TWiP #251 – Leaky Light?


This week on TWiP we're discussing the 5D Mark III Light Leak issue, new 4K video cameras from Canon, model releases, a Google+ Conference for photographers, and we have an interview with Reid Warner from about what's new in wedding photography.

We record TWiP every week at 6pm Pacific, so be sure to circle Frederick on Google+ to catch the show.

Hosts: Frederick Van Johnson, Nicole S. Young, and Ron Brinkmann

Episode Overview:

This week, Canon confirms a “Light Leak” issue on the 5D Mark III and announces two new 4K video dSLR cameras.

We clear up some confusion and misinformation over model releases.

A Google+ Conference for photographers is coming to San Francisco.

And Frederick sits down for an interview with Reid Warner from SnapKnot to discuss what's new in the world of wedding photography.

Nicole Young and Ron Brinkmann join Frederick Van Johnson to discuss these topics and more on this week's episode of TWiP.

Nicole S. Young: ND Timer

Ron Brinkmann: Quara for Photography

Frederick Van Johnson: Instarchive & iPhone Boom Mic

Use the code TWIP20 to receive 80% off a SnapKnot Diamond listing for 2 months. New Diamond members only.

After you sign up with the code, you can also receive up to $20 in credits towards your 3rd Diamond month. Here's how:

1. Follow SnapKnot on Facebook and post a message to your wall about the TWIP20 promo code. Make sure to tag SnapKnot so they see the post and credit you with $10 towards your 3rd Diamond month.

2. Follow SnapKnot on Twitter and tweet the TWIP20 promo code. Make sure to include @SnapKnot so they see the tweet and credit you with $10 towards your 3rd Diamond month.

Questions? Feel free to email SnapKnot at

Please Support our Sponsors:

This podcast is brought to you by the internet's leading provider of audiobooks with more than 100,000 downloadable titles across all types of literature, including fiction, non-fiction and periodicals. For a free audiobook of your choice, go to .

Connect with Our Hosts & Guests:

Reid Warner: or

Nicole S. Young: or or Google+

Ron Brinkmann: or or Google+

Frederick Van Johnson: or or Google+


Pre-production by: Bruce Clarke
Post production by: Suzanne Llewellyn
Bandwidth provided by: Cachefly
Intro Music by Scott Cannizzaro
Photo Credit: Norio Nakayama


  1. I was told about this segment on model releases because you cited a link to my web page on model releases, but Nicole still communicated the wrong information. She says that the photographer is required to have the model release if the photo is to be used for an ad. To be clear, only the person or company that *publishes* the image needs the release. These are separate things. Photographers can sell photos without releases because they aren’t the ones publishing the images.Now, the photographer often chooses to get a release to make the photo more likely to be purchased, but this is besides the point. Photographers have no liability the way Nicole implies they do.


    1. While your information may be true, as a stock photographer with iStock/Getty it’s 100% on me to have a legal model release (not the agency). If you’re hired to do commercial work then it’s not the photographer’s job to have a release for the shoot (that is the job of the company using the images). But if I’m doing the work myself, such as hiring models, creating the image, and uploading it to my portfolio then it’s my responsibility to have a legal model release for any identifiable person in the photo in order to license it for advertisements. In my case, iStock won’t accept images of people (to license commercially) without releases, so of course there will be a release for the image and if someone downloads the photo then they would be assured that there is a release with that image.

      I always try to clarify that with my line of work (stock photography) I am the one responsible for the release because I do all of the work for my images and I am liable to have a proper release for my images. Also, if there was a model who never signed a release and a photographer decided to license the image to someone, who is to say that the model can’t go after the photographer, too? If the photographer forges or lies about having a release (or implies that there is one) then they’re also at fault, as I’m sure the company could counter-sue the photographer for giving them faulty information.

      Overall, yes you’re right in saying that you can license images without releases … but when you license images (not just stock images) you charge based on how the image is going to be used. So, if I had an un-released image that someone wanted to license and use to sell something in an advertisement then I would either try to get a model release for the image after the fact, or not license them the image at all. If they use the image beyond the terms of the license then that becomes a different situation.

      Maybe I’m being overly cautious, and if so … so what? I’ve learned to be very careful and conservative with the legal aspects of photography, and until a lawyer tells me otherwise I’m going to continue to do things the way I do.

  2. “We record TWiP every week at 6pm Pacific, so be sure to circle us on Google+ to catch the show.”  …  Any particular day?  Or should I check every day at 6 Pacific?  🙂

  3. Loved the release portion. As a former art director for a small yellow page company I knew the rules (thanks to a lot of one on ones with the legal department) but that was some time ago, nice to get an update. Art is still art. Ads are still ads. 

  4. Thank you so much for having Nicole explain the “model release” issue.  I was scared to death to take pictures of people because I wasn’t going to ask them for a model release.  Nicole explained it in a clear and concise manner making the issue easy to understand.  Thank you again.