Fireworks Pics

Michael S said:

Quoted message said:

Definitely - someone will want them for advertising perhaps.

Which is why you should get a model release, regardless of whether the
person(s) is/are identifiable. Advertising photo buyers will rarely
touch a photo featuring people if it isn't model-released. It's not
worth the risk of somebody claiming (and proving) that the person is
them, and that they disagree with their image being used to advertise
product X. Your brother is hardly going to try and stitch you up, but
buyers don't know he's your brother (or care).

Good point. I've asked my brother and he's agreed to sign a model
release.

I can just see it now, "this is how *not* to light fireworks! - the
idiot in this photograph ended up in hospital with serious burns to his
hands and arms..." ;-)

Where do I get a template for a model release form, and what's the
situation regarding paying the model? I presume that if I sell the
photo my brother will want a fair cut of the money. What sort of
percentages are standard?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

W. D. Grey said:

I don't think Paul's brother is recognisable in this photo and I know
him.

But could I get out of paying him if I sell the photo? ;-)

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, pvs1
@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk says...

Quoted message said:

Darren G said:

Quoted message said:

I wonder if an Image
Stabilisation lens would help?

Not sure the motor would cope with such a long exposure and the
slower, wider movements so well. I /think/ it is more designed to
compensate for minor shakes rather than real movement.

Probably.

Quoted message said:

And it would kill the battery.

Would it? Damn, hadn't thought of that. Can you switch it off?

No sure - a couple of people who I know have them (one the 75-300 IS:
why pay for the IS on a low spec lens) and they moan about it. Not
aware you can switch it off but I'll ask them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've never really got on with monopods - always found that a v light
weight tripod is equally as heavy/light but more useful.

A tripod is certainly more useful, but you're looking at it from the
wrong point of view.

I am?

Quoted message said:

Firstly, my trekking poles serve as monopods (I
bought the ones with the cork handles that screw off to give you a
camera thread), so I'm not actually carrying any extra weight, since I'd
be carrying them anyway.

Oh, I *am*! And my poles can do the same. That was one of the main
reasons I chose them ... and then promptly forgot about it! Oh well,
it's an excuse to go gear shopping and get the adaptor.

I'll make it my challenge for the weekend!

--
Darren

In article <[email hidden]>, pvs1
@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And having
recently forgotten to take my tripod on holiday with me (I'm sure it
was in the car when we left but not at the airport) I found that a
fleece masquerading as a bean bag works quite well!

Don't like using clothing as bean bags, too bouncy! Okay with a self
timer I suppose, but I usually like to press the shutter release
manually with bean bag shots.

didn't particularly like it either, but due to my forgetfulness didn;t
have much choice (other than buy yet another tripod!). But using the
self timer on the 2 sec setting with an IR release and mirror lock up
wasn't too bad.

--
Darren

"Darren G" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When we moved our chemical store and had lots of dodgy looking stuff
probably dating back to the 1920s to dispose of I made an extremely
impressive firework by chucking about half a jam jar full of sodium in a
pond. Anyone who knows anything about sodium will realise half a jam

jar

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

full is rather a lot.

Quoted message said:

I take it you chucked it from a decent way back!

I did think about factoring that into the risk assessment yes. Not quite as
much flame or sparks as I was expecting but a *huge* most satisfying whoomp
of a bang (undoubtedly due to being confined in the jar) and a mushroom
cloud of smoke/steam that got to the size of a house before I thought I'd
better make a quick getaway.

Darren G said:

Quoted message said:

Can you switch it off?

No sure - a couple of people who I know have them (one the 75-300 IS:
why pay for the IS on a low spec lens) and they moan about it. Not
aware you can switch it off but I'll ask them.

Ta, I'd like to know that. Why pay for IS on a low spec lens? Well
surely a sharp image on a low spec lens is better than a blurred image
on a low spec lens?

Quoted message said:

Oh, I *am*! And my poles can do the same. That was one of the main
reasons I chose them ... and then promptly forgot about it! Oh well,
it's an excuse to go gear shopping and get the adaptor.

I don't have an adapter for mine, it is sometimes problematical if I
have to tilt the camera a lot, but not often.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, pvs1
@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk says...

Quoted message said:

Darren G said:

Quoted message said:

Can you switch it off?

No sure - a couple of people who I know have them (one the 75-300 IS:
why pay for the IS on a low spec lens) and they moan about it. Not
aware you can switch it off but I'll ask them.

Ta, I'd like to know that. Why pay for IS on a low spec lens? Well
surely a sharp image on a low spec lens is better than a blurred image
on a low spec lens?

no probs. My point was I'd have rather spent he extra cash on better
glass than the IS, specifically the nice 100-300 USM that I keep looking
at.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oh, I *am*! And my poles can do the same. That was one of the main
reasons I chose them ... and then promptly forgot about it! Oh well,
it's an excuse to go gear shopping and get the adaptor.

I don't have an adapter for mine, it is sometimes problematical if I
have to tilt the camera a lot, but not often.

going to have to go out to the garage now and see how mine work!

--
Darren

Darren G said:

Quoted message said:

Why pay for IS on a low spec lens? Well
surely a sharp image on a low spec lens is better than a blurred
image on a low spec lens?

My point was I'd have rather spent he extra cash on better
glass than the IS, specifically the nice 100-300 USM that I keep
looking at.

Good point, is the 75-300 IS really that bad? Is the 100-300 that much
better? Does USM mean or imply better quality? What's the price?

Am looking for a decent, but not too expensive, something to 300mm zoom
too, so am interested in the best option for a reasonable price (and
fairly lighweight). The 70-300 DO lens is just a bit out of my price
range at the moment.

Quoted message said:

going to have to go out to the garage now and see how mine work!

Good luck!

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| Michael S wrote:
|
| >> Definitely - someone will want them for advertising perhaps.
| >
| > Which is why you should get a model release, regardless of whether the
| > person(s) is/are identifiable. Advertising photo buyers will rarely
| > touch a photo featuring people if it isn't model-released. It's not
| > worth the risk of somebody claiming (and proving) that the person is
| > them, and that they disagree with their image being used to advertise
| > product X. Your brother is hardly going to try and stitch you up, but
| > buyers don't know he's your brother (or care).
|
| Good point. I've asked my brother and he's agreed to sign a model
| release.
|
| I can just see it now, "this is how *not* to light fireworks! - the
| idiot in this photograph ended up in hospital with serious burns to his
| hands and arms..." ;-)
|
| Where do I get a template for a model release form,

I thought Alamy had them on their site, somewhere.

| and what's the
| situation regarding paying the model? I presume that if I sell the
| photo my brother will want a fair cut of the money. What sort of
| percentages are standard?

This is usually written on the model release form, I think. It will state
that they have signed the model release form in exchange for £x or x% or
free prints or whatever. Basically Paul, whatever you like, then get him to
sign it. Just give him either £0 or free prints (as a token gesture), but
don't give anyone percentages if you can get away with it. I've got big
plans for my brothers and sisters (chubby kids, should be salable eating a
pack of crisps on the couch watching TV), but they're not getting a cut of
any sales that's for sure! If it was a 'proper model' though, this would
all be agreed from the beginning.

| Paul

Ste

"Michael S" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| "W. D. Grey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
| > In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
| > <[email hidden]> writes
| > > Do you think there's a market for
| > >selling this kind of "art"? Probably worth putting them on Alamy don't
| > >you think?
| >
| > Definitely - someone will want them for advertising perhaps.
| >
|
| Which is why you should get a model release, regardless of whether the
| person(s) is/are identifiable. Advertising photo buyers will rarely
| touch a photo featuring people if it isn't model-released. It's not
| worth the risk of somebody claiming (and proving) that the person is
| them, and that they disagree with their image being used to advertise
| product X. Your brother is hardly going to try and stitch you up, but
| buyers don't know he's your brother (or care).
|
| Michael S

I'd second that, but without any experience of doing it! Put it another
way, it isn't going to do you any harm Paul is getting a model release (so
do it anyway, whether you think it's a good idea or not!), though it might
reassure a picture buyer that they are covered. And given a 50/50 choice
between your image and another person's image, they'll be swayed for the one
with the model release form, all things being equal.

Ste

Phil Cook <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Pay attention. The original purpose of a *gimbal* was to keep the
compass level.

I thought everybody knew that, anyway!

This is an off-topic thread, so anything goes......
--
Gordon

Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

W. D. Grey said:

I don't think Paul's brother is recognisable in this photo and I know
him.

But could I get out of paying him if I sell the photo? ;-)

Yes, but he might set fire to you. 🙂
--
Gordon

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Where do I get a template for a model release form, and what's the
situation regarding paying the model? I presume that if I sell the
photo my brother will want a fair cut of the money. What sort of
percentages are standard?

I don't know the ins and outs of this procedure, but I would think that
you may need to / but not necessarily need to pay the "model"

Don't mix copyright with sitters fees. The sitter would receive a fee if
you engaged one and that would be that . The proceeds from the sale of
photos would be yours. The "release" form releases you.

I think that's the case.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, pvs1
@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk says...

Quoted message said:

Darren G said:

My point was I'd have rather spent he extra cash on better
glass than the IS, specifically the nice 100-300 USM that I keep
looking at.

Good point, is the 75-300 IS really that bad? Is the 100-300 that much
better? Does USM mean or imply better quality? What's the price?

Am looking for a decent, but not too expensive, something to 300mm zoom
too, so am interested in the best option for a reasonable price (and
fairly lighweight). The 70-300 DO lens is just a bit out of my price
range at the moment.

The 100-300 is meant to be have better optics than the 75-300 and I've
seen it win several best of breed tests in the photo mags, beating the
other Canons and 3rd parties (not always the best measure, I know). It
is also rear focusing which I like as my filters stay where I put them.

IIRC its about £230 in the shops and £180-odd at 7dayshop.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

going to have to go out to the garage now and see how mine work!

Good luck!

mine don't seem to come off without taking out the screw. Will have to
have a look at the adaptor.

--
Darren

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| ste© wrote:
|
| > Hi Paul, I was expecting just this sort of shot from you when you
| > said you were taking photos of fireworks. Now you've got the
| > hand-held variety, your mission (if you choose to accept it!) for New
| > Year's Eve is to find some local Welsh landmark that is guarenteed to
| > have plenty of fireworks shooting over it, and picture this!
|
| No, I don't think I'll accept that one, sorry. What Welsh landmark is
| guaranteed in that way? I don't know of any.

You tell me, Mr Wales! :-P Doesn't have to be famous as such, but just any
nice landscape will do. Just an idea.

| I don't think there's any
| official displays around on New Years Eve anyway, not around here.
| There could be in theory, like maybe Caernarfon Castle, but I don't know
| of any.

Yes, a castle shot would be excellent! I'm sure there will be plenty of
official gatherings and displays. You get them in and around all the
cities.

| Guy Fawkes Night would probably be a better bet anyway, but
| official displays aren't necessarily anywhere near good landmarks.

Yes of course, but you'd have to wait a year for that again. New Year's Eve
is the next date when there's going to be any serious firework activity.

| > Should
| > be a good one for any calendars you do too.
|
| In theory yes, but it would probably be much easier to fake such a
| photo.

If you think you can! You'd need a good tripod-taken photo to play with
first, and I don't think you have any do you?

| >> My arms were only a problem when I used the 1kg 400mm lens, there
| >> was no strain with the standard zoom lens.
| >
| > Wimp! :-P
|
| Try holding nearly 2kg at eye level for half an hour, then come back and
| tell me what your arms feel like. :-)

I've just got the 75-300 IS (bought from eBay as you know), and that's heavy
enough for me!

| Paul

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| ste© wrote:
|
| > Very nice photos, and thanks for sharing them. It shows what I
| > missed out on by staying at home! The photos don't even seem like
| > fireworks, but rather some arty abstract shots, if you know what I
| > mean.
|
| Yep, I was very pleased with some of the more extreme arty shots, the
| ones that you can't even tell are fireworks (I've got some other strange
| ones that I didn't put on the page). Do you think there's a market for
| selling this kind of "art"? Probably worth putting them on Alamy don't
| you think?

In stock photography there's a market for anything. Just send them off and
see. If you're on the scheme where you pay nothing per image (but lose a
bit of commission), you've got nothing to lose. However, I think there'd be
more of a market for pin sharp tripod-taken shots if you ever get the
chance! ;-)

| > I was surprised there were no 'sparklers shots' too! If you have any
| > cousins or other young relatives, give them a sparkler to wave about
| > in the dark,
|
| What? You expect me to *buy* fireworks?

Nothing ventured, nothing gained!

| > take a fancy photo of the trail, get their parents to
| > sign a model release form, and submit it to Alamy! ;-)
|
| Nice idea, but I've done sparkler shots before and was never much
| impressed with the results. I think a certain degree of skill is
| necessary in the movement of the sparkler, perhaps writing words?

I've seen them in books, so if you figure out how to get good results I'm
sure it's a banker.

| > ...though
| > your brothers hand-held missile launcher half made up for this! :-)
|
| Yes, that was good, wasn't it? Do you think I should put that on Alamy?
| I wouldn't need a model release for that, would I? He's not exactly
| recognisable!

Get the release anyway, and pay him nothing. Just make him sign it.

| Paul

Ste

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

Yes, a castle shot would be excellent! I'm sure there will be plenty of
official gatherings and displays. You get them in and around all the
cities.

Quite a few castles, probably - Caerffili, Caerdydd,
Cyfarthfa...
--
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is
probably the day that they start making vacuum cleaners."
--Doc in alt.privacy

In article <[email hidden]>, Fran
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quite a few castles, probably - Caerffili, Caerdydd,
Cyfarthfa...

Cyfarthfa ??? More a pretentious home than a castle compared with the
other two. An Industrialist's dream!
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Fran
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quite a few castles, probably - Caerffili, Caerdydd,
Cyfarthfa...

Cyfarthfa ??? More a pretentious home than a castle compared with the
other two. An Industrialist's dream!

And therefore more likely to have fireworks at new year
perhaps? I don't know - I don't know of any organised new
year displays at all, to be honest...
--
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is
probably the day that they start making vacuum cleaners."
--Doc in alt.privacy