Out of Focus & Off Topic MkIII...

AnCatDubh

Lawnmower Man wins Hasselblad 2012 award.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/mar/08/photographer-paul-graham-hasselblad-award?newsfeed=true

I saw that image somewhere recently (online). Can't remember where/why :-/

AnCatDubh

Also, courtesy of the Guardian -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/audioslideshow/2012/mar/09/month-in-photography-audio-slideshow

Some nice stuff there. Hit the full screen button.

Diabhal_Glas

''A flying bolt end knocked Waco photographer Jervis C. Deane from the press platform, ripping through his right eye and lodging in his brain. Miraculously, Deane didn't just survive but stood, dusted himself off and gave his two brothers—photographers themselves—"minute directions about the finishing of the pictures he had taken." Deane would remain a photographer in Waco until 1901''

Very off topic but an interesting read

http://www.historynet.com/crushs-locomotive-crash-was-a-monster-smash.htm

Effects

Came across some old developer in a house earlier.

magicbastarder

http://www.futilitycloset.com/2012/03/14/looking-glass-art/

dinneenp

Got contacted by a rubgy website and requested to use my photo in a post of theirs- link

I said ok, it doesn't appear to be an out to make money website so said yes without asking for any money in return. Happy just to have it featured and a nice link to my site

lisatiffany

http://todaystomorrow.tumblr.com/post/19109939479/the-5dmkii-view-camera

Piccolette Contessa-Nettel (1919) + Canon 5DMKII = (look below)

Tallon

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ae2_1332342383



With the multiple threads and hot discussion of copyright, I'm interested to get peoples opinions on an incident like this.

kippy

Tallon wrote: »

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ae2_1332342383



With the multiple threads and hot discussion of copyright, I'm interested to get peoples opinions on an incident like this.

I wouldnt call that a "freak out".
I would also totally support the troopers stance on the situation.

Ricky91t

Will be getting a 24-105 L next month, can't wait

magicbastarder

Tallon wrote: »

With the multiple threads and hot discussion of copyright, I'm interested to get peoples opinions on an incident like this.

i'd be of the opinion that while legally you have the right to take any photos on public ground, it doesn't necessarily mean you're not an asshole for doing so.

PCPhoto

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd be of the opinion that while legally you have the right to take any photos on public ground, it doesn't necessarily mean you're not an asshole for doing so.

I agree ... and its mainly what I do !! ... there is usually a moral issue when it comes to fatal accidents etc, while you must do your job.... at the end of the day ...its someone's husband/wife/brother/sister etc etc.

kippy

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd be of the opinion that while legally you have the right to take any photos on public ground, it doesn't necessarily mean you're not an asshole for doing so.

Do you legally have the right to photography anything on public ground? Surely not.

Tallon

kippy wrote: »

Do you legally have the right to photography anything on public ground? Surely not.

Yes

kippy

Tallon wrote: »

Yes

Really, no matter what the subject is or how the subject is behaving?

Tallon

kippy wrote: »

Really, no matter what the subject is or how the subject is behaving?

Example?

magicbastarder

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/03/24/gaa-logo/#comments

am i imagining things, or do i remember reading about a copyright row over someone selling photos of this, and the landowner claiming copyright over the trees?

11811

magicbastarder wrote: »

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/03/24/gaa-logo/#comments

am i imagining things, or do i remember reading about a copyright row over someone selling photos of this, and the landowner claiming copyright over the trees?

That kinda rings a bell. Can find anything on it though.

Telchak

Hogzy

kippy wrote: »

Do you legally have the right to photography anything on public ground? Surely not.

Tallon wrote: »

Yes

The only place our rights are set out is in the Constitution and the ECHR. Both make absolutly no reference to photographing in public so NO. We do not have a "right" to photograph anyone or anything in public.

You do not have an outright entitlement to photograph someone in public. All individuals have a right to privacy. Obviously their right to privacy is restricted while in public. Photography is a form of expression so there must be a balance between your right to expression and the subjects right to privacy. There are a huge number of factors that can sway the balance to either side.

Nobody has an unlimited right to ANYTHING.

Effects

You're having a laugh Hogzy. Just because it doesn't say anything about photographing people in the constitution has no bearing on weather people can do it or not.

Hogzy

Effects wrote: »

You're having a laugh Hogzy. Just because it doesn't say anything about photographing people in the constitution has no bearing on weather people can do it or not.

I never said people couldnt do it. But there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between being able to do something, and having a right to do it. People have a right to privacy and photographers have a right to express themselves through their photography. Both rights must be balanced.

If you are hiding in a bush outside my house photographing me while I am kissing my wife then that will weigh heavily on the privacy side of things. However if you are out in the open photographing me walking my dog on the beach then that will more than likely weigh more on the side of your freedom of expression.

People in Ireland constantly say they have a "right" to this and a "right" to that. Our rights are actually VERY limited. We have a small few enumerated rights in the constitution and a handful of unenumerated rights. People use the term far too loosely.

luisspellcast

Hogzy wrote: »

People in Ireland constantly say they have a "right" to this and a "right" to that. Our rights are actually VERY limited. We have a small few enumerated rights in the constitution and a handful of unenumerated rights. People use the term far too loosely.

touche !

Anouilh

I would like to find a reliable Canon film EOS camera. I bought one already that is hit and miss... it was made in the late 1980's. Any guidance on how much I should expect to spend and where to look (apart from Ebay) would be very welcome, please.

ThOnda

Anouilh, I've got EOS 300V from some charity shop in UK, via e-bay, for £10 + postage. Works fine, as a basic film body. The body was released not so long time ago, so those cameras should be a bit more reliable.
If you want an indestructible workhorse, scan the web (including ebay.de) for EOS 3.
Ah, edit. You have still few camera shops, who sell older stuff, and also adverts and some dealer's webpage.
You could also try social media and when you among other photographers, e.g. in Trim this weekend. Just ask if anybody has EOS body for sale.

Effects

I find a lot of stuff on adverts way over priced. Ebay is good but you don't get to see what condition it's in.

Hogzy

Effects wrote: »

I find a lot of stuff on adverts way over priced. Ebay is good but you don't get to see what condition it's in.

Adverts is full of dreamers. Id say the average person selling a lens will be selling it 10-15% more than what it costs new from Amazon.

They then get pissed off when you inform them that its available new for less than the asking price. Sellors think that because they paid too much money for the lens they can sell for too much.

ronanc15

Question: Where do people draw the line when it comes to sensitive subjects of pictures?

I passed something yesterday which immediately struck me as a potentially moving pic, it involved teddy bear tributes which looked like they had been there a long time, presumably from someone young who had drowned as it was riverside. Would it be a no-go to include these in the frame? I don't think its insensitive but others have disagreed.

Anouilh

You have brought up a subject that is always central to professional photography. Amateurs have the option to be stringent self editors and pick which subjects are suitable for photographing.

Professionals have a social duty to record all aspects of the society in which they live.

Your question can be answered by asking yourself why you take the photos you do. I have a very strong ability to avoid gritty realism in every aspect of my work. This would not be possible if I were to set out to document all the various aspects of the world as it is.

ronanc15

Anouilh wrote: »

You have brought up a subject that is always central to professional photography. Amateurs have the option to be stringent self editors and pick which subjects are suitable for photographing.

Professionals have a social duty to record all aspects of the society in which they live.

Your question can be answered by asking yourself why you take the photos you do. I have a very strong ability to avoid gritty realism in every aspect of my work. This would not be possible if I were to set out to document all the various aspects of the world as it is.

What struck me about the teddy bears was so many people passed it by without a second thought or batting an eyelid, despite the fact there was rosary beads hanging from it obviously symbolising a tragedy