Neil Danton

I’ve made a change to the way the blog interacts with Facebook.

I’ve had to remove the Facebook comments box that was on each post as the plug-in I was using didn’t notify me of new comments, and only showed comments on each individual post, not on the summary pages, which meant I only saw them if I checked each post. That’s too much of a PITA, so instead I’ve added a Like button.

If you feel the un-controllable urge to leave a comment, you can do so directly on the blog, or if you’re Facebook-inclined head over to the Neil Danton Photography Facebook page to do so

The Like button is down there at the bottom see?

↓
↓
↓
↓

Here’s an interesting question from Brian that arose from a previous post Little Green Men belong on Mars

Brian asked: I shoot a lot of pub pics in places with red ceilings. Could you do any custom WB thing to allow you to still bounce flash yet avoid turning people into martians or do you just have to gel the flash?

Well, in my experience using a custom white balance with flash won’t help. Custom white balance or any other fixed temperature WB camera setting is intended for when that light source is the only light source. Mixing (for example) Tungsten WB at 3,200K and Flash at around 5,200K is going to give some fairly whacky results. Probably worse than the original problem.

The other thing is, I don’t think I’d ever bounce a flash off a ceiling unless it was pure white. I would rarely do it even if it was. The very problem of the distance the light has to travel up and back down again means more power required therefore increasing the flash recycle time. In the situation Brian describes, shooting “social” or “reception” images there are two disadvantages to using bounce flash.

The first is that there is often not much room between you and the subjects. This means that when you consider the light going almost vertically up and almost vertically back down again, most of the flash is going to be hitting the top of the subjects’ heads. What light does hit their faces is going to produce some pretty nasty shadows under the nose and eyes.

The second is that often a lot of images are required in a short space of time. I’ve already mentioned the longer recycle time, but add to that the blinky problem. The blinky problem comes about as a side-effect of using flash and can be measured on a exponential curve. You want me to explain that? OK then:

When you fire a bright light at someone they will on occasion blink. Some people will blink a lot anyway, some people naturally blink more than others, and some will blink more when they are expecting a flash. If that is shooting one person, you may end up with 25% of the shots having one or more eyes closed without even considering the subject’s expressions. To be safe then, you might want to shoot at the very least 2/3 images. Now add in another person and you’ll appreciate that the number of shots required to be safe goes up. Now factor in that these shoot locations are often very dark and dismal making the blink reaction to a bright light worse and you get the picture regarding the exponential curve. Then add in to the shot subject 3 and maybe 4 and…. So the last thing you really need is to be waiting around while the flash whistles and whirrs and recycles because it’s been bounced off the ceiling.

My advice would be to use a Stofen *rummages around on the internet* er, actually my advice would be to use an Omni-bounce manufactured by a company called Stofen There’s also an explanation of how they work. They are fairly widely available at good photo or camera stores or suppliers.

I’ve used one in a nightclub in virtual pitch-dark and got great results. I’ve also used one with some subjects very close to a white wall and the resultant image produced virtually no shadows on the wall.

The 2nd piece of lighting gear you ever buy (after the 1st – a flash) should be one of these babies. It’s like a miniature soft-box that fits in a pocket. It softens, bounces and wraps light around an indoor subject.

They have to be used properly though, at 45degrees (if you use Canon, the 580EX has a click-stop at 45deg). I’ve never seen such a simple piece of equipment used so incorrectly, so often, by so many supposed pro photographers.

DON’T use it with the flash head at 90deg to the flash body, it can affect the ETTL auto-cutoff. DON’T use it outdoors like I’ve seen supposed “pro press” photographers doing on TV, that’s a waste of time as they reduce the output power by A LOT, you might as well turn the flash off altogether.

They are perfect for indoor use though, but don’t forget that if you turn a camera upright to shoot a portrait shape instead of a landscape shape, then you have to change the 45 deg angle as well so that the flash-head goes toward what would normally be the side (then it’s still upright when you turn the camera through 90 degrees).

Hope that helps.

TTFN

..you can’t just help yourself.

I was recently flicking through a weekly free newspaper, and for some reason my eye was caught by 2 separate full-page advertisements which featured images of three different celebrities. Why on this occasion I noticed I have no idea, I doubt I normally would.

It did make me wonder though. I’m not accusing anyone of anything here, and I don’t know the facts or the answers to the questions I’m going to ask here. I am also not a legal expert, but I am fairly clued-up as to what may and may-not be done with regard to licensing of images, copyright, and a person’s image rights.

I don’t know whether the newspaper constructed these advertisements on behalf of the client, or whether the client themselves or an agent working on their behalf did so. I certainly hope though that the necessary licenses to use, permissions and model releases have been sought. There is a potential here for at least 6 very costly legal actions, 3 each from the image copyright holder and the celebrity.

Let’s look at the copyright issue first:

All of the images appear to have been taken by professional photographers. One I know was. Fact. Explanation a little further along. Regardless of whether the images were taken by a professional or not though, permission as a minimum is needed before anyone’s images may be used for anything, but in particular for advertising purposes. In the case of a professional, payment is expected for any usage of their images, but in particular when an image is used to enhance an advertisement of a product or service which is designed to achieve financial gain for the advertiser.

Next the image rights issue:

No-one, but in particular a celebrity, expects their image to be used to imply, whether implicitly or not, that they endorse a product or service unless they are sponsored or paid by that product or service to do so.

Let me explain further then. One advertisement features 2 sports personalities and the other a very well known actress (I refuse to bow to political correctness and call her an actor).

Let me point out that nowhere in either of the advertisements does it specifically say that the celebrity supports or endorses the product or service, but the fact that their image is being used does imply, whether deliberately or accidentally, that they do so in some way or the other. Guilt by association if you like.

Let’s take the actress one first.

The advertisement is for a provider of laser hair removal. I don’t know whether or not Angelina Jolie has actually used this product or service, or any similar product or service, or approves of this type of product or service, but her image is contained within the advert. I know it’s Angelina Jolie because, well because I know what she looks like, but also because conveniently, across the image is the text “Angelina Jolie”.

I repeat, nowhere is there any text that mentions her approval or not, but why is her image used unless to attempt to imply or infer that somehow, however tenuous the link, she is associated with the product or the concept? Maybe the space used by her image needed to be filled, and her image was just the correct size?

The sports personalities:

I have no idea whatsoever whether or not Tiger Woods or Brian O’Driscoll have had laser eye correction treatment. Tiger Woods probably needs no introduction to anyone in the world, but Brian O’Driscoll (BOD) might. BOD, for those outside Europe or who don’t follow sport much, is a Leinster (Irish province), and Ireland, and British & Irish Lions rugby player.

Images of both of those esteemed gentlemen appear in the second advertisement though.

Again, as above, no text suggests implicit association. There is text which suggests with regard to Laser Eye Surgery that “it is no longer just for celebrities like Tiger Woods, Brian O’Driscoll or Richard Branson”.

Again, as above with Angelina I don’t know whether permission has been granted by either the image creator or copyright holder, or the celebrity to use these images for this purpose.

So why do I suspect that all these images were taken by professionals and furthermore claim to know for a fact one was, and for some reason suspect that none have the necessary permissions?

Firstly the quality and secondly with regards to the sports images, the access required to get an action image of those subjects. Oh, and the fact that with regard to the Brian O’Driscoll image, it took me less than 15 minutes on the interwebthingy to track down the owner of the image.

The owner (copyright holder) of the image is a sports agency and the photographer co-incidentally happens to be a close friend of mine. Within a few minutes I was able to tell that the image was taken when BOD was playing for Leinster in a Magners League match on 31st Dec 2006. The last match in Lansdowne Road stadium before it closed for transformation into the Aviva Stadium.

The thing is with regard to images, pretty much any image can be used in a publication if it is in an Editorial context, where commentary about the subject of the image is appropriate. Those Editorial rules don’t apply where an image is used within an advertisement though.

In fact with regard to the BOD image, the agency terms explicitly state this:

All of XX Photography’s images are “rights managed” and pending image rights clearance are available for Usage Rights such as advertising, branding, brochures, direct mail and marketing etc.

and also:

As regards “image rights”, although XX Photography are the sole copyright holders and owners of all our images, clients may need to seek clearance from individuals, sporting bodies, or owners of any intellectual property contained in an image they wish to purchase for commercial use. We will assist you with who to contact regarding “rights clearance”, and offer any advice we can on dealing with this important issue effectively.

So did the creator of these advertisements seek the necessary permissions, pay the appropriate licence fees and clear image rights with regard to these images? I may be completely wrong here, but for some strange reason I just have my doubts.

At least in one case though, I can easily find out.

TTFN

At the start of the year I made a commitment to myself that I was going to start a series of personal projects with the concept being A Day In The Life Of.

Much of the work I do on paid commissions and assignments is fairly formulaic, media publications have their own styles that have to be adhered to, images for PR press release need to be shot a certain way, etc. In particular with Editorial assignments, the publication is often going to use just one image, so I usually stop after 4 or 5. Never mind that with the massive fee they pay they actually deserve less than 1. Sometimes it’s a shame, because there is a lot more of a story to tell.

I also get more than a bit frustrated at seeing the same types of images used in publications over and over. A lot of which are, sorry to say it, complete and utter crap. You know the type of thing, the first sign of a bit of summer weather and we’re inundated with images of a kid eating an ice-cream, or people sitting in the park, or “social” images of er, people on the beach. Some publications use so many “social” images from events that they completely miss the real images that could be got. I fear that one day we’ll be seeing “social” images from the scene of a car crash.

It’s either the above, or a constant deluge of supposed “celebrities”, most of whom I couldn’t name, who never mind A-list would only just about be Z-list celebs at best, and are only “famous” for er, being famous.

So here’s the challenge I set myself at the start of the year. Once a month shoot a picture-story, photo-essay, documentary, call it what you will, of a REAL person, or event, or even a business.

Unlike my normal day-to-day shooting which is set-up and usually involves direction, lighting and instruction, these will be shot where at all possible with available light only. If that means high ISO’s, noise, grain or blur, then so be it. The intention is not to direct, but to record. Where appropriate they might be black & white, but some images just scream out to be used in colour so it will vary. There’s no rule that documentary images HAVE to be monochrome.

A selection will be posted on the main website, and a slideshow created from a larger selection which will be posted here on the blog and on that TubbyYou thingy.

So, from the start of the year until today, every month you’ve seen precisely, um, none of these. That’s been due to a fairly hectic schedule, and the fact they’ve taken a lot longer to organise than I thought they would.

However, a couple are complete, a couple more are half done, and a couple more arranged.

If I start catching up by posting one a week for the next few weeks I will I should I might be right back on schedule within a few weeks.

You have been warned. Look away now. Change channel. Un-subscribe. Emigrate.

They start tomorrow.

TTFN

Well that’s not strictly true, but I will be back tomorrow.

That was a nice little break from blogging that I needed and I’ll be posting again on a regular basis, so you may be well advised to find the remote-control and change channel now.

I’m having to abandon the idea of APAD. I just can’t find time to blog every day so I’m reverting to a couple a week, maybe every other day depending on workload.

One small change that I’ll be making: The images that are displayed used to be a direct embed from my archive, which makes for very easy posting, but even a single image is actually a slideshow, so it’s Flash. With the increasing popularity of iPhones & iPads and other devices that can’t display Flash, in the future I’ll be embedding images that don’t suffer that problem.

See, you can’t even save your eyes by reading the blog on an iPhone anymore.

Even though I’d probably be classed as one of the Maceratti, in this instance thanks a bunch Mr Jobs for the extra work this entails.

See y’all tomorrow.

TTFN

You may have noticed I’ve been quiet for a week or so.

I hate seeing other blogs that look like they’ve been abandoned, so just saying that it’s intentional abandonment.

I’m taking a social-media break for the rest of June at the very least. I’m hoping that a break will renew some enthusiasm for it.

See you in July.

Maybe.

TTFN

OK, so I’ve finished tweaking and prodding and generally messing about with the new theme. This is about as good as it will get (sorry!).

I’ve re-enabled comments, having disabled them a while back as I got sick of deleting spam (why these bots bother when this blog only allows moderated comments anyway…). This time I have included a simple captcha to hopefully reduce the comment-spam that some people seem to think is a good idea (get a life).

If you are a real person and would like to leave a comment on any new posts, you can do so again now.

Please do, I would welcome your feedback…

TTFN

Just in case you didn’t notice (or maybe it’s your first time here), I’ve changed the blog theme to one with a slightly cleaner look.

It also allows me to display images almost 50% larger, so hide your eyes.

Still a bit of queaking to do but I’ll work through that in the next few days.

TTFN

A bit of Friday fun – this image is several years old now, but I was driving down the same stretch of road yesterday and was reminded of this road-sign.

It’s genuine, no image manipulation whatsoever. I was assigned to shoot it by a newspaper that had received a report about it. It took me a few moments to figure out what the interest in it was.

It had me laughing all the way back home to think of someone going to all the secretive effort it must have taken, just to amuse themselves and others.

If you still can’t see-for-looking, check the available recreational facilities carefully…

TTFN

…one of these very often

It’s a double-headed, double-ended, push-me pull-you:

I wasn’t out and about looking for genetically modified animals, I just spotted this while on an un-related commission for my client.

The animals are Oryx, a type of Antelope.

TTFN