Correcting Misinformation 2

Are you ready for the latest in my sporadic series combatting equivocal, ambiguous, or downright fallacious information that has made it's way around in the popular media about photography? Let's go…

For this chapter, I'm taking on something I heard on Photofocus podcast # 85, released on August 25th, 2011. (Photofocus is an excellent podcast, by the way…) In this podcast, professional photographer Scott Bourne and a rotating guest host (pro photographer Joseph Linaschke, in this case) take questions about photography sent to them via email or twitter. The question I'm going to tackle here is one about the best way to "expose to the right," a common technique in digital photography. "Exposing to the right" is a way to use the histogram on your camera to increase (lighten) your exposure as much as you can, to allow you to maximize the amount of information you capture without losing highlight detail. I'll describe this technique in more detail in a future post, as well as something on the basics of exposure.

The questioner asked if there was a quality difference between using exposure compensation, adjusting the ISO and changing the aperture/shutter speed combination. Scott started his answer by saying "When you start talking about ISO, then ISO should be ISO and has nothing to do with exposing to the right." Misinformation alert!

In this answer, Scott appears to be reminiscing about his days shooting film. In any photo, exposure is a combination of three factors: ISO (the sensitivity of the sensor), aperture (how wide the hole in the lens is that lets in light), and shutter speed (how long that hole stays open). In the days when film was king, you really only had control over aperture and shutter speed; while you were out shooting, you were stuck with whatever ISO film you had loaded in your camera, unless you wanted to rewind it and put in a new roll partway through a shoot. One of the advantages of digital is that you can change the ISO from shot to shot, if you want; many cameras also include an "auto ISO" feature, where you decide on the lowest shutter speed you're willing to accept and the camera dynamically sets the ISO to ensure you don't go below that speed.

So lets put this in practical terms… Say you're out shooting, and you take a shot at f/8, 1/250th of a second and ISO 100. You check your histogram, and notice you have a little bit more room for highlights, so you decide to take another shot, this time to expose to the right, and you want to increase the exposure by one stop. You could open up the aperture to f/5.6, but f/8 gave you the perfect depth of field that you envisioned for that shot… You could also change the shutter speed to 1/125th of a second, but then you might get a little motion blur from some elements of the shot that are moving around… ISO to the rescue! In this case, to increase the exposure by one stop, you could keep your aperture and shutter speed the same and increase your ISO to 200. That would quite effectively slide your exposure over to the right without changing the other artistic elements of your photo. You do, however, run the risk of increased noise with an increased sensitivity. (Didja really think you could get something for nothing? There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.)

The bottom line is that you CAN use ISO to adjust exposure in order to expose to the right. Take a look at your camera manual to see how to adjust the ISO, and go forth and photograph!

See more of my photography at http://lokahiphoto.com.
Looking for more great photography related info? Check out the PhotoFocus blog and podcast and theThis Week in Photography blog and podcast.

Note to the Airline Traveling Public

Note to the airline traveling public: I know you bought that roller bag carry-on because you can pack everything you need for your little trip in it, so you don't have to waste your time at the baggage claim. BUT… when you stand there in the aisle and try to sledgehammer and/or crowbar that ever-so-slightly-too-big bag into the ever-so-slightly-too-small overhead compartment, you're now wasting MY time, and the time of each and every one of the 200 other people on the airplane, because we can't get push back from the gate until you sit down and securely buckle your seat belt low and tight across your midsection. (Not to mention the fact that you're SCARING THE CRAP out of me because 1) you don't look like you're physically capable of lifting that thing into the overhead, and 2) the particular bin you've chosen is directly over MY head.)

So, let's say you would've spent about 20 minutes waiting for a checked bag to hit the carousel (that's probably about average, depending on the airport). That's 20 man-minutes of time, or 1/3 of one man-hour. The ten minutes you wasted trying to find an empty overhead bin and then brute-forcing the bag into the compartment, multiplied by the 200+ people on the airplane, comes to 2,000 man-minutes, or MORE THAN 33 WASTED MAN-HOURS. See where I'm going with this? In order to save yourself ten minutes on the back end, you've ended up stealing over 33 man-hours from your fellow travelers. Smart traveler? Mmmmm, no, I'm going to go with "selfish traveler." Remember, you're not the only person on the airplane.

Correcting Misinformation 1

In this first installment of "Correcting Misinformation," I'll take on what I think is a common misconception about legal considerations involved in selling your photography. And now, the standard disclaimer: I am not a copyright attorney, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. The opinions expressed here are exactly that: opinions. If you are in need of actual legal advice, you should find someone qualified to provide it, and that person is not me.

In the March 16, 2011 episode of the "This Week in Photo (TWIP)" podcast (which is an excellent podcast, by the way), the assembled panel discussed a recent brouhaha about Lady Gaga demanding the rights to photos taken during her concerts. The conversation meandered a little, and along its course, one of the panel members said:

"I don't know the ins and [outs] of copyright laws, but… Anytime that you are selling images, you have to have a model release if it's not for editorial use, meaning used for journalism."

Copyright law is murky at best, and if you ask any copyright question to a roomful of lawyers, you're likely to get a roomful of different answers. Then they'll start arguing about who's answer was right, which is why they can charge so much money. That being said, I believe the above quote is not quite true, in a pretty important way.

The internet has a wealth of information about model releases and luckily for us, some of it is even correct. The key issue here is the way in which the image is used. In general, "commercial" use of a photograph with a recognizable person in it (use that implies endorsement or approval of a product or service) requires a release; "editorial" use (primarily to inform the public regarding something "newsworthy") does not. There's another important case, though… What if you want to sell a print of a photo you have taken that has a recognizable person in it? A portrait, for example? According to the more authoritative sources I have seen (including the website for the American Society of Media Photographers), you do not need a model release to sell that print. If there is no advertisement or other commercial business use, you can sell a print of your photograph with a recognizable person without having obtained a model release.

What's the safer course of action? Obtain a model release for any photograph you take with a recognizable person in it. When you trip the shutter, you don't really know how you might want to use that photo in the future; getting a release will enable you to sell or license it for commercial use even if that wasn't your original intent. But even if you didn't get a release, realize that you still have options to monetize that photo, if that's what you want to do. And if you need legal advice about photography, speak to an attorney. Like Carolyn Wright, for example.

See more of my photography at http://lokahiphoto.com.
Looking for more great photography related info? Check out the PhotoFocus blog and podcast and theThis Week in Photography blog and podcast.

New Feature: "Correcting Misinformation"

I, like a lot of photographers, listen to photography-related podcasts and read photography-related blogs, trying to improve my knowledge and my craft. In these media, the "listener question" format is very popular, where a portion of the show or blog (or even the entire show, as with the Photofocus podcast) is devoted to answering questions submitted by the show's listeners. The vast majority of the time, I find the answers to be interesting, helpful and accurate. Occasionally, however, the hosts/authors just get one wrong. And that bothers me. I know there are a lot of people out there listening to these podcasts and reading these blogs that may know even less about photography than I do (and that's saying' something!). I hate to see them be misled by bad information provided in good faith by otherwise excellent photography experts.

This has inspired me to start a new feature in this blog, which I'm going to call "Correcting Misinformation." Creative, right? In each "Correcting Misinformation" post, I'm going to highlight something I've heard in a photo podcast or read on a photo blog that didn't sound quite right, and that upon further research, I found to be confusing, misleading, or just downright incorrect. Now, I'm not some technical or photographic genius, so whenever I can I'll try to include references from my research that back up my point, and where you, Dear Reader, can maybe find more information about the topic at hand.

I'm writing these blog entries in the spirit of trying to increase the overall knowledge level in the photographic community, not as an attack on any particular show, blog, host or author. In keeping with that spirit, I welcome your critiques if you think I've gotten one wrong as well… You can either leave them in comments, or e-mail me at tim@lokahiphoto.com.

Thanks for reading, and stay tuned...

See more of my photography at http://lokahiphoto.com.
Looking for more great photography related info? Check out the PhotoFocus blog and podcast and theThis Week in Photography blog and podcast.