telephoto Picture & Technical Analysis - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9003759f40db60ae?hl=en
* photo organising SW - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bef72d4e7bd83942?hl=en
* Scenic areas in England - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
* Photographic rights - 9 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/95ce520de64e5844?hl=en
* How can I improve my shoots? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/20f68722a0441cc5?hl=en
* Eyes Resolution & Monitor Pixel Size - 5 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/09dbe56e6b23a7d9?hl=en
* Kenya - Germany May 2009 Travel Pictures Country next to Country - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2b79f81074e5853a?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Telephoto Picture & Technical Analysis
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9003759f40db60ae?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 8:09 am
From: Helpful person

On May 6, 9:05 am, Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM
>
> Relax.
> If you check the headers you will find, "TomTom" is none other than the
> notorious "ever changing identity" P&S troll.
> Everything he writes is suspect.
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I just get annoyed with the large number of "experts" that give poor
or incorrect advice. There are a few people here who are really
trying to learn.

Chilling,

www.richardfisher.com

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 8:49 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Savageduck wrote:
[]
> If you check the headers you will find, "TomTom" is none other than
> the notorious "ever changing identity" P&S troll.
> Everything he writes is suspect.

Yes, his style is quite distinctive, as are his incorrect statements!

Cheers,
David

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 9:06 am
From: Hughes

On May 6, 11:05 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> Hughes wrote:
> > On May 6, 7:37 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> >> In practice this means that the resolving power for point sources is
> >> slightly improved by a central obstruction but at the cost of putting
> >> more power into the surrounding diffraction rings.
>
> >> A reasonable simulation page is online at:http://www.damianpeach.com/simulation.htm
> > Reading your archives, I found out you have an MTO1000
> > which is a brother of the Rubinar 10/1000. This whole
> > thread is all about why the Rubinar/MTO can't produce
> > picture like the following:
>
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/gps1/1356386350/sizes/l/
>
> This looks to be an image with a wide angle or standard lens in very
> clear mountain air.
>
>
>
> > Instead, it produces so low contrast (image wide) picture
> > like the following
>
> >http://www.duliskovich.com/rubinar/Bridge%20%282341%20meters%29%20and...
>
> My first instinct is that it is suffering from the haze and other muck
> and rubbish floating in the air. Long lenses really need clean air to
> get the best results and I think most of your lost contrast is down to
> that. Good news is that histogram stretching will get a lot of it back.
>

Why, have you remembered getting a picture in
the MTO with a contrast like the first mountain
picture? It seems that the dynamic range in all
pictures with the Rubinar/MTO are degraded down
to 5 bit from 12 bit.

> It is also about one stop under exposed.

Maybe because of the fast car running.

>
>
>
> > which can't be explained even if it has bad spherical
> > aberrations because these diffraction effects only
> > cause small scale contrast loss (or softness) at the
> > resolving limit (very very tiny 4 pixel region of the
> > screen at edges only).
>
> You have this a bit tangled. Field curvature would make the corners out
> of focus, spherical abberation would tend to make things locally a bit
> soft (much worse around specular highlights). Light getting into the
> lens and scattering also damages contrast by raising the black level.
> You always need the lens hood extended in daylight. Photograph some
> black velvet at a distance to test this.
>

There is a field flattener at the back. Isn't it supposed
to flatten the field? How does it improve the curvature
compared to the SCT? If not much then maybe one
should simply remove the field flattener in the MTO
and Rubinar?

> > Note the MTO 1000 has same specs
> > as Rubinar which is F/10, 1000mm focal length 4" Mak.
> > Can you please share any pictures taken with your MTO?
> > Why do you think it causes such wide scale low contrast
> > image?
>
> Mine doesn't. But I selected it carefully. It is a little bit soft (and
> they are notoriously hard to focus). Autofocus indicator struggles and
> unless you have a low light view screen or other focus aid it is tricky
> manually by eye at f10.
>
>
>
> > Wide Scale low contrast can be caused by:
>
> > 1. off-axis light reaching the focal plane
> > 2. internal reflections
> > 3. rough mirror
> > 4. coating defects that scatter all light.
> > 5. Too slow f/10
> > 6. Shutter too fast to avoid noise at F/10
> > 7. vibrations from shaking hands, wind
> > 8. heat waves, turbulence
>
> Air quality insufficient to support using a long lens - too much
> distance haze, dust or humidity. I would suggest this is the most likely
> problem. There could be an element of scattered light getting into the
> optics too. They have a built in lens hood for good reason.
>
> Most of the things you have listed as 5,6,7,8 really produce locallised
> blurring of one sort or another.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Note all Rubinar/MTO has same bad contrast so it is
> > not just the photographers technique. Even some great photographers
> > have to sell his Rubinar at Ebay because of the low contrast. See:
>
> >http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3619915
>
> > So how do you turn the contrast of this picture
>
> >http://www.duliskovich.com/rubinar/Bridge%20%282341%20meters%29%20and...
>
> > to this??
>
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/gps1/1356386350/sizes/l/
>
> > In your hands hold the key to the solution to a great
> > mystery which can finally make this thread rest in peace.
>
> Wait until the air is as clear before taking the picture. Or failing
> that stretch the histogram to bring the contrast back to normal.
> Thermals are weakest in the early morning, pick days with clean air.
>
> I have a few normal images taken for building survey of an inaccessible
> cupola using that lens. I'll dig them out. My recollection is that the
> lens is a bit soft with my 6Mpixel Pentax camera with sharp transitions
> taking 2-3 pixels. Downsampled by a factor of 3 to get a 1024x681 image
> it is essentially tack sharp.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You are saying that mere 2-3 pixels transitions and
their blurring because of central obstruction
and spherical aberration is enough to be noticeable
to the naked eye when the image is 100% zoomed??
I thought it is not very significant. Our eyes have a
resolution of 60 arcseconds and a pixel is close
to that resolution to be seen. But I think our eyes
just average it. Maybe it is because our eyes are
contrast detectors that it can detect the tiny contrast
difference?

Well. I haven't seen comparison between the MTO
and Rubinar by one owner at the net. That is why,
guess what, I also bought an MTO 1000 from
www.lzos.ru while it's only sale at $325. But
initial testing seems to prove that it's resolution
performance is less than that of the Rubinar.

Rubinar has a resolution of 50 lines/mm in the
spec sheet versus the MTO 35 lines/mm. When
I tested it taking picture on the half tone image, I couldn't
see the half tone print using the MTO and webcam.
One gets what one pays for, the Rubinar is twice
the price. But the image quality in the web site
is still not that good to warrant twice increase in
price unless all the haze contributes 90% to the
low contrast.

After I get my m42-eos adapter and a Canon DSLR.
I'd test the MTO and Rubinar side by side with
a resolution chart and create the first web site
with direct comparison between them. It would
be fun. :) I got them both to understand how
differences in designs of lens and mirrors can
contribute to low contrast. Also note the Rubinar
has one more aperture inside the tube (beside
the miniscus correct at front and a magrin mirror)
so it has additional 3 surfaces compared to the
MTO hence its light throughput is less than the
MTO.

Hope you can find the building pictures. One
reason I still haven't bought any dslr is because
I'm still thinking of the 6MP Canon 300D. Hence I
want to know if its 7.4 micron pixel and the
latest Canon 1000D 5.7 micron (10MP) would get
much difference in picture quality. I'm having
many thoughts whether to buy the 1000D because
I'm not sure the 2 telephotos are usable enough.
I'd only use a DSLR on them and if they aint
never good. Then no use to buy an expensive dslr.
Your pictures can convince me there is hope to
get good pictures and whether to buy the more
expensive 1000D or 500D rather than the 6MP
300D. Have you tried your MTO on a higher
than 6MP dlsr to see any difference in picture
quality?? I keep visualizing what 6MP and 10MP
images would look in my MTO and Rubinar
and their differences. Any projections?

Hughes

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 10:39 am
From: Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk>

Hughes wrote:
> On May 6, 11:05 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Hughes wrote:

>>> thread is all about why the Rubinar/MTO can't produce
>>> picture like the following:
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/gps1/1356386350/sizes/l/

>> This looks to be an image with a wide angle or standard lens in very
>> clear mountain air.
>>
>>> Instead, it produces so low contrast (image wide) picture
>>> like the following
>>> http://www.duliskovich.com/rubinar/Bridge%20%282341%20meters%29%20and...

>> My first instinct is that it is suffering from the haze and other muck
>> and rubbish floating in the air. Long lenses really need clean air to
>> get the best results and I think most of your lost contrast is down to
>> that. Good news is that histogram stretching will get a lot of it back.
>
> Why, have you remembered getting a picture in
> the MTO with a contrast like the first mountain
> picture? It seems that the dynamic range in all
> pictures with the Rubinar/MTO are degraded down
> to 5 bit from 12 bit.

And I expect you would have the same problem with long distance images
taken with any telephoto lens of 500mm or longer in less than ideal
atmospheric conditions. A faster lens would be easier to focus and might
help freeze the seeing but it cannot cut through the haze (IR filters
can help for aerial photography if you don't want a colour image).

One snag of the MTO is that you need full aperture filters which makes
it expensive to get a Wratten 87A or equivalent.
>
>> It is also about one stop under exposed.
>
> Maybe because of the fast car running.

Not your shot then?

>>> which can't be explained even if it has bad spherical
>>> aberrations because these diffraction effects only
>>> cause small scale contrast loss (or softness) at the
>>> resolving limit (very very tiny 4 pixel region of the
>>> screen at edges only).

>> You have this a bit tangled. Field curvature would make the corners out
>> of focus, spherical abberation would tend to make things locally a bit
>> soft (much worse around specular highlights). Light getting into the
>> lens and scattering also damages contrast by raising the black level.
>> You always need the lens hood extended in daylight. Photograph some
>> black velvet at a distance to test this.
>
> There is a field flattener at the back. Isn't it supposed
> to flatten the field? How does it improve the curvature
> compared to the SCT? If not much then maybe one
> should simply remove the field flattener in the MTO
> and Rubinar?

A field flattener is worth having in a camera lens. You want the focal
plane to be flat to record in focus on film or CCD. The eye is more
tolerant.

>>> Note the MTO 1000 has same specs
>>> as Rubinar which is F/10, 1000mm focal length 4" Mak.
>>> Can you please share any pictures taken with your MTO?
>>> Why do you think it causes such wide scale low contrast
>>> image?

>> Mine doesn't. But I selected it carefully. It is a little bit soft (and
>> they are notoriously hard to focus). Autofocus indicator struggles and
>> unless you have a low light view screen or other focus aid it is tricky
>> manually by eye at f10.
>>
>>> Wide Scale low contrast can be caused by:
>>> 1. off-axis light reaching the focal plane
>>> 2. internal reflections
>>> 3. rough mirror
>>> 4. coating defects that scatter all light.
>>> 5. Too slow f/10
>>> 6. Shutter too fast to avoid noise at F/10
>>> 7. vibrations from shaking hands, wind
>>> 8. heat waves, turbulence
>> Air quality insufficient to support using a long lens - too much
>> distance haze, dust or humidity. I would suggest this is the most likely
>> problem. There could be an element of scattered light getting into the
>> optics too. They have a built in lens hood for good reason.
>>
>> Most of the things you have listed as 5,6,7,8 really produce locallised
>> blurring of one sort or another.

>> I have a few normal images taken for building survey of an inaccessible
>> cupola using that lens. I'll dig them out. My recollection is that the
>> lens is a bit soft with my 6Mpixel Pentax camera with sharp transitions
>> taking 2-3 pixels. Downsampled by a factor of 3 to get a 1024x681 image
>> it is essentially tack sharp.
>
> You are saying that mere 2-3 pixels transitions and
> their blurring because of central obstruction
> and spherical aberration is enough to be noticeable
> to the naked eye when the image is 100% zoomed??

I can notice it, but I know what I am looking for and have very sharp
eyes. YMMV.

> I thought it is not very significant. Our eyes have a
> resolution of 60 arcseconds and a pixel is close
> to that resolution to be seen. But I think our eyes
> just average it. Maybe it is because our eyes are
> contrast detectors that it can detect the tiny contrast
> difference?

The eye is well endowed with edge detectors (and movement detectors).

> Well. I haven't seen comparison between the MTO
> and Rubinar by one owner at the net. That is why,
> guess what, I also bought an MTO 1000 from
> www.lzos.ru while it's only sale at $325. But
> initial testing seems to prove that it's resolution
> performance is less than that of the Rubinar.

Don't judge the entire lens family based on one specimen.
>
> Rubinar has a resolution of 50 lines/mm in the
> spec sheet versus the MTO 35 lines/mm. When

What do they measure as in far field under good light?

> Hope you can find the building pictures. One

I put them in my temp directory. They won't be there for long (although
I may relent and put them somewhere else).

The MTO 1000/f10 image of the cupola detail is:
http://www.nezumi.demon.co.uk/temp/imgp0594a.jpg
(downsampled 1:3 - original image 3008x2000)
Taken in the early morning clear air no turbulence. The contrast isn't
noticeably worse than from the standard lens shot on the same body.

The cupola is about 60' up in the air and to get detail in close to the
lead flashing the image was taken from high up and about 200m away. A
wide angle lens shot of the village hall from roughly the same viewing
angle shows where it is and how inaccessible. You can just about make
out the damage to the nearest corner post on the normal image.

http://www.nezumi.demon.co.uk/temp/imgp0345a.jpg

You can see the wood grain and paint runs on the MTO image.

> reason I still haven't bought any dslr is because
> I'm still thinking of the 6MP Canon 300D. Hence I
> want to know if its 7.4 micron pixel and the
> latest Canon 1000D 5.7 micron (10MP) would get
> much difference in picture quality. I'm having
> many thoughts whether to buy the 1000D because
> I'm not sure the 2 telephotos are usable enough.

What are you going to use them for? Long lenses are difficult things to
use well. Hard to focus, very easy to get motion blur, vibration etc. AT
least with digital no film is wasted learning to use them.

> I'd only use a DSLR on them and if they aint
> never good. Then no use to buy an expensive dslr.
> Your pictures can convince me there is hope to
> get good pictures and whether to buy the more
> expensive 1000D or 500D rather than the 6MP
> 300D. Have you tried your MTO on a higher
> than 6MP dlsr to see any difference in picture
> quality?? I keep visualizing what 6MP and 10MP
> images would look in my MTO and Rubinar
> and their differences. Any projections?

No. I doubt you will see much difference beyond 6Mpixel with this class
of lens as the effective resolution is usually limited to back of the
envelope ~30-40 lpm in practice. It is more than adequately sampled by
the 6Mpixel sensor. But the newer model of camera may still have other
advantages.

Regards,
Martin Brown

==============================================================================
TOPIC: photo organising SW
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bef72d4e7bd83942?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 8:17 am
From: John McWilliams

Chris H wrote:
> In message <4a017e3d$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Bob Larter
> <bobbylarter@gmail.com> writes

>> Not even close. If it's online, it can be damaged by anything that can
>> damage your PC, & believe me, there are a lot of things that can damage
>> your PC.
>
> Anything that will damage my PC will also take out the DVD;s too. Unless
> the are off site. (And we have hot off site back up (on hard dicks )

No comment on the F.S. ...... hardly even saw it....
>
> When in a hole such as you are stop digging.

Perhaps you both have different, but equally good, takes on backups.

Your set up, Chris, sounds very professional, etc., but 93% of users
won't be able to follow such a regimen.

--
john mcwilliams

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 8:18 am
From: John McWilliams

Ray Fischer wrote:
> Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner <jdw@panix.com> wrote:
>> G Paleologopoulos <gpaleo@ath.forthnet.gr> wrote:
>>> Why every week to DVD-R and not at any time to external HardDisk??
>>> Terra byte drives are quite cheap now.
>> A hard drive attached to your system is not a backup. It's online
>> local storage. The two are not the same thing. IMO, an ideal backup
>> system should be
>
> The ideal backup is the one that you actually use.

No; it's one that never needs to get used....

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 10:00 am
From: Wally

On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:07:37 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The big problem with using an external disk as backup is that if you get
>a big power spike, it'll take out your PC *AND* your external disk.

No... my backup external HDs are off line almost all the time.

>Ditto for fires, floods & burglaries.

True... impractical to put stuff off-site every day, though. Once a
year should be okay.

I wish there was a practical archival medium for archiving files. In
50-100 years most of today's files will be lost no matter what you do.

Wally

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 8:20 am
From: John McWilliams

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Chris H wrote:
>>> In message <o1c0059k4js2a9fii7e5bs6a3gag4u82ge@4ax.com>, Grimly
>>> Curmudgeon <grimly4REMOVE@REMOVEgmail.com> writes
>>>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>>>> drugs began to take hold. I remember "boris spider"
>>>> <boris1066@gmail.com> saying something like:
>>>>
>>>>> Access to many other tall vantage points in Central London has been ended
>>>>> for reasons of "security".
>>>> Indeed. When I was a lad I was up the Post Office Tower, but it was shut
>>>> to the public just a few years later because of the fucking IRA.
>>>> What a waste.
>>> You mean there was terrorism before 9/11/2001?
>>>
>>> I will not say If I have been up the PO Tower as it would date me
>>> somewhat :-)
>>>
>>> There is a lot of paranoia about terrorism. Most of it unfounded.
>
>> I am curious as to what might constitute founded paranoia! Can you give
>> an example or two?
>
> Martin Luther King thinking assassins were plotting to kill him.

I submit, then, that that's not paranoia.

--
john mcwilliams

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 8:47 am
From: barnaby@barnabypage.com

On May 4, 12:12 pm, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi everyone;
>
> I will be visiting England on a very brief stay. I will have two days in
> London, two days in Norwich, and two days in Liverpool early next month.
> I am an avid amateur photographer. I am wondering if anyone on this
> newsgroup can suggest areas of those three cities where I can go to
> shoot some interesting photographs, but that are not like the ones
> everyone else who visits those areas is likely to shoot. For example, is
> there any tall buildings where I can get access to the roof legally
> where I can shoot some interesting photos, or some unique parks, etc.?
> Note that I will be relying 100% on public transportation.

Just thought - another interesting choice in Norwich would be the
Plantation Garden. http://www.plantationgarden.co.uk/

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 10:42 am
From: Grimly Curmudgeon

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Paul Bartram" <paul.bartram AT OR
NEAR lizzy.com.au> saying something like:

> Amazing that the whole thing only cost
>£2.5 million - you couldn't build a decent sized mansion for that today!

Puts it in perspective somewhat. A Great Train Robber today would have
to heist the equivalent of putting up another PO tower - about what,
half a billion?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photographic rights
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/95ce520de64e5844?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 8:23 am
From: Pat

On May 5, 11:13 pm, Peabody <waybackNO784SPA...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Nicko says...
>
> >> Also you are talking about "model". In some
> >> jurisdictions this would require a model release form,
> >> i.e. a confirmation from the model that you are allowed
> >> to take and publish those photos.
>
> > The subject of a photo becomes a "model" in legal terms,
> > only when he/ she agrees to a contract regarding the
> > rights to the photo.
>
> > Otherwise, the person is just the subject of the photo.
>
> Could you explain this a bit more? It's not clear what
> rights the subject of a photo has. I know there have been
> recent cases where someone's picture was used for
> advertising, and they objected to that. But if I just take
> someone's picture, does he/she have any rights in the
> photograph?
>
> I should have said up front - I'm asking with respect to
> U.S. law.

One would think that if it went to court, and the "model" had the
negatives; then the model would argue that it was "work for hire" and
that (s)he was the copyright owner and the OP was nothing other than
the photographer. The copyright does not necessarily belong to the
person who pushed the shutter button.

In such a case, (s)he would have a strong argument and in the end, the
only thing that'll happen is that a bunch of lawyers will make a bunch
of money.

== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 8:22 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Don Stauffer" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:4a01a36e$0$48219$815e3792@news.qwest.net...

>
> We have to let lawyers and judges make a living, right?
>
> Seriously, laws cannot be written to cover EVERY situation. That is what
> courts are for. In the above situation, I can see such a case going to
> court and letting the judge or jury decide. The best way to avoid court
> is to get any agreement in writing. The answer lies with the best lawywer
> :-)

It's a sad situation though isn;t it, in that being in the right or the
wrong
depends on how good your lawyer is, which is probably linked to how much he
charges.
It seems that basically a laywer is employed to lie on your behalf, the more
you can afford
the better the lie he'll construct.

== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 8:34 am
From: Pat

On May 5, 7:13 pm, Peabody <waybackNO784SPA...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Could someone recommend an online explanation of how copyrights work
> in photography? I thought I understood, but have concluded I don't.
>
> Well, here's an example. The photographer takes a picture of a
> friend as the model, and "gives" the picture to the friend as a
> birthday present, including delivering the negative along with the
> prints. But there's no documentation transferring anything. Does
> posession of the negative mean anything? I think it probably
> doesn't. Wouldn't the photographer need to sign something
> transferring his copyright to the model?
>
> Anyway, I was hoping there was a long, detailed explanation of who
> has what rights, and how they need to be transferred.

If you took the pictures "for her", so to speak, she owns the
copyright.

If you took the pictures for yourself and was just giving her a print,
then you own the copyright.

If you have no written agreement and she has the negatives, she'll
argue that you did her a favor and took the pictures for her cuz
that's her argument that it is work for hire and she owns the work-
product.

There is a similar situation is architecture. In architecture, you
pay the architect to design the building, not to produce the plans.
Because you are paying for "design", the "design" is the product and
the plans are just a by-product. Therefore the architect owns the
copyright and intellectual property. If you were just paying for the
plans, then you would own them, the copyright, the intellectual
rights, and the work-products.

The similar, and easy to understand, situation in photography would be
a big studio. The studio hires a photographer. The studio owns the
copyright, not the photographer, because it is all work-for-hire.

Finally, as an example, let's say you had an assistant. You set the
camera up on a tripod. You pose the model or client. You move in
close and adjust the hair perfectly. You turn to the photographer and
say "okay" and she hits the shutter and takes the most gorgeous photo
ever taken. Wow. Now, who was the photographer? Who owns the
rights? You, of course. Who pushed the shutter is irrelevant.

But in the end, you should clear it all up by giving some sort of
release/permission to your friend. It's easier to get good pictures
than it is to get good friends. If you don't, you will have neither a
friend nor the pictures.

== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 8:55 am
From: Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner

Nicko <nervous.nick@gmail.com> wrote:
> "When it's created, it's copyrighted."
> And effectively, at least in the US, that means you don't even have to
> register the image.

This is true, but there are still reasons to register: it's a lot
easier to show the copyright in court, and (I think) you're eligible to
claim statutory damages (as opposed to actual damages) only if the work
is registered.

"Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?

Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to
register their works because they wish to have the facts of their
copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration.
Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's
fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5
years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court
of law. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "Copyright
Registration" and Circular 38b, Highlights of Copyright Amendments
Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), on non-U.S. works."
<http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#automatic>

--
Oh to have a lodge in some vast wilderness. Where rumors of oppression
and deceit, of unsuccessful and successful wars may never reach me
anymore.
-- William Cowper, 1731 - 1800

== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 9:26 am
From: Peabody

Thanks for the replies. The example I used didn't involve me
personally, but a friend who was the subject. But I have something
coming up that may be even more complicated.

There's a local cocktail lounge (ok, it's a bar) which displays a
dozen or so works of a different local artist each month. In
addition, on one night the artist comes in with a model and sets up
down at one end, and proceeds to paint the model's portrait while
the bar patrons watch. This is "Live Art" night.

Well, I proposed a "wouldn't it be cool" idea to the bar owner that
I would set up my little Canon on a tripod, and make a time lapse
sequence of the creation of the portrait - specifically, the camera
would be focused exclusively on the canvas. Then basically the
resulting video would be available to anyone involved. The bar
owner could run it as a continuous loop on one of the bar's
many video screens. And the artist could use it on his website, or
perhaps give a copy of it to whoever ends up buying the painting.
And similarly, I could maybe put it up on Vimeo or some similar site
if it turns out well. And maybe the model would want a copy.

Of course, no money is gonna change hands in this - it's just a
hobby experiment for me. Originally, I started thinking about what
to include in the credits at the end of the video, and had
concluded they should include the artist, me, the model, and the
bar. And, of course, Canon and CHDK. :-)

But then it occurred to me that the question of who actually had the
right to do anything with the video was pretty loosey-goosey. I'm
not sure anything really needs to be done about that. There
certainly is no budget for legal fees, and it's highly unlikely the
video itself will ever generate income. I certainly don't mind
deferring to the artist as to rights, provided I get credit for the
photography, and provided I get to use it as an example of something
I've done - as part of my online portfolio, so to speak.

Unless somebody knows of a standard "time lapse release" form, I
think I should leave it up to the artist to raise this issue, and
then gracefully defer to whatever he wants to do. But conceptually,
it's an interesting issue because to me it seems the artist's role
is more significant than just being the subject or model. Legally
he's probably just the subject, but he's also the primary creator of
the work.

== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 9:28 am
From: Marvin

Peabody wrote:
> Could someone recommend an online explanation of how copyrights work
> in photography? I thought I understood, but have concluded I don't.
>
> Well, here's an example. The photographer takes a picture of a
> friend as the model, and "gives" the picture to the friend as a
> birthday present, including delivering the negative along with the
> prints. But there's no documentation transferring anything. Does
> posession of the negative mean anything? I think it probably
> doesn't. Wouldn't the photographer need to sign something
> transferring his copyright to the model?
>
> Anyway, I was hoping there was a long, detailed explanation of who
> has what rights, and how they need to be transferred.
>
There is a clear explanation of U.S. copyright law at
http://www.copyright.gov/. In this case, the copyright
belongs to the photographer. You are right, he would have to
sign it over to make it the property of someone else. But
if the model paid to have the photo taken, it would be a
"work for hire" and the model would own the copyright. Many
professional photographers take photos under a contract that
keeps the copyright as the photographers.

== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 9:59 am
From: Ofnuts

whisky-dave wrote:
> "Ofnuts" <o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net> wrote in message
> news:4a01435d$0$14538$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
>
>
>> Whatever the law is, by giving the negative
>
> Exactly what century or planet are you living on, what's a 'Negative' ;-)

Ask the OP: "The photographer takes a picture of a
friend as the model, and "gives" the picture to the friend as a
birthday present, including delivering the negative along with the
prints." :-)

--
Bertrand

== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 10:10 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-06 09:28:28 -0700, Marvin <physchem@verizon.net> said:

> Peabody wrote:
>> Could someone recommend an online explanation of how copyrights work in
>> photography? I thought I understood, but have concluded I don't.
>>
>> Well, here's an example. The photographer takes a picture of a friend
>> as the model, and "gives" the picture to the friend as a birthday
>> present, including delivering the negative along with the prints. But
>> there's no documentation transferring anything. Does posession of the
>> negative mean anything? I think it probably doesn't. Wouldn't the
>> photographer need to sign something transferring his copyright to the
>> model?
>>
>> Anyway, I was hoping there was a long, detailed explanation of who has
>> what rights, and how they need to be transferred.
>>
> There is a clear explanation of U.S. copyright law at
> http://www.copyright.gov/. In this case, the copyright belongs to the
> photographer. You are right, he would have to sign it over to make it
> the property of someone else. But if the model paid to have the photo
> taken, it would be a "work for hire" and the model would own the
> copyright. Many professional photographers take photos under a
> contract that keeps the copyright as the photographers.

...and for those who care; http://www.copyright.gov/forms/formgr_pph_con.pdf

--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 10:34 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-06 09:28:28 -0700, Marvin <physchem@verizon.net> said:

These might also be useful:
http://www.betterphoto.com/article.asp?id=37
http://photography.lovetoknow.com/Photography_Release_Forms
http://www.adidap.com/2006/09/17/free-photography-release-forms-templates/
http://www.dpcorner.com/all_about/releases.shtml

...and this site requires the photographer to sign a release to allow
use of images on their products,
http://presentsofmind.com/
http://presentsofmind.com/html/photographers%20release.htm
--
Regards,
Savageduck

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How can I improve my shoots?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/20f68722a0441cc5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 8:40 am
From: Nomen Nescio

http://www.flickr.com/photos/colleenm/3304843379/

I am beginning to think I should give up on photography and just accept the job offered by Flicker

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Eyes Resolution & Monitor Pixel Size
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/09dbe56e6b23a7d9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 9:11 am
From: Hughes

On May 6, 11:02 pm, Don Stauffer <stauf...@usfamily.net> wrote:
> Hughes wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > I wonder if this is just a coincidence or design.
>
> > Human eyes have a average resolution of 60 arcseconds for brightly
> > illuminated target.
>
> > My monitor has a pixel pitch of 0.264mm.
> > When I view it at a distance of of 800mm (0.8 mtr). The 0.264mm pixel
> > subtends at an angle of
> > theta = 2 arctan (0.5 (0.264)/800) * 206265
> > = 68.07 arcsec
>
> > The angle of the pixel subtended at a viewing
> > distance of 0.8 mtrs is 68 arcseconds close to
> > human eyes resolution of 60 arcseconds. Is this
> > just a coincidence or did they make the pixel
> > size of the monitor to match the resolution
> > specification of human eyes by design?
>
> > Hughes
>
> If the monitor were designed for one specific application then it may be
> design. But for a general purpose monitor, it is somewhat a combination
> of coincidence and design.
>
> Say I were designing a cockpit display for a military aircraft with a
> night vision device such as a flir. Then the acuity of the operator
> WOULD be a design factor.
>
> However, for general commercial monitors there would be some effort to
> determine what normal viewing distances are, and to avoid too high a
> resolution that goes beyond the viewers acuity, but that would not be
> the main driver. More to the point would be a cost-quality tradeoff.
>
> In essence, many years ago, monitor resolution did not match- one could
> see the pixels plainly. As TV and monitor business grew and involved
> more money, there was a big effort to improve resolution, and of course
> in TV systems the advent of HD standards. Eventually the performance
> equaled or exceeded the needs based on acuity, and there is no longer
> such a push for finer and finer ppi. Rather, the other factors,
> brightness, contrast and color purity are now the big efforts.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

This may be why they say there is not much difference
in watching 720P vs 1080P HDTV shows at home at a normal sitting
distance because the 1080P pixels and
their separations are so small that our eyes 60 arcsecond resolution
can no longer detect them (maybe needing 20 arcsecond to see the
pixels separations). So there may
be no need for 2160P HDTV years from now unless
people get to see TV the same distance as viewing
monitors.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 9:48 am
From: "Chris.Bee"

History records that the flat screen computer monitor is merely a
development of the common CRT TV from the infancy of computers. (ZX81
and BBC and vast rooms full of (mostly) white coated men using punched
card sorters and giant reels of tape)

It is quite amusing now to see science fiction programmes and films
displaying large numbers of B&W CRT screens in "futuristic" space
ships. If each new generation's tools and toys are magic to the
last.. what do we have in store in the next?

I wonder whether there will ever be a general move towards displays
attached to the head itself? I doubt that "special glasses" will take
off. Too many negative social aspects. Perhaps a direct connection to
the optic nerve or the brain itself by some means of inductance or
skin conductance? A projected 3D hologram? A permanent brain implant,
heads-up display with GPS, TV, film, radio, communication and
broadband? It sounds quite stressful! ;-)

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 9:59 am
From: Jürgen Exner

"Chris.Bee" <chris.b@mail.dk> wrote:
>I wonder whether there will ever be a general move towards displays
>attached to the head itself? I doubt that "special glasses" will take
>off. Too many negative social aspects. Perhaps a direct connection to
>the optic nerve or the brain itself by some means of inductance or
>skin conductance? A projected 3D hologram? A permanent brain implant,
>heads-up display with GPS, TV, film, radio, communication and
>broadband?

See "Richter 10" by Arthur C. Clark. He calls it "chipped" if I remember
correctly. Written in 1996 he was pretty good at forecasting the
proliferation of cameras everywhere, not implanted yet but many people
indeed can't live without their cell phones and blogs and spaces and
texting and sexting and ... any more.

jue

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 10:01 am
From: Golden California Girls

Hughes wrote:
> This may be why they say there is not much difference
> in watching 720P vs 1080P HDTV shows at home at a normal sitting
> distance because the 1080P pixels and
> their separations are so small that our eyes 60 arcsecond resolution
> can no longer detect them (maybe needing 20 arcsecond to see the
> pixels separations). So there may
> be no need for 2160P HDTV years from now unless
> people get to see TV the same distance as viewing
> monitors.

http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/super_hi/index.html

It is as much better than HDTV than HDTV is to rabbit ears. It is so sharp it
is almost painful to the eyes.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 10:05 am
From: Ofnuts

Hughes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if this is just a coincidence or design.
>
> Human eyes have a average resolution of 60 arcseconds for brightly
> illuminated target.
>
> My monitor has a pixel pitch of 0.264mm.
> When I view it at a distance of of 800mm (0.8 mtr). The 0.264mm pixel
> subtends at an angle of
> theta = 2 arctan (0.5 (0.264)/800) * 206265
> = 68.07 arcsec
>
> The angle of the pixel subtended at a viewing
> distance of 0.8 mtrs is 68 arcseconds close to
> human eyes resolution of 60 arcseconds. Is this
> just a coincidence or did they make the pixel
> size of the monitor to match the resolution
> specification of human eyes by design?

Monitor resolution ranges, due to market constraints, from "barely
readable" (around 50dpi) to "we can make it more expensive but noone
will see the difference" (around 200dpi). Sometimes there are
explanations for miracles or even mere coincidences.

--
Bertrand

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Kenya - Germany May 2009 Travel Pictures Country next to Country
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2b79f81074e5853a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, May 6 2009 10:43 am
From: BoBi <1kdg@scarlet.be>

Dear,

This website Kenya-Germany displays several pages each one containing
two comparative (similar, contrastive, ...) photos. Let your thoughts
flow freely and enjoy:
http://www.dongo.org/kenya-germany/list_3_en/a_kenyan_beach_and_a_german_beach.html
Click the "-->"-button on the page opened for the following pictures.

Best regards, BoBi

Annex: overview of the photos:

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 26 new messages in 7 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic