My Tamron 28-75 lens has always been one of my favorites. However, when I try to use it now it says that the lens is not communicating with the camera (I have a Canon XSi). I have also tried it on my Canon Rebel XT, getting the same result. The readout tells me to clean the connections on the lens. I went to Google for suggestions and have tried the pencil eraser. I then took it to a camera store and, of course, it worked for him. When it got home I tried it again and it didn't work. Kind of like taking your child to the doctor and the fever is gone. Any suggestions for cleaning the lens connection. I miss having this lens.

Ah, walking pictures. In the pro world, when you see a walking picture, the model is not actually walking. The reason is, to attempt to shoot a person walking normally guarantees awkward placement of every limb. I once photo edited a 200+ shot sequence of a model walking toward the photographer, a semi pro, who walked backwards in pace with the model to keep the image size close to the same in each shot.

For arguments sake, I will say the sequence had 200 images. Of those 200, exactly ZERO were acceptable. The model looked awful, completely awkward. Had the photographer known how to shoot a "walking shot" he could have had at least dozens of good frames, having shot so many.

So, here is how walking images are done:

The model simply rocks toward the front foot, where the body line is controlled, the hand positions are controlled, and the expression controlled. Another way to put it: the model makes a half step into a pose, NOT stepping randomly, which creates the awkward, gawky, awful looks.

With two people doing a sequence walking toward each other, then it is done with several individual setups, using the same technique. The photographer decides on the pose needed for each, ever closer image. The only thing that matters is that the bride and groom sync their half step moves toward each other.

Shooting this way may seem non-spontaneous, but the result will be MUCH better than any other attempt. Actually moving toward each other guarantees less than acceptable images, and will finally appear amateurish.

Using the correct technique, with the shooting camera on a tripod, NOT moving the camera between shots because when controlled, you don't have to... will allow the "movement" sequence to be composited into ONE image.

Make SURE that the final embrace is ALSO shot in closeup in a second pass.

Nuff said...

Have a good shoot!

Thank you Jerry that is what I would have said myself, you just beat me to it.

Toby, I was merely elaborating on the OP's original situation. Do you not think that if a pro for example found out that an amature out there took a picture exactly like theirs and is now trying to sell it would let it go? No, they have a copyright on it and they don't want that person making money off of an idea that was originally theirs. That is the situation I was trying to state. Now if it is just me and I have a friend who sees my picture and decides to take one like it, I might be a little upset and feel that they stole it. But I also might be proud that they found my work that great that they wanted to copy it. However since my photo was copyrighted to me the instant I created it they would technically be violating that right, but that doesn't mean I am going to sue them for taking the same picture.

I have an old Nikon D70 (hey, I'm old too). I primarily use the following lenses, all Nikons: 55-200; 70-300; and 50 prime 1.8. I take LOTS of sporting events, particularly football, basketball and soccer. My nephews start college this fall. One plays soccer (goalkeeper) and the other plays football (wide receiver). Based on their positions, they both fly, dive and jump a lot. For the most part, their games will be in early afternoon. Sure beats the night games of high school!

My dilemma is what to do with my limited secret photo equipment fund. Should I buy a faster/newer camera body and continue with current glass? Should I shoot with the old body 'til she dies but buy a longer/faster lens? Looking at 70-200 f/2.8. Buy Nikon at twice the money or Tamron or Sigma?

Also, it should be noted the "coolness" factor is in play. The longer lens with the flower petal hood simply looks cool. I shoot with a monopod. I will have access to get as close to the fields as I want, a luxury I do not take for granted.

Suggestions?

See this article:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/photography_law_rights.html


What can you do with your photographs

Great article. Do you know how I can copy the article without all of the advertising and keep it on file?

You own the copyright to any image you have taken and you can use it for pretty much anything that doesn't come under the definition of "commercial purposes", which in general means advertising.

For example you can sell the images to a newspaper or magazine for use in editorial content. Editorial content is pretty much anything that's not advertising.

For commercial usage you need a signed release from anyone identifiable in the image, or in some cases for any identifiable private property.

You can generally sell your images as art without a release. Of course exactly what constitutes "commercial use" has to be defined by a court, but generally if the use can't be somehow construed as advertising in some form, you're OK.

An important case involving the right of a street photographer to take pictures of the public and sell them as art is Erno Nussenzweig vs. Philip-Lorca diCorcia

Misrepresenting someone in a picture may open you up to a lawsuit. So, for example, you can take a picture of someone walking on the street and put it in a magazine article on pedestrian traffic without getting a release and without risk of (losing) a law suit. However if you put the same picture in an article on drug dealers and there's an implication that the identifiable subject of the picture is a drug dealer (when in fact they aren't), then you are opening yourself up to potential legal action.

Note that some buildings may be trademarked and or copyrighted if they are of a unique design. The use of images of such buildings for commercial purposes requires a release from the property owner, but no release is required for editorial use in a magazine or newspaper as long as the images were taken from public property. In a now famous case, the court ruled that images of a trademarked building (in this case the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame) maybe sold on postcards and posters without a property release from the building's owners.

However permission is required to take and use images of copyrighted or trademarked buildings if they are not in public view and are shot from a location on private property.


Summary
With respect to the USA:

With a few notable exceptions detailed above, you can photograph anything you can see in public. That means you can legally photograph subjects such as people, buildings, bridges, trains, police officers etc. without asking or getting prior permission. On private property (e.g. in shopping malls, stores, theaters, hotels and sports arenas) you need the permission of the property owner to take photographs. While the act of photography itself in such areas isn't illegal, if asked to stop taking pictures and leave you must do so or risk prosecution for trespass.

You can generally take photographs of and in public areas of transit systems. For Example, Amtrak and the New York and Chicago Transit authorities specifically permit hand held non-commercial photography as long as it doesn't interfere with other passengers or the system operation.

Nobody has the right to require you to delete images you have taken and only the police can require that you show them the pictures in your camera - and even that requires a search warrant unless you give them permission.

Signed releases are only required for commercial (trade and advertising) use of photographs. Editorial, news and art usage generally requires no release from the subject, though some publication may requires them "just to be on the safe side".