TWiP 488: Making Copyright Great Again

Photo of Frederick Van Frederick Van Follow on Twitter October 28, 2016
6 1 minute read

Podcast: Download ()

TWiP 488: Making Copyright Great Again

In this episode, the Trump campaign lifts photos from Flickr without permission. Kodak enters the smartphone game, and Nikon goes multi-lens with a computational photography based camera.

Links Mentioned in This Episode

Picks of the Week

TWiP 488 is brought to you by:

FreshBooks

This episode is brought to you by FreshBooks, the super–simple cloud accounting software that’s giving thousands of freelancers and small businesses the tools to save time billing and get paid faster. Try it free at freshbooks.com/twip.

TWiP Patreon

TWiP needs your help. We’ve started a Patreon campaign in hopes that you will help support the network so we can take TWiP to the next level. That means, new shows, more hosts, more TWiP! Please consider donating a few bucks at TWiP.pro/DONATE

patreon_logo

Credits

Photo of Frederick Van Frederick Van Follow on Twitter October 28, 2016
6 1 minute read

6 Comments

  1. Please get a physicist on sometime to talk about the properties of light. Jay did an ok job, but to be honest most of the conversation was cringe worthy, even to a non-expert that just reads a few physics and astronomy books and listens to podcasts. You guys were almost over complicating things. I am not sure what the speed of light has to do with anything when it comes to exposure. It is all about the number of visable spectrum photons hitting the camera sensor. More photons equals more light and there wave length determines color.
    A lightsource, like a flash, puts out a limited number of photons that disperse over distance. Thus the farther away the subject the lower the light intensity, or number of photons that hits the subject.
    Exposure stays the same at different subject distance because the subject is smaller to the camera. So the camera is getting less photons bouncing off the subject, but it covers a smaller area on the sensor so you get same number of photons per pixel in a sense. If you had a higher focal length lens to use the same fstop you actually have a larger aperture, letting in more photons. This ratio always stays the same because of physics!
    Nothing to do with speed of light. Light could be traveling at 100mph and things would still look the same. It would just take longer for the photons to arrive.

    1. Totally agree with you, I was cringing a bit as well when they couldn’t relate the exposure to the aperture of the lens.
      To elaborate further: aperture here means the diameter of the opening in the lens that lets in light. If you want to have the person stay the same size in your frame and keep you exposure settings, the lens will have to be that much bigger. If you’re standing on another planet it will probably have to be thousands of kilometers across.

    2. I had a couple of things to say on the subject. I agree the speed of light does not have anything to do with the major concepts of exposure. That came from the question. Maybe the way it was interpreted.
      The inverse sq law has to to with angular dispersion of the light. If you blow a baloon around a light the amount of light that hits the balloon is the same it does not matter if the is one foot away or ten feet away. but the light is spread out on a much bigger surface area.

      The example used for the portrait on the moon brings into play the same concept. So the exposure is not the same, but a different aspect. A standard lens is effectively a point light Collector from a portait distance. All the distances in reality it is effectivly a point. But when you bring extremes the difference is much smaller. the amount of light collected is not the same.

      The answer for the white balance is white balance is only to fool our brain. Just like the example they used of the green bathroom light. Things are really reflecting more green light. in the bathroom. White balance is only to play mind games to what we expect. the camera is arguably more accurate than we are. But that bring into play “there is no color, it is just a reflection”, and not my point. Is beyond the scope.

  2. Consistently bad audio quality with the Patels

    I could have made tbis comment any time in the last couple of years. Every time that the Patels are on, the podcast is frustrating to listen to, due to the poor audio quality.

    Both of them sound like they are in a deep barrel. Marina is deeper in the barrel than Jay.

    Jay’s audio alternates between mostly mushy (sounds like the teacher in the Charlie Brown TV specials) and distorted, especially when he gets enthusiastic about something and speaks louder.

    Marina sounds better, in spite of the barrel, but it is still somewhat mushy and cuts out every now and then.

    Sounds like they are using the cheapest microphones they could find, recording at the lowest bit rate possible, and have a dial up connection to the Internet.

    More than once in the past I simply stopped listening to the podcast.

    I haven’t yet investigated any of the training offered by the Patels, but if this is what they consider acceptable audio quality, I’m disinclined to look into it.

  3. Ok, you needed to touch dirty politics… Everyone touching it gets dirty.
    For a disclaimer regarding rest of my comment, I am not Donald Trump supporter, just the opposite, he is the most dangerous example of mob-rule. That means that we must avoid mob-behavior related to him, including careless rush to speak without checking the facts. My comment is not only about corrections to the related podcast content but raising real questions that should have been discussed.
    1) THE Donald Trump who is running for President or his official campaign did not use said skittles picture. Donald Trump (evidence of narcissism) son of THE Donald Trump used said image in his personal Twitter message. Big difference. Strictly legally speaking it is as if Jon Smith used the same comment and image in his Twitter, not the candidate or the official campaign resource. Yes, because of the close familial connection lawsuit has some chance but most likely outcome is nil.
    Real question that should have been asked: In this day and age there is no way to stop someone picking your image from the internet and using it for his free speech. Speech which you may like or hate. It will be quickly seen and transmitted. As it is free speech, it is very hard to collect any damages, no commercial use… How do you deal with this. Donald Trump Jr presents excellent controversial fuse to discuss this crucial modern day issue, yet you just got mired in political mud. Talk about this topic at some point.
    2) Unfortunately, you couldn’t stop at the images and by typical mob-rule Trump himself would like, you expanded to music,… again without checking the facts. And facts allow for another important discussion relevant to photography: Trump campaign was happy to not only state but publish contracts where he properly purchased and fully paid for said music to be used in his campaign. Notice that the artists are now mum. What have happened?-Artists allowed an agency to sell their works. Agency wants money. Agency has no morals of the artists. Once artists noticed usage of their content they complained but it is too late-no matter how they dislike Trump, agency legally let him use their works.
    Real question that should have been discussed and you will hopefully discuss it in the future: Most photographers need an agency to sell their works. In some cases throughput is so great (stock) that it is inevitably hard to trace where the art goes. What are the mechanisms available to better control this flow so that you don’t happen to sell your winning image to say, Trump campaign?
    Hopefully you’d address these real questions in some form soon.
    Sorry for stirring the political mud.