For Sale - Canon EOS 350D 8.2 MP Digital SLR (Digital Rebel XT)

Canon EOS 350D 8.2 MP Digital SLR (Digital Rebel XT) Black - Body Only


EOS 350D (Black) 8.2 MP SLR, Digic II CMOS sensor with built-in flash, Canon software, cable, charger, 2 Li-ion batteries, Manual, less than 1000 cycles (rated for 100,000 cycles), excellent condition. Great camera to learn digital, have used on assignments & stock. $500.00

Tech specs... http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos350d.asp

T'was The Day Before Christmas & Eight Before New Year's

On December 24th, while the rest of you were out running through stores trying to finish your Christmas shopping, I was enjoying the balmy December weather atop Two Times Square. Not your average day at tar beach (that's a New Yorkism), I was taking in a New York ritual: I was watching the ball drop on top of One Times Square.

The ball drop? Yes... three, two, one, Happy New Year! The ball that drops to mark the start of 2007. On December 24th? Yes, on December 24th (where's Dick Clark?).

Isn't that a bit early? No. Nothing is left to chance for the biggest New Year's Eve party on Earth. They actually do a dry run a week out. Technicians on the roof of One Times Square rig the ball, they practice dropping it several times, hoping that no one is looking up. I wasn't exactly looking up, I was looking straight across.

Sunday, atop Two Times Square, the temperature was about 60 degrees. Sunday, down in The Crossroads Of the World, the temperature is forecast to be about 60 Degrees. The more things change the more they stay the same. Sunday night Dick Clark will be there, too. Things are looking up. Happy New Year!

It's Called 'Global Warming,' George

The President may be in denial but anyone who was in New York City yesterday, where the temperature neared 60 degrees, could have told you: this is one very warm December. As usual for Christmas Eve, children of all ages were dreaming of snow, but this year there's not a flake in the sky or on the ground. Today's weather forecast is, according to The New York Times, for "increasing clouds, then rain," with a high temperature of 47 degrees.

Taking no cue from reality I finally (after much equivocation and procrastination) e-mailed a Christmas card to my friends showing the Flatiron Building shrouded in snow... a sort of ghost of Christmases past, and wishfull thinking on the part of this 53 year-old child.

Looking ahead, the forecast shows clear/sunny skies with temperatures increasing through the upper forties through December 31st, New Year's Eve, with a high of 55 degrees. It's called 'Global Warming,' George.

Good Press

Having been a blogger little more than six months I'm pleased to report that the project can now be termed successful... "Eat At Joe's" has garnered some excellent reviews and is now consistently experiencing traffic exceeding 1000 hits per day (days with new entries), with no fewer than 200 hits per day (other days). Who'd have thought anyone would be so interested in what I have to say?

The year-end edition of the ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) Bulletin contains a feature spotlighting eight photo-blogs and "Eat At Joe's" was featured prominently. While the print edition will not arrive in members' mailboxes for a few days yet, related interviews were posted to ASMP's web site this morning. Those of you who are not ASMP members will be able to read the full story shortly by clicking here... http://www.asmp.org/publications/asmpbulletin.php and then clicking the cover image for the Year End 06 edition (PDF). You can read the interviews in the Expanded Content section immediately by clicking... http://www.asmp.org/commerce/blogs.php or... http://www.asmp.org/commerce/blog_pobereskin.php to read about "Eat At Joe's" specifically.

Needless to say I'm pleased that "Eat At Joe's" has been selected from among hundreds of blogs. Congratulations also to my ASMP colleagues on their fine blogs and.....

Thank you, the readers, for making this possible!

This Day In History, 1995

This Day In History posts usually refer to a specific date, but today's is not about a specific date, rather a specific day (not necessarily a Friday, either). Today is a day unlike any other, it is the shortest day of the year. No, not that it's shorter than any other day, it's still twenty four hours, rather today is the one day of the year with the fewest daylight hours. In other words, it gets dark earlier than any other day. Today, the sun will set at precisely 4:32 PM.

Whats so good about that? Well, for one thing, tomorrow we'll have one minute more of daylight. More importantly, today (and the week preceding) is the best time, perhaps the only time, to make images of the Statue Of Liberty at night from Bedloe's Island. Sure, you can photograph the statue at night any day of the year... from somewhere else, not while on Bedloe's Island.* Why? Because the National Park Service closes the Statue Of Liberty National Monument at precisely 5:00 PM, and to ensure that everyone is aboard the ferry on-time, the rangers round you up at 4:45 PM and hustle you off the island post haste.

When the sun sets at this early hour, you have about five minutes to shoot with a darkended sky, no more ...and since 2001 you can't even get on Bedloe's Island with three tripods (and 300mm & 600mm lenses) so easily.

In years past however, this was almost a snap. All it took was some advance planning: meet with the chief ranger, show a portfolio, explain what & why you want to shoot and promise to keep your gear out of everyone's way and comply with the guidelines.

Typically I'd set aside three or four days in that week, just block them out on my calendar (assuming good weather, of course), and devote them to shooting the Statue... each day you can do maybe one shot. I'd plan carefully, choose my shot and go make an image. On a good week I'd make three to four great images.

In addition to photographic stuff, the most important piece of equipment in my arsenal is my North Face Brooks Range Parka, the absolute warmest winter coat available. The coat is so warm that all I wear beneath it is a tee shirt. A really warm coat is of supreme importance if you plan to stand at water's edge in windy New York Harbor on a cold day in December (although this December, thanks to global warming, a light jacket would do).

Cold weather, crisp, clear air, a warm coat and an early sunset... it doesn't get any better than this!
--
Above: JP0402 The Statue Of Liberty At Dusk - Nikon F3 with 600mm lens, Fujichrome Velvia.

*Once, July 1986, I worked The Statue at night with special permission to camp out on the island, another story for another day.

In Memorium: Jerry Dantzic

I had a voicemail message on my cell phone from my friend Grayson Dantzic yesterday asking me to call ASAP. Before the message finished playing I got a knot in my stomach and a lump in my throat, I had a feeling that I knew why he was calling. Almost didn't want to call back, thereby delaying the inevitable, but I dialed him anyway.

Grayson's dad, Jerry Dantzic, a photojournalist, was introduced to me by a mutual friend in 1977. Jerry was on hand in the 1950s and 60s to photograph many prominent jazz musicians in their prime and captured the spectacle and grime of the everyday grind in black and white in New York City. While working for the likes of Life Magazine, Twentieth Century Fox and Decca Records, Dantzic photographed the full spectrum of jazz life. Though his work ranged from glamorous celebrities in nightclubs, to boxers and weightlifters in training, to the private moments between lovers on a crowded street; Dantzic, who passed away yesterday at 81, went on to pioneer the use of color panoramic photographs through the 70s and 80s and much of his work from the 50s and 60s was forgotten.

In the late 1990s, Grayson discovered his father's long-forgotten images of the 50s in the studio of his parents' home. Grayson has spent the last eight years working to archive his father's photos. As a result, Jerry is experiencing a renaissance, despite having been confined to bed due to a degenerative nerve disorder for the past few years.

The Dantzics... Jerry, his wife Cynthia (a celebrated artist in her own right) and Grayson... lived around the corner from me in Park Slope when I first moved to Brooklyn as an aspiring photographer thirty years ago. Despite being in the early stages of his affliction and having to rely on crutches to walk, Jerry often climbed the five flights of stairs of the brownstone in which I lived (top floor) to look at my pictures, give encouragement and impart general wisdom in whichever direction our conversations flowed. We'd often walk together through the neighborhood, making slow progress along Park Slope's tree-lined bluestone sidewalks. For the twenty one years I lived in Brooklyn, Jerry was a regular comrade and a distinct influence on my photography. I'm going to miss him.

My heartfelt condolences to Cynthia and Grayson, who can take a measure of comfort in knowing that Jerry was loved by many and in the fond memories of a life well-lived. Indeed, Jerry Dantzic will survive in our memories as a kind, generous, talented artist, and the man with the impish grin who saw humor everywhere.

He's Alive!!

Damn!! You gotta love google.com! Last summer I wrote about transitions and mentioned Michael Purcilly as a friend from 1977. Mike is a Californian (Ojai) and eventually went back west, then dropped off the face of the earth. Even our mutual friend Eliot didn't know where he was or what he was doing (and I speak to Eliot quite often).

Earlier this morning (how much earlier can it get? it's only 5:25 AM), about 27 years after he disappeared, I got an e-mail from him. Seems his dad stumbled over my blog, must have googled his name, and so he dropped me a line... and the photo above. Wish I could fish like that! Anyway, damned good to hear from Michael again! We'll catch-up later but... man!... gotta love that google!

Do You Really Own That Photograph?

Just as the urgency of fighting the proposed Orphaned Works amendment to the Copyright Act had faded, photographers and illustrators find their legitimate copyright interests under assault once again, this time not in the halls of Congress, but from the client side (what else is new?). In a recent opinion piece in Cummings Advertising's, "Marketing Insights," agency Creative Director Patrick McDonough not only asks the question, "Do You Really Own That Photograph?" He answers it as well.

Unfortunately for Mr. McDonough, his rationale is flawed and his conclusion is wrong. Unfortunately for the community of artists working for publication, his point of view is all too pervasive.

McDonough writes, "one of the photographers [the client] interviewed had, quite matter-of-factly, told [the client] that any photos he shoots are his property - and that the client must pay additional [license] fees if they used any of the photos beyond the original use. In this case, the publication of a new annual report..... It's been some time since we last encountered this arcane idea that just because a photographer shot the picture, he or she owned it."

Copyright protection was first instituted by Congress in the U S Constitution, ratified in 1790. The idea behind copyright (and patent) protection is that it gives creators the incentive to create with the guarantee that they will be able to benefit from their creations. Some, most notably Benjamin Franklin, purposely chose to forgo these constitutionally guaranteed protections. Franklin never registered a copyright or a patent, believing that his creations and inventions were for the public good. Franklin also lived in the 18th Century. Here in the 21st Century there are still a number of photographers, working with McDonough, who have done the same, and it is they who give Mr. McDonough the impression that our ownership of our work is an arcane idea.

Is copyright an arcane notion as Mr. McDonough suggests? I think not. Why? Because Congress has reaffirmed and strengthened copyright protection consistently throughout the past hundred years. The Copyright Act of 1909, the Copyright Act of 1976 and The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 all support the notion that copyright protection is a valid and contemporary concept. The copyright laws are the basis for the licensing of rights in all intellectual property.

The Copyright Act of 1976 is a landmark statute and is the primary basis of copyright law in the United States. The Act enumerates the rights of copyright holders, firmly establishes the doctrine of "fair use", and extends the term of copyright from a flat 50 years (requiring renewal) to a period based on the date of the creator's death. Introduced in the United States Senate as S.22 by Senator John L. McClellan (D-AR) on January 15, 1975, it became Public Law number 94-553 on October 19, 1976 and went into effect on January 1, 1978.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 2281 by Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) on July 29, 1997, is a United States law which criminalizes production and dissemination of technology for the purpose of circumventing measures intended to protect copyright, not only infringement of copyright, and increases the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 8, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended title 17 of the US Code to extend the reach of copyright protection.

Does this seem like an arcane idea to you? Sure doesn't seem like one to me. It seems to be very much alive. I can only wonder if Mr. McDonough and Cummings Advertising similarly disrespects other creators?

For instance, is the idea that Adobe owns Photoshop arcane? How about Microsoft's ownership of its Office software? Or Quark's rights in Quark Express? Do they view ownership of those copyrights as arcane? Did Cummings Advertising buy only one copy of each CD and install it on every machine in the office or did Cummings buy a multi-user license. My bet is that Cummings did the latter.

Why then would Mr. McDonough assume that Cummings or their client(s) would own the photography they commission? According to McDonough: "Our position has been and will always be that our art directors designed the ad, brochure or other materials into which the photo is placed - and therefore we actually design the shot. Our art directors supervise the photo shoot to ensure that the "creative essence" of the photo is captured, and our clients pay the photographer the agreed upon price to shoot the photo. Bottom line, the photographer shot the scene our art director designed and the photographer was paid his time to complete the photo shoot. The client owns the photo once they paid for it."

One of my colleagues, Lou Sapienza, writing on APAnet counters: "Since when is
designing the ad, brochure and other materials equal to designing the shot?" Lou wonders if a photographer commissioned by Cummings Advertising will be, "directly instructed as to which equipment format, lensing, camera angle and lighting to be used; if the photographer will be instructed on the placement of lights, the light modification and lighting ratios; if the photographer will likewise either be instructed to elicit certain responses from the models and actors or the photographer will be instructed by the art director to press the shutter as the art director guides the model(s) through the shoot; or will the photographer be instructed by the AD when to press the shutter while the AD is eliciting the proper expressions?"

I don't know how things are done in Rockford, Illinois where Cummings Advertising is located, but the art directors I know generally engage a photographer based on a number of factors, chief among them the photographer's style and vision... we're not just technicians. And out here in the rest of the world photography is licensed according to its usage, the value determined by an image's exposure in the media. We don't charge by the hour as McDonough would expect.

All that said, there is a larger problem to be tackled. Members of our community are willing to go along with whatever a client like McDonough demands and that includes agreeing, either specifically or tacitly, that all rights can be purchased on the cheap. Who's fault is that? Not McDonough's! I'm more disappointed by photographers who easily roll over than I am by overreaching clients. Pogo, the legendary comic strip character, perfectly lamented: "We have met the enemy and he is us!"

Smart About Money, Penny-Pinching Or Just Plain Stealing?

Being (somewhat) a journalist myself I'd rather celebrate a colleague than knock one. There's no shortage of outstanding reporters and I could write about the good ones all day long. In fact, my two previous posts to this blog laud the efforts of journalists doing good work.

There are, however, two sides to every coin. For every good journalist doing something worthy of praise there's a journalist doing damage with a pen (okay, word processor). My friend Mark Loundy writes a monthly column for The Digital Journalist (hmmm, that's come up a couple of times lately) called, "Common Cents," which serves as a monitor of business practices in the editorial industry; and within is always a feature entitled, "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly," in which he highlights, well... you can figure it out. I have my own nomination for, "The Ugly," part of next month's bit: Stacey Bradford.

Who is Stacey Bradford? Ms. Bradford is a journalist in the employ of a magazine called Smart Money, and in a recent article, appearing on their web site, smartmoney.com, she seems less concerned with being smart about money and goes off-track towards gratuitous penny-pinching. Her latest piece, "Top 5ive Annoying School Costs," is a dissatisfied parent's lament about being hit-up for money at every turn by her local public school.....

"Ever get the feeling your child's publicly funded education isn't exactly free," she asks? "First there's the annual fundraiser, then the class photo, and even a rental fee for a flute to play in the elementary school band. If that wasn't bad enough, teachers regularly hit up parents for basic supplies for their classroom....." Okay, I get the picture, she's feeling squeezed because, I can only presume, Smart Money doesn't pay their writers enough to cover the costs of sending their children to school.

Being a father of two boys, both in public school, I'm subject to the same hits as all parents. And whether it's a fundraiser for the school or for the soccer team or for the Boy Scouts, I gladly support my childrens' activities. In addition, my friends and neighbors have children too and my house generally has a year's supply of Girl Scout cookies, gift wrap, popcorn, etc, etc. I support their childrens' fundraising too... with a smile!

So why my animosity towards Ms. Bradford? Well, let's just say I'm not generally fond of penny-pinchers, I encounter too many of them in my normal day-to-day business life to (almost) turn me off to working. If you think penny-pincher is too harsh a criticism then let's go deeper.

I have a favorite aunt who recoils at the thought of talking long-distance on the phone. Every time I speak to her it seems it's enough for her to hear my voice and know that I'm okay, that the kids are well, and then she hustles me off the phone. She grew-up during the Great Depression and for years thereafter long-distance calling was very expensive. Perhaps she's simply stuck in the past, but she's such a generous woman that I'd never be inclined to call her a penny-pincher, rather I'd describe her as frugal. And while she views long-distance as expensive and would prefer I save the long-distance dollars to send my children to college, she never once advocated that I buy one of Woz's blue boxes, become a phone phreak and steal service from Ma Bell.

Contrast my aunt's frugal ways with Ms. Bradford's advice to her readers that they become infringers of legitimate copyrights, that they literally should become thieves....

"Ever wonder why the school takes so many darned pictures? Turns out those adorable snap shots are often yet another fundraiser. Only this one pulls at the heart strings... The bill rises to more than $50 if parents splurge for a package that includes a couple of 5-by-7s. Worried you won't have a spare to send to Grandma? Consider scanning your copy....."

In 1991 Olan Mills, operating more than 1000 portrait studios throughout the United States, sued Linn Photo, a local photofinisher, in U S District Court claiming copyright infringement. Linn Photo had repeatedly made copies of Olan Mills' portraits for their customers who wished to buy prints less expensively than Olan Mills would charge. Linn Photo reproduced the images despite the fact that they carried a copyright notice.

In 1987, Olan Mills took a number of photographs of its employees and their families. The studio registered its copyrights in four of these photographs with the Copyright Office and then hired a private investigator to look into Linn Photo's allegedly infringing activity. On four separate occasions the investigator ordered reproductions of the copyrighted photographs from Linn Photo. Despite the fact that the photographs were clearly marked with a copyright notice, Linn Photo made the reproductions and the investigator paid for them.

Hard evidence not withstanding, the court found for the defendant and Olan Mills appealed. In 1994, The U S Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit overturned the decision of the lower court saying, "We reverse the entry of summary judgment for Linn Photo, direct the district court to enter summary judgment in favor of Olan Mills, and remand the questions of statutory damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees for Olan Mills."

Whether one goes into their local camera store to order copies of a photographer's work or simply scans the images for distribution on a home desktop unit, copyright infringement is a crime. According to my attorney, Mary Luria of Davis & Gilbert in New York, "The theft of intellectual property is as much a theft as the theft of cash." What's next, Ms. Bradford? If I run short of cash at the end of the month for buying school pictures would you advise that I hold-up a liquor store?

Curiously, an Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) brief supporting the Olan Mills appeal was filed by another interested party, The Association of American Publishers, Inc. I wonder if Smart Money is a member?

Why We Do What We Do

I've often said that being a photographer is more an education than a job, describing it as, "like having a master's degree in everything." I've been told that it's a self-serving way to rationalize dropping out of college (more then 30 years ago), but it's essentially true and it has nothing to do with psychology or any attempt on my part to justify lacking a diploma.

Today, in the new edition of The Digital Journalist, Peter Howe's column contains the all time best description of the job usually known as "photographer," and while he's actually writing about Digital Journalist founder and editor Dirck Halstead, what he says about the job, applied broadly and minus, in most cases, the danger aspect and the hobnobbing with government officials (though I have met a few of those and more than my fair share of celebrities), sums up the situation very nicely.....

"Photojournalism is a strange way to make a living. For one thing the living you make is pretty marginal; it's not a career anyone ever undertook for the money. Furthermore, the working conditions under which you earn the pittance offered are appalling. They include getting shot at, being sleep and food deprived, spending way too much time in the coach section of an airplane, and way too little time at home. There's a reason that photojournalists don't have a union – any union organizer worth his or her salt wouldn't know where to begin righting the wrongs. And yet paradoxically it's also a life of incredible privilege. The average photojournalist, if there is such an animal, gets to go to more places, meet more people and experience more things than one could reasonably expect to force into three or four ordinary lifetimes. What other career would give its practitioners the opportunity to witness the fall of Saigon, photograph Louis Armstrong, Andy Warhol and the cast of "Star Trek," document eight presidencies, including accompanying Nixon on his historic trip to China, and to capture Clinton hugging an unknown White House intern named Lewinsky? This job gives those who embrace it an unparalleled front seat in the long-running show called history. The reason that most photojournalists put up with the low pay and difficult circumstances is that they are amazed they are allowed to do what they do."

Howe goes on to sing the praises of Mr. Halstead on the occasion of the publication of his new book, "Moments In Time." This is praise well deserved by a guy who has been at the forefront of his genre for a long, long time. I met Dirck Halstead once, introduced by a mutual friend, and I recall him telling me about one of his first professional jobs, working the overnight shift at the New York Daily News in 1953. I kept thinking, "Oh my God, he started working the year I was born!!"

Peter Howe has been writing about photographers for many years. He's been a Photo Editor at Life Magazine, a correspondent for American Photographer, and is a fine photographer in his own right. He's the consummate photo-insider and has done a remarkable job doing justice to Dirck Halstead's career in just a few paragraphs (and in the balance given a good insight into the millieu of all photographers).

The Digital Journalist is one of the most interesting publications available, regardless of your vocation, and has been a must-read since its premiere. I encourage you to read it regularly, especially today, especially Peter Howe's column, The Right Exposure.