Photo tips hidden in EXIF data

Musk Ox at Cabela's in Hamburg, PA

I have taken hundreds of images of preserved animals at Cabela's stores across the US and even a number at such live exhibits as the San Diego Zoo but I've always been in awe of wildlife photographers who bring back stunning images from photoshoots in the "bush".  I noticed this article about an African photo safari in the NY Times so, of course, had to take a look since I am still very much a novice at photographing animals that are "in the wild".  Unfortunately, the photographer offered very little insight on his techniques other than to recommend a good telephoto lens with a range of at least 80 - 400 mm.  He actually borrowed one from Nikon for this particular shoot.  He also recommended a monopod (less cumbersome and quicker to set up than a tripod I guess) and lots of memory cards and an extra battery (I actually take two extra batteries with me).  But his 21 image slide show includes each image's EXIF data which tells me quite a bit although I have to make some assumptions. 

First of all, I notice that almost all of his images except the first one are taken at F 5.6.  I assume he is using aperture priority mode to give him a healthy depth of field with at least some focus definition to emphasize his subject. 

Then I noticed that he increased his ISO (he keeps referring to it as ASA which threw me at first since that is usually considered a film light setting not a digital light setting) to 1600 whenever he was working in the low light of morning or late evening.  He did not include any information about post production so I assume his camera does not have significant noise issues or he used noise reduction settings in his camera or software in post or both.  I also couldn't tell if he experimented first with other settings to gain a particular shutter speed or not.  He comments on the shot of a male leopard in early morning that he preset his "ASA" to 1600 to achieve a high shutter speed of 1/3200 but the leopard does not appear to be moving fast so he probably could have used a lower ISO setting but either didn't have time or didn't bother to change it. 

I recently joined the Emerald Photographic Society and the group went on a field trip to Hull-Oakes Lumber, a steam-powered sawmill up by Bellfountain, Oregon.  After the field trip, one of the group members took me to Finley Wildlife Refuge just outside of Corvallis, OR and we discussed pointers on bird photography.  I remember that she said she was told you should try to adjust your camera so you get a minimum shutter speed of 1/1000 of a second to freeze the wings.  But the NYT photographer includes a picture of a weaver bird that he shot at a "high" shutter speed of 1/500.  However the detail is a little soft around the edges of the wings so obviously he should have asked for tips from Kathy!  He had plenty of wiggle room since his ISO was set only to 200. 

Of course he seemed to be paying close attention to the Rule of Thirds (or cropped his images with that in mind).  One of the images was an interesting silouette of a topi.  He placed the land portion of the image in the lower 1/3 of the picture and left the rest of the image as sky.  It works well even though the sky only has faint high cirrus clouds. 

The photographer said he had little experience photographing animals but his experience with photography was enough to ensure a series of images that any wildlife photographer should be proud of.  I wonder if I could get anywhere close to his results on a field trip to Wildlife Safari, an animal preserve near Winston, OR about 1 hour's drive from my home?

Related articles

• 15 Tips for Low Light Landscape Photography (digital-photography-school.com)
• Smoothing Out Those Waterfalls (sydspix.wordpress.com)
• ISO Control (nikonusa.com)

Museums take baby steps with iPhone Apps

Edward Rothstein, art critic for the New York Times, gave his take on the museum iPhone apps that are popping up all over New York.  I think he is right on target when he points to GPS as the key to make the retrieval of information about objects in a particular collection much more seamless for the visitor.

Imagine standing in front of an object with an app that, sensing your location, is already displaying precisely the right information. It might offer historical background or direct you through links to other works that have some connection to the object. It might provide links to critical commentary. It might become, for each object, an exhibition in itself, ripe with alternate narratives and elaborate associations. And, best of all, you could save it for later, glance up from the screen and look carefully at what faces you, all scrims removed, all distractions discarded.- Edward Rothstein, From Picassos to Sarcophagi, Guided by iPhone Apps

I must admit, though, that I was surprised he pointed out that the app information may not even be equal to the information on the item's printed ID card.  Why aren't museum inventory databases connected to such information retrieval systems so a visitor can view at least all of the information on the ID card if nothing else?

I was also surprised that he complained that many objects' search tags are so obtuse.

Monet’s “Church at Vernon,” (from the Brooklyn Museum of Art) we learn, is tagged “blue,” “dreamy,” “hazy,”  Rothstein observes, puzzled.

At first I thought he meant that only those tags were entered.  However, by looking at the link Rothstein provided to the Brooklyn Museum's actual object record for this painting, we see there are 28 tags for this work of art and the museum invites visitors to add more tags.  Tags like "dreamy" actually serve to record a visitor's emotional response to the painting and although such a tag is subjective I agree with the museum's inclusion of it since art is suppose to evoke an emotional response from the viewer.  I had never thought about tagging art with emotional terms before but I like it!

For those of us who are trying to assist educators and students by providing photographs that we have taken of museum art objects and artifacts, how about an application that we can use to sync the Geocoordinates recorded as XIF data in the images from our cameras with the museum's inventory records so we can be  certain we are labeling images correctly.  Now I have to remember to photograph the image's ID card and, if the information is provided in a list of object descriptions, align the information in such a way that I can distinguish it from entries above and below it.  Similar objects are often displayed together so its not always obvious which description goes with which object unless you take an image that includes the item's number.  I take a lot of detail closeups that do not include the item number so I may not have a number for reference when I am working on my images in post production.

In fact, a perfect application based on the Flickr API using the Flickr Uploader interface would match the image coordinates with the inventory records then use the Title, artist, date, location made, and medium for the Title field, populate the tag field with the museum's tags formatted as needed for Flickr then populate the description field with a "Photographed by (photographer name) at (linked Museum name)", like I do now manually. 

I like the way the Brooklyn Museum displays related works by tag groups in their records.  Ideally, I think it would be even more helpful if the related object images were linked to a gallery map indicating each related object's location so a visitor that was interested in comparison could easily find them.

In fact, a visitor tracking system based on GPS could alert visitors to small exhibits in adjoining alcoves that might have been missed if the visitor begins to leave a main gallery space without a travel path into the adjoining alcove.  I usually try to be quite thorough when I am photographing museum collections but on my second visit to the Getty Villa, I noticed a display of ancient coins and jewelry in a small alcove off of one of their main galleries that I just hadn't seen on my first visit.  I'm very fortunate that I travel to the LA area on business at least once a year so I've been able to visit the Getty three times.  However, when I'm overseas, I may be in a museum only once - perhaps in my entire lifetime - so I don't want to miss little treasures tucked away in obscure areas of the museum. 

Museums could also analyze these travel path records to determine if objects could be displayed differently to avoid visitor oversight.

        

Pogue says Fujifilm F60D second only to Canon

I noticed in David Pogue's "Best cameras under $300" article that he ranked the Fujifilm FinePix F60D second only to Canon for overall features and image quality:

"FUJIFILM FINEPIX F60FD ($220). A fast, solid, clearly designed camera. Good exposures, nice work in low light — no doubt because it has the biggest sensor of the contest (0.625 inches diagonally, rather than the usual 0.4). Features you can really use, like one that snaps both a flash and a no-flash picture simultaneously. Manual controls, too. Picture quality very good."

Right after the F60FD was announced I called Fujifilm to find out if the noise reduction capabilities of the F60FD were equal to that of the F31D. I was just told the camera was so new customer service didn't know anything about it !!

I read an article that says the real sequel to the F31D won't be out until Feb 2009 so I'm trying to hold off. I sure would like to take a higher resolution Finepix to Rome with me in March, though, so I hope there's no delay in the scheduled release. I also wish camera manufacturers would keep their product lines consistent. By rights, the F60D should be equal to a F31D with added image stabilization but articles I read said none of the cameras released after the F31D were equal to it in low light performance. Basic features like noise reduction and ISO range should not have decreased in subsequent models. I assume what happened was they simply bumped up the megapixels without incrementally compensating for the resulting increase in noise thus ending up with (IMHO) high resolution cameras with inferior performance in low light situations. At least they're supposed to address this issue with the new model in February

Good article on issues faced when photographing art at a museum

I was organizing some of my photos up at Flickr and noticed this link to a very good article about photographing art in museums. I would take exception with some of the technical comments made about suggested equipment and settings, however.

It begins by recommending the Canon 40D DSLR. I would not argue about image quality, precision lens, and good image stabilization. However, I definitely disagree that you cannot obtain the same features from a quality point and shoot camera as I think I have demonstrated during my photo shoots in a number of the world's most famous museums.

My reason for using point and shoot cameras over DSLRs is weight, cost, and ease-of-use. My High-ISO camera of choice is the Fujifilm Finepix F30. It produces very acceptable images (considering relatively low noise level) shooting with the ISO preset to the maximum of 3200. It is also a compact 3X zoom that fits nicely in my purse without carrying around a large camera bag full of extra lenses. Although the Fujifilm does not have image stabilization, it's high ISO makes it possible to use higher shutter speeds to minimize camera shake. I also recommend using the Macro setting when shooting in museums because it provides images with finely detailed texture.

My Panasonic FZ8 also shoots relatively low noise images up to ISO 400 (It advertises ISO of 1600 but images are much too noisy at that level. I initially tried ISO 800 but didn't find the noise level acceptable at that level either) It has a 12X zoom and is also small and lightweight for a superzoom camera. The Panasonic has an excellent image stabilization system so I can work with slower shutter speed settings than the Fuji which I need to do since the ISO setting is not as high as the Fuji. I also set my Panasonic to the Auto-Focus with Macro setting for texture detail.

I was quite honestly dumbfounded when the article mentioned shooting without flash or tripod at a shutterspeed setting of 1/20 of a second. Way too slow even with excellent image stabilization for an older photographer like me who must compensate for a familial tremor. I read that you can try to use the time delay function to compensate for pressing the shutter and even burst mode to try to increase your chances of getting a "tack sharp" shot but I personally would not risk it at less than 1/60 of a second without flash or tripod.

As for cost, I prefer to save my money to afford traveling to world class museums instead of spending over $1200 for a camera (body only in the case of the Canon) instead of less than $300 for either the Panasonic or the Fuji. Perhaps this decision makes me less of a "professional" but I think it is the most practical for me.

Photographing Sunrises and Sunsets Tip

I subscribe to an email newsletter published by the Digital Photography School. This week it included an article about photographing sunsets and sunrises. Most of the "12 tips" I was already familiar with (bracketing exposures, using a tripod, rule of thirds, focusing on silhouetted objects, etc) but one little nugget of information struck me as equally important and I hadn't thought about it before.

"Take camera out of Auto White balance mode - when you set your camera to ‘Auto’ in it’s white balance mode you run the risk of losing some of the warm golden tones of a sunrise or sunset. Instead try shooting in ‘cloudy’ or ’shade’ which are usually used in cooler lights and tell your camera to warm things up a little. Alternatively - if you’re shooting a sunrise and DO want a cooler moody shot you can experiment with other white balance settings."

Thanks, DPS!

Photo by Peter Bowers.

Lulu offers image marketing tools without Corbis hassles

I was excited to discover this week that Lulu.com now offers user storefronts for selling images - both for download and art prints (with Lulu providing the matting, framing, and shipping). Their interface is pretty intuitive and offers the ability to set individualized copyright selection (Since I offer noncommercial use for free up on Flickr, I select Creative Commons Attribution rights on Lulu to provide commercial use for a fee). It also lets me specify the attribution text, automatically informs me what print size the resolution I have uploaded will support, lets me enter a detailed description, and provides extra art print options for purchasers if I have selected that distribution option.

They also have calendar templates available and I have several ideas for calendar themes I want to design. I also took advantage of their Live Help Chat interface to help me with my first product offering. The only thing that confused me a little is that when I clicked on the Set License button on the Licensing screen after I had already input my desired price, the interface took me to another layout for me to choose from additional rights options and deleted my pricing. I have now learned to click on the Set License button first, then select my license (in my case I must go to still another screen to choose Creative Commons Attribution), then enter my pricing information and click Save and Publish.

One other thing to be sure to do is to set your remission options in your account settings. If you don't set any remission options, Lulu will donate your revenue to a charity. I think they should automatically take you to the remission set up screen the first time you publish a product but they do not. It's up to you to remember to do it. However, it's still a great service and I won't even bother with SnapVillage anymore.

Today, I noticed that Lulu has signed an agreement with Getty Images to allow LuLu creators to use licensed images from the Getty Stockbyte, Digital Vision and Photodisc collections and Lulu will automatically add the license fee to the cost of the project much like they do with the matting and framing costs.

It's a way of integrating original content with licensed content that's long been needed:

"Creators of all sorts, from companies to authors, to hobbyists, to non-profits have been looking for higher quality images to incorporate into their creations whether these are technical manuals, novels, photo books or calendars. Our partnership with Getty Images will empower creators to not only have access to this content, but to use it to make their creations more marketable." - Bob Young, Lulu.com CEO

I also noticed that you can get product specific "Buy Now from Lulu.com" buttons similar to the Amazon associate product-linked icons like this:

Terrific job, Lulu.com!!!!

Casio creates camera for YouTube video enthusiasts and Ebay sellers

I think these product offerings are particularly interesting because they address a particular market usage of the output rather than just output in standard formats. However, I am a little skeptical of the higher-end output that a semi-pro would demaind. I couldn't find any reviews yet for this particular model camera that included actual image evaluation but other Casio cameras released this year have customer comments that complain of noise and distortion using the zoom. Not a good trade-off. But, maybe Casio made improvements with these models. I'll have to keep an eye out for a comprehensive review up at http://dpreview.com - sort of my gold standard for camera reviews.

"Posting a note on an Internet forum is simple. Uploading a video to YouTube isn’t. Matching a video you have shot to YouTube’s requirements for file size, running time, resolution and file format often takes some fiddling with video editing software. And loading most camcorder videos into that computer takes as long as playing them.

Two still cameras from Casio may help change that. The Exilim EX-S880 and EX-Z77 shoot YouTube-compatible videos that can be uploaded quickly, without even pausing to load them onto your computer’s hard drive. This is accomplished by using the included YouTube Uploader software, which also lets you add tags and other information to each video.

Both cameras also have an eBay mode that shoots 2-megapixel stills, just the right size for eBay sellers. Maximum resolution is 8.1 megapixels for the EX-S880 ($299.95) and 7.2 megapixels for the EX-Z77 ($229.95).

Both models have 3X zoom lenses, face detection and electronic antishake systems that work even in video mode."

More on Property Releases

This morning I found a reference to the PROPER use of property releases:

"In some cases, you'll need to obtain a release for using pictures of places. You may find this odd -- after all if a building can be viewed publicly why is permission required to use an image of it? Over the last few decades some buildings have earned protection under both trademark or copyright laws or both. Trademark law will protect a building's appearance under very limited circumstances. If a distinctive-looking building is used to signify a business's services, then you cannot use an image of that building in a manner that will confuse consumers. For example, the Sears Tower in Chicago functions as a trademark, and if you intend to use it in the foreground of an advertisement, permission should be obtained from the Sears Company. Use of the building's image for informational purposes, such as in magazine article, does not require permission.

Is permission needed to use the image of a trademarked building on a postcard or poster? That issue arose when a photographer sold images of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. A federal court of appeals permitted the use of the trademarked building on posters and did not consider it to be trademark infringement. (Rock and Roll Hall of Fame v. Gentile, 134 F.3d 749 (6th Cir. 1998).)

Copyright protection also extends to architectural works, specifically for architectural works created after March 1, 1989. However copyright protection also has limitations. A release is not needed to photograph a building or property visible from a public place. However, permission is needed to photograph and reproduce images of a building protected by copyright and not visible from a public place. Entering private property to photograph a building or related private property may also trigger a claim of trespass. To avoid such claims, photographers, publishers and filmmakers use a property release, sometimes known as a location release." - Stanford University Copyright and Fair Use Overview

Take that Corbis!

Then I found an ultra-conservative usual legal eagle approach described in an article on the ASMP website:

"

The whole subject of property releases is filled with urban legend, assumption and myth, along with a bit of actual law. As you know, using a person’s likeness for trade or advertising purposes requires a model release. That is because a person has a reputation to protect, a right of privacy and (in some states) a right of publicity. Property has none of these rights. So why should you go to the trouble to get a release?

It’s a good question, but one that requires a complicated answer. ASMP has never seen a statute or a legal case that requires a release for property. The recommendation that you get one is based upon two legal theories.

Below, we use a house as the property in question. Remember that the theories can apply to property other than real estate, such as pets, cars, works of art and other personal property.

Association. The first theory is that a person’s identity might be connected to the property. Take a picture of a house and use it in an article about drug users, and the owner might get angry enough to sue. Why? because everyone on the block knows whose house it is, and, since the house is not actually connected with drugs, the image was used out of context and paints the owner in a bad light. If the owner sees the use of the image as defamation of character, a lawsuit might be the response.

Conversion. The second theory is that there is an offense called conversion, which means that you used another’s property to your own personal gain without the owner’s permission. It is a bit like copyright infringement, which covers intangible property, except it covers tangible property. If I rent out your house while you are away without your permission, I have converted it to my personal gain. That is conversion. The question is this: Is it conversion if I rent out a picture of your house for an advertisement without your permission? The picture of your house is not your tangible property. Is the photo of the house the equivalent of the house (at least for these purposes)?

We know of no case that has ever settled those kinds of questions. ASMP advises that property releases be acquired whenever possible because we don’t want to see you be the test case. - ASMP Property and Model Release Tutorial

If the courts should ever uphold a claim of conversion about public domain artwork it will totally destroy the rights granted to the public by legislation defining public domain work. Corbis as the sponsor of SnapVillage may decide to require property releases where none is actually required by law but this action will defeat the stated purpose of their website as a site for amateurs and semi-professional photographers to sell their work. People should not be held liable for laws that don't exist yet (and hopefully never will!)

SnapVillage use hampered by Corbis corporate view of reproduction rights

After reading about SnapVillage, a new stock photography site sponsored by Microsoft and Corbis, I uploaded five of my images over a week ago, three of 16th century sculptural artwork displayed on public property in Florence, Italy including the sculpture of Hercules battling the Centaur Nessus created by Giovanni Bologna in 1599 (at left), one of a fresco adorning an exterior surface of the Villa Giulia in Rome constructed between 1551 and 1553 and now the National Museum of Etruscan Art owned by the Italian government, and one modern bronze sculpture of Benjamin Franklin purchased by the city of Santa Barbara for public display along a pedestrian walkway.

After a long wait for review, I received notice from SnapVillage that they were requiring property releases for all but one of the images. Their viewpoint is apparently that simple ownership of a piece of public domain art somehow grants the present owner of the work the right to "sell" or "grant" the right to create a derivative work (photograph). This is in direct opposition to the current copyright provisions that place such work in the public domain. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Corbis (aka Microsoft) uses this approach as a rationale to charge publishers hefty sums to use their images of such art. However, if their purpose, as stated in a recent New York Times article, is to capitalize on the vast number of images currently being produced by so-called amateurs or semi-professionals because they fear their core business will be cannibalized by them, they need to abide by current copyright laws and not try to enforce policies developed by corporate marketing interests that do not have the weight of international law.

Copyright was originally instituted to encourage the creativity of artists and creators, not provide a capital asset for business interests who acquire the work. Trying to transfer the copyright from creator to owner is a travesty of the original intent of the law.

Key legal points:

Under the Berne convention, the minimum duration for copyright protection is the life of the author plus 50 years (Art. 7(1)).   Signatory nations may provide longer durations if they so choose.  

Three of my images were taken in Italy, a signator of the Berne convention, as is the United States.  Italy since joined
the European Union.  To commonize the application of copyright laws in its member nations
the EU enacted Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of
copyright and certain related rights (codified version)[1]

"In order to establish a high level of protection which at the same time meets the requirements of the internal market
and the need to establish a legal environment conducive to the harmonious development of literary and artistic creation in the
Community, the term of protection for copyright should be harmonised at 70 years after the death of the author or 70 years after the work is
lawfully made available to the public, and for related rights at 50 years after the event which sets the term running."

It further states:

In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, the term of protection shall run for 70 years after the work is
lawfully made available to the public. However, when the pseudonym adopted by the author leaves no doubt as to his identity, or if the
author discloses his identity during the period referred to in the first sentence, the term of protection applicable shall be that laid
down in paragraph 1.

The images I took of the 16th century sculptures are far beyond the maximum time period of copyright protection for such works. Although ownership to the sculptures does not convey any copyright, the owner of the works (the Ufizzi Gallery) has further chosen to display the works outdoors in a public plaza. Therefore, they do not control access to the works with any implied rights by grant of access.

For Corbis to insist upon a property release is ridiculous. If Corbis continues in this interpretation, they deserve to suffer the cannibalism that they fear.

SnapVillage to offer hosting services for Amateur/Semi-pro stock photography

This article caught my attention. With my image archive growing to over 12,000 images, I am accumulating quite a large resource that has some commercial value. I license my images for free use for non-profit purposes but typically retain the commercial rights. I had written to Google urging them to roll out a service within Flickr that would enable those of us that wished to engage in commercial sales to sell commercial rights with built-in links to Paypal for payment but I hadn't heard anything back from them. Maybe Microsoft/Corbis' entry into the market will nudge them in that direction. In the meantime, I set up an account on SnapVillage and as an experiment uploaded five quality images to see how things work out with them.

Recognizing the growing market for inexpensive online photographs, Corbis, the online stock photo company founded and owned by Bill Gates, plans today to introduce a Web site that allows anyone to upload photographs for sale.

Images scheduled to be available beginning today on SnapVillage.

Called SnapVillage, the site is the latest entrant into the realm of so-called microstock agencies.

Microstock sites take advantage of a phenomenon known as crowd sourcing, whereby thousands of amateur and semiprofessional photographers submit pictures and charge as little as $1 an image. Unlike some other microstock sites, SnapVillage will allow its contributors to set their own prices, ranging from $1 to $50 an image.