Sunflower Buds

Last spring I planted several large pots with sunflower seeds. I had a heck of a time getting the squirrels and chipmunks to leave the sprouting seeds alone. There are a few sunflowers getting close to blooming. There is one on the deck that is the largest and it is blooming now.

Last weekend I took quite a few photos of the bud as it was just opening. These are some of my favorite photos of the summer. One of the members of the photo club made a comment on Flickr that the photos showed movement. They do! When I look at them I see a crab's mouth parts moving as it gathers tiny bits of food.

The challenge with these photos and anything outside this time of year is the humidity. As soon as I stepped out onto the deck to take the photos – my camera fogged up. I used a microfiber cloth to clear the lens and snapped a couple as the lens was fogging over again. Those are kind of interesting.

The best thing to do – and I did this then and on another morning – is to set up the camera on the tripod or set it on a table and leave it for a few minutes. The other morning, I came back into the house to get a glass of water. After a little while, you return and the lens is clear. On a super humid day the cool camera lens will have the moisture in the air condense on it. Once the lens and camera comes to the same temperature as the outdoors, the condensation ends.

I am going to send one of the sunflower bud photos in to go with this blog. If you don't see a photo with the blog, check back later to look for it. I think flower buds make as good (sometime better) photos than the flowers!

Flat Creek Nature Area

The end of July!  It is hard to believe the end of July is here already!  I had all these ideas of things I wanted to do and places to go and I haven't gotten to do most of them.  Oh well.

 

Yesterday I visited another local spot that I had never been to before – Flat Creek Nature Area.  The wonderful walk is located in the heart of Peachtree City.  It is more of a swamp than a creek, in my opinion.  It is one of those places where you most likely will need some bug repellent – I applied some before I left the house.

 

The walk entrance is located near the entrance for the Frederick Brown Jr. Amphitheater.  In the parking area you will see a building that has "Flat Creek Nature Center" on it – but I have never found this building open or staffed with anyone.  While on the walk my friend and I noticed numbers on the side of the decking.  We kept trying to figure out what they could be for.  Finally after many theories were tossed about, she came up with what I believe to be the winner.  She thinks the numbers mark certain species of trees or plants and some where (maybe in the locked and never staffed nature center) there is a pamphlet that you can use for a self-guided tour of the area. 

 

Down this trail and along the deck walkway it is dark – even on a sunny day.  Most of the time we were out it was overcast.  Occasionally the sun would peek out and give us interesting subjects in a spotlight.  The foliage looked very healthy and a vibrant green.   I took some photos for no other reason than to look up what kind of plant it is in my field guides.  We started out early since it was forecast to become very hot.  About an hour in we found the humidity increasing quickly. 

 

It was disappointing to see trash scattered in the area, not much, but any is an eyesore.  There were some signs marking tree species.  We saw very few creatures while on the trail.  One type of creature seen was fish in the more creek-like areas.  The other creature spotted occasionally, usually too late, were spiders!  I started carrying my camera on the monopod above me to break the web first.  Walking into one is no fun, believe me!

 

I cannot wait for fall and a nice day to return to Flat Creek Nature Area.  Of course, by fall, the spiders will be larger!

 

Photographing Your Jewelry or Other Collectibles.

 

There may come a time when you would like to photograph a piece of jewelry or another small object.  Keeping photos of jewelry is a good idea for insurance purposes – and really, a photo of any collection that is of worth is suggested.  I like to suggest taking shots of individual items and then a group shot as well.  Here are some tips on photographing these items.  After you get the photos you want – where should you store them for safekeeping?  The first thing I always think of is a safe deposit box.  But if you don't have one or would like easier accessibility to them, you could just upload them to the internet to one of many online photo service websites.  (Of course, keep a backup on CD or DVD or even just a jump drive.) 

 

Many people think that macro, or even with some cameras super macro, setting is the one to choose for jewelry photos.  If your piece is not very dimensional – maybe that is OK.  With macro your depth of field is shallow, meaning a small section of the photo is in sharp focus and the rest is blurred.  It is great, artsy – but it won't show a 3D object completely sharp.  If your intent is to show the object – use a regular setting and zoom to get in close to the subject.  If you have a high number megapixel camera – you can crop down to get just your piece if need be.  Cropping does reduce the size of your photo file – so if you crop a photo taken with an 8mp camera in half – you end up with the same size of photo as if you had used a 4mp camera.

 

Landscape setting is the "semi" auto setting on most cameras with the largest depth of field.  Portrait setting will probably get your whole subject in sharp focus and have the background slightly to very blurred (depending on how far the background is from the subject).  If you are going more manual with this – choose a high number fstop – 11 or greater.  The higher the fstop the more is in focus.  The lower the fstop – below 8 usually – the more you have blur and sharpness in a photo.  If I were doing jewelry I would choose aperture priority and play with my setting from f11 and on up to see what I get that I like best.  Keep in mind that pros experiment with settings a lot to get the look they want – and they take a lot of photos.

 

If you need flash consider using auxiliary lighting instead.  A flash can create an unflattering glare that will take center stage and perhaps hide details on a piece.  Set your item by a window – take it outside.  But do not go for direct sunlight as this will create glare and shadows.  If you use a flash consider outside and something like fill flash.  If you need more light and want to put a "spotlight" on the piece with a lamp – think about using a screen to soften the lighting.  Use white plastic (like a Target bag) stretched on a coat hanger.  Place this between the object and the light to soften the light and reduce glare on the piece.  If you are using no flash and your camera's shutter is working slower because of it -- you may need a tripod or just place the camera on a table or any other steady surface.  If you are using a slower shutter speed -- just the push of your finger on the button "could" give you enough camera jiggle to not have a super sharp photo.  Set the camera down, put it on timer, push the button and stand back.

 

Think about your background.  Many people I know photographing art pieces will use one large piece of fabric for a background and under the piece – that way there are no seams, lines, or changes in colors behind the object.

 

So take some photos!  This is a great way to document your collection and practice with the camera – killing two birds with one stone.

 

The Rights of the Subject

I have talked before about objects in the public domain that you think are – of course – public, therefore they are free from any strings if you photograph them.  Wrong. 

 

Recently, in a search on the internet for information on this very subject I found that the light show on the Eiffel Tower is a copyrighted work of art.  Anyone photographing it or video taping the event can do so if it is for personal use.  If you plan to show it in a gallery and sell it – you are violating the intellectual property rights of the copyright owner.  The Empire State Building is another protected object.  A photo of the New York City skyline is fine.  But, if you photograph the Empire State Building – and clearly it is the subject of the photo – you are violating the intellectual property rights (if you use it commercially).

 

I read a story about Brad Pitt initiating a suit against photographers who took photos of him and his family.  The family was outside their home – on their own property.  The photographers were not on their private property – but they had tele-zoom lenses.  These lenses allow the photographers to get pretty good photos without violating any trespass laws.  Some other celebrity is doing a similar action – I can't think of who it is.  Anyway – just because you are on public property or your own private property when you are photographing someone else – you still may have privacy issues to deal with.  The issue would definitely get pushed if the photo shows another party in an unflattering way and you 'publish' it.

 

If a person or their property is easily identifiable in your photo and you think you may want to use it in a commercial way, you need to secure a release.  When I say commercial way, I mean place it in the public eye.  The only case I have heard of getting around this is the "art excuse."  A photographer, Philip-Lorca diCorcia, had a show at a gallery in NYC called "Heads."  The show featured head shots of people in Times Square.  The photos were taken as the people just walked by on their way to whatever.  One of the subjects, Erno Nussenzweig, felt violated.  Not only was a large photo of his face hanging – it was offered for sale.  The gallery was selling the portraits for $20,000 to $30,000.  Mr. Nussenzweig claimed also that the whole thing went against his religion.  He is an orthodox Jew with a certain sect that has a commandment about 'graven images.'  But – he was on the street – just walking by and in public view.  The photographer snapped the shot and the rest followed.

 

The lawsuit of Nussenzweig v. diCorcia was filed in 2005.  In February 2006, the court ruled in favor of diCorcia and the gallery.  The court ruled that the use of Nussenzweig's image was a form of artistic expression and that he could not block the publication, display or sale and that he was not entitled to any compensation from the sale of the artwork or any books.  The court also deemed the lawsuit as untimely.  The ruling was that Mr. Nussenzweig had one year from first publication to file a suit.  In March 2007 this ruling was upheld by New York's First Appellate Division.  In November 2007, the New York Court of Appeals sided with diCorcia and the gallery as well. (Sounds like Mr Nussenzweig kept appealing)  They stuck to the timeliness issue and did not get into the whole using someone's image in art thing.  They said that any privacy claims must be made within one year of first publication whether or not the subject learns of the publication during that period.   So if you don't know about it, you better file a case anyway?  OK

 

What does this tell you?  If you take photos for your own personal enjoyment, don't worry about anything.  Take the photos, look at them at home, don't sweat it.  For me – it says get a release if you want to do anything besides have a photo in your home on display.  If you plan to put photos on sites such as Flickr, you need to be careful and err on the side of caution.  That word "publish" can mean many things to many people.  One local museum clearly states in their photography policy, that you must read and sign off on prior to taking any photos on property, that 'publish' to them includes placing the photo on the internet and they mention Flickr specifically.  If the appeals court did not want to touch the 'images used in art thing' – just think how messy that could become and costly it would be to have a problem.  It seems much much easier to get a release and sleep easily.

 

Oh, and my trademark issue, I received an email yesterday with lots of "personal advice" from my infringer and she told me that even though she was right and I was wrong, she had changed the wording on her site anyway.  Don't you just love it?!