On bad editing and entry level cameras.

So I was browsing in the Chapters bookstore and came across the photography section - quel surprise ;) - and saw one of those Dummies Guides for the Canon XS/eos 1000. Hadn't really heard much about it, so I picked up a copy of the Dummy's guide to look at the DSLR's specs. I couldnt find any. None. So I came across the Canon EOS Rebel XS/1000D Digital Field Guide by Charlotte K. Lowrie. OK I thought, I will find the specs in here. Nope. I looked it up in the index and the intro and nothing tech specs wise. there was a nice chart showing how many images you could save at different resolutions though...

The only mention of anything technical was on the first page of Chapter 1 of the Lowrie book. It said it had a 210.1 megapixel Digic III CMOS sensor. Not too bad for an entry level camera.

I know that new camera users are treated as newbies, but no specs, no chart or anything for a DSLR? That's pretty ignorant to assume that someone going from a PnS might not mind reading about the specs and what they can do for them and how they might compare to the old camera. Not just the controls themselves.

I don't know who edited the Lowrie book ( published by Wiley), but I can tell you it is a damn certainty that he or she wasn't a photographer. Makes you want to doubt whatever else is written in the book. A factual error right on the first page of chapter 1 is so lame.

For the record, the XS has an APS-C size 10.1 megapixel CMOS sensor. Only 200 MP off the mark.

Idiots.

If you want to see something useful about it, go checkout a review on Digitalreview.ca.


Mike

Mike Wood Photography

Happy belated B Day CD!

A play on the recent Obama poster and created over here. Where he has versions available for sale. While I missed Charles Darwin's birthday last week on Feb 12th, this year marks the 150th anniversary of Origin of the Species.

Darwin would have been 200 if he had evolved to live that long. ;)


Mike

Mike Wood Photography

grumpy

Had to turn down three paid photoshoots in the last couple of weeks as I have no studio or lights. When I need the money and could easily do it otherwise, I can't.

And a text book publisher wanted to use an image I shot out West in 2007 in Vulcan AB, and somehow wires got crossed and a deadline was missed. So she went with a runner up image even though mine was better - as she said when we finally connected.

I could go on. But I won't. :|


Mike

Mike Wood Photography

Samsung Memoir phone camera phone

(Photo: Business Wire)

Samsung Memoir mobile phone for T-Mobile users in the US in ten days for $249.99.

8mp is wasted on a phone. Just because a Samsung Memoir mobile phone can cram the image resolution in and add some features, doesnt make it a camera. Buy a camera. Buy a phone. Buy both. But no one needs to have 8mp grainy drinking at the bar photos. And the resolution means that it wont be long before you wont be allowed to take a phone to a concert as bands and concert promoters will be afraid of people selling half way good images of performances.

Of course if it was a camera with a phone built into it, that would be different. ;)

found via Engadget.

Mike

Mike Wood Photography

Facebook Terms of Service changes.

Apparently there is a new TOS for Facebook, the interpretation of which is not exactly as I presented in the previous post/note. The group I joined seems to indicate that the rights dont terminate when you leave Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=77069107432&ref=mf

The old Facebook TOS is here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071012215843/www.facebook.com/terms.php

The section which was removed from the TOS was this:

"You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content"

I would be very wary of uploading any creative IP content to Facebook anymore.

Mike

Mike Wood Photography

A caution on posting images to Facebook

A friend of mine who is a photographer in Florida asked me if I knew about the Facebook policy about user content and how they pretty much own your soul if you post content to the site. I know its fairly standard boilerplate and the following is taken from their ToS, but a lot of people - the general public as well as photographers and models - may not be aware of it. The emphasis is added by me:

You are solely responsible for the User Content that you Post on or through the Facebook Service. You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof. You represent and warrant that you have all rights and permissions to grant the foregoing licenses.

There is also nothing I can see in the privacy settings that stops Facebook from using your content.

I know most of you will be careful with posting your high res images anywhere, but your clients and models may not be as careful, and could post to Facebook. Then your content, which could have been re-sold for more, could now be widely distributed and used by Facebook for free. Not to mention stolen by those not respecting your IP rights.

I know most images -resolution wise - are not usable for print, and most pics uploaded by most people are just snapshots or bar photos, but they are suitable for online usage on web sites such as Facebook itself. Who knows if someone at Facebook has an idea for a Facebook mobile upload collage of bar photo images and yours are there for the taking. Or some developer who dreams up some sort of annoying modeling application could use your images for their app because they are only using them on Facebook.

Essentially, as long as your photos and content are posted on Facebook, Facebook may use and sell them in which ever way they want to because you have allowed Facebook to do that when you agreed to the FB ToS. If the pictures are removed from Facebook, this right for Facebook to use the content is revoked.

So I would be very careful what you post on Facebook. It is one of the reasons that I don't post images to Facebook except in blog posts and why I have not updated my group in a long time. That, and I can't post nudity to Facebook as I am not going to set age based restrictions on my group/page.

Mike

Mike Wood Photography

On liking something on the surface. Or not

© 2008, J. Wesley Brown

When you look at a photo, do you look at the visuals, the composition, the angles, lighting and contrast? What the subject is doing or not doing? Do you like it or dislike it at that point? Or do you read up on the artist and choose to like or not like it then?

I was reading a couple of blogs earlier and over at Lenscratch, there was a post about West Coast photographer J Wesley Brown including some really cool nighttime images shot in and around LA. - one of which I have included above.

A quote in that post - I assume from Brown - said:

"I once remarked about how unremarkable a show I had seen at the Reina Sofia was and the woman I was speaking to said she thought the same thing until she went with a group through the show with the artist, who explained his motivation and ideas behind the work. She said it completely changed her mind and that she loved it after that. This made me a bit sick to my stomach.

Why should visual arts require literary explanations? I think if visual work needs to be explained, it is not good visual work. Too bad the art world and virtually all submissions demand statements these days (not always the case, especially during the vast majority of art history)

When, outside of a solo show, do you walk by artwork in museums and see statements? You don’t. You shouldn't need to."

I fall perhaps between those two extremes. I know what I like, though occasionally I can't put it into words. But given my nature to research people and things, I might discover after the fact that an image which was appealing at first blush could be a commentary on a point of view that I might not share. A left wing subtext to a right. A war vs a peace. An environmental stance vs a progress-at-all- costs. And so on.


Remember this image I shot and posted in August? Is it a promotion shot for Terex earth movers or the company that uses them, or commentary on the growth of sub divisions ruining farm land? Hopefully the image is good either way you see it. But it could become more or less tasteful depending on your stance.

I dont think I have been convinced the other way around though. I have not seen an image I have disliked or been at best been nonplussed by, it and then been told it is a piece-de-resistance from so and so and that I should like it because - for example - it speaks to his or her upbringing in such-a-place. Knowing a bit more about the artist might reinforce why I like it, but I don't think it would change my mind from disliking to liking. I will admit I am open to that happening, but it hasn't occurred yet.

An picture should speak for itself. At least 1000 words worth at any rate. :)

Mike

Mike Wood Photography

Sirius/XM in bankruptcy talks

I have listened to SiriusXM or just plain old Sirius before then for about three years now. In fact here in Canada it is the 40% CBC owned subsidiary Sirius Canada that I subscribe to - though I get all the same channels as far as I can tell.

I blogged about it before, but I don't drive anywhere without it and listen to the streaming feed on my computer at home now and then. Nothing like driving from the top end of Newfoundland to the middle of the Rockies and all through the California desert and never losing a signal. Not to mention being in a motel in dot-on-the-map Saskatchewan and playing what you want on the laptop and not having to waste time searching for crappy local AM or FM signals.

Even before the current economic challenges, it seems it is a business model that just doesn't work. First Sirius and XM merged and now SiriusXM is in bailout talks with Direct TV (via Engadget , CBC, and the NYT ).

Local radio and their constant 'Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man!' like commercials and other drivel suck by comparison. I drive to work in the mornings and listen to traffic updates and weather reports on AM980 and it just loops with endless banter, teases for upcoming stories at the top of the hour and so on. It really isnt news. Just headlines. And listening to BobFM all day at work with their canned programming, stupid contests, and CanCon reminds me of the Dickensian scene in WKRP where Mr. Carlson (after eating one of Johnny's brownies) visits Herb in the future where he is the only one running an automated radio station...

I hope something happens to save SiriusXM, but I am not optimistic.

Mike

Mike Wood Photography

Happy Valentines

Heart resting on a peak, 2009

Happy Valentines Day. Or Hallmark Day or Family Day...

Two made up holidays in one weekend is absurd: It's also Family Day here in Canada too... But either way it is a good excuse to shoot a photo or two. This is of a new model that I met through Missy a couple of weeks a go and shot last weekend. Full of good ideas and has a great, sexy look. More of her to follow in the coming weeks and months.

And if you are reading this on Facebook, you will have to look at the original post for the image as it contains - ok is totally - nudity.

Mike

Mike Wood Photography

The week in review

I had a great shoot yesterday. Second real one of the year (sadly) - but with super freezing cold weather, no studio space like those who use Fanshawe's, no studio flash heads/soft boxes, and no one offering up any warm empty places to shoot indoors, it's difficult to do otherwise. And besides, shooting is tough when you work all day, are pretty exhausted from that and all you want to do is zone out after (and still have editing to do).

I am also finding that my hands are getting stiff after working. Or more precisely the next morning. Not sure what it is. Does arthritis come and go like a light switch? I don't think so. Especially since it only started when I began working in the warehouse.

The shoot yesterday was a Valentines themed one with a new model and friend of Missy's. Missy did the makeup and assisted too. Pics to follow.

I also met up last week with someone who, after seeing one of my posted images from around SW Ontario, had suggested a location to photograph when it's warmer. Turns out she lives in the city and not where I thought, so she and I spent three and a half hours on Wednesday evening sitting in Starbucks talking about everything but the pic idea she had. :) I can say it was fascinating and fun to have my portfolio reviewed for more than an hour by an art history major from UWO. Was the highlight of the week.

Well, that and finally shaving. I am no longer as someone might describe me, a hippie. :)

Mike

Mike Wood Photography

Not long till Contact 2009

I know it not till May, but I am looking forward to going to check out some of the galleries in Toronto during the Contact Photography Festival. I didn't end up going last year, and should have. I hope I can spend a couple of days there checking out some of the killer images in the dozens and dozens of exhibit locations.

I have not seen the brochure/magazine yet in Chapters, but if anyone sees it, let me know.


Mike

Mike Wood Photography