Re: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4
Mine whirrs and grinds, but not objectionably. - Original Message - From: "James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 1:44 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4 > Umm when the motors move i cant say its really noisey just loader than > my Minolta was! You can here the motors whirring (is that a word?) when > you put the film adaptors in. > > I just want to know whether they are supposed to whirr?! > > -- > James Grove > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.jamesgrove.co.uk > http://www.mountain-photos.co.uk > ICQ 99737573 > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jan Copier > Sent: 05 June 2001 18:18 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4 > > > Hi James > > mine is'nt noisy, maybe you can be more specific. > > Jan > > > - Original Message - > From: "James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 12:23 PM > Subject: filmscanners: RE: Nikon LS-40 Coolscan 4 > > > > > > Anyone else find there Coolscan IV noisey? > > > > -- > > James Grove > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.jamesgrove.co.uk > > http://www.mountain-photos.co.uk > > ICQ 99737573 > > > > > >
Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
What are the interfaces - USB or SCSI? Do you need a separate card. I have USB ports but no SCSI, so I opted for the Coolscan IV. I figured a good SCSI card would add about US$150 to the cost. I like the LED lighting source and the dynamic range. My read on low cost 35mm film scanners is that dynamic range is the key factor. Nikon publishes a better dynamic range for the Coolscan IV over the LS-2000, higher bit depth and higher ppi value too. Everything that I found to read before I bought gave the edge to the LS-2000 over any other non-Nikon scanner. I figured that the Coolscan IV would be a better LS-2000. I also like the ICE, GEM and ROC. The performance of the Coolscan IV has met or exceeded my expectations. So far I have sized prints to 15"X10" with the Genuine Fractals that comes packaged with the Coolscan IV with incredible detail, better detail than an Ilfochrome of the same size enlarged on my Durst M601 with a Rodenstock Rodagon 50mm and no digital noise. I have never seen a jaggie. I think that the Polaroid would be worth a hard look at the current price. Its price exceeded my limit when I looked. But with no IR dust elimination, I think that I would still opt for the Coolscan IV. Nikon's 24/7 telephone support in the US instantly bailed me out of configurations problems. Unlike some others, I have had no problems with NikonScan 3.0 and now 3.1. But also get Vuescan. It's a great $40 program and does some things better than NikonScan, I like NikonScan better only for color negatives. Vuescan is better for Kodachrome and most E6. I have not yet formed an opinion on B&W negatives. Good shopping Doug - Original Message - From: "Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 7:23 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted > What about Polaroid Sprintscan 4000? The price tag is the same as Coolscan > IV. Canon CanoScan FS4000US is about $100 more, Dimage Scan Elite 2820dpi > is almost $300 cheaper. > > I am facing the same though decision. Hopefully somebody will bring some > light. > >
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
Dan: I thought I recognized your name from the Leica list. I also am a Leica shooter. With your budget, I would get a Nikon LS4000 or LS8000 (MF capability). I am told that there is a review of film scanners in the current Popular Photography magazine. There are recent reviews of the Nikon and Polaroid 4000 ppi scanners at this link: http://www.imaging-resource.com/ For what it's worth, I am Very, VERY pleased with the nikon Coolscan IV. Some have complained about edge sharpness of the Nikon LS-4000, but I am skeptical of those commentaries. At 2900 ppi, the Coolscan VI picks up grain in my shots on HP5 processed in Xtol. Be prepared for a VERY steep learning curve to get good scans and prints. I'm getting great prints off my very mundane Epson 740. Epson printers are the standard for photo work. I have printed shots that I tried to print on Ilfochrome on the Epson that are knock outs with the brilliance of the source slides (from Kodachrome to Sensia). You can see some of my feeble attempts here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=3861 You should use Photoshop 6.0, about US$600, for adjustments. It's incredible as you get to understand it. The critical factor in Photoshop is to manage color between you devices (printer/scanner) and your monitor. Color management is not explained anywhere intelligible except here: http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ I hope that this saves you weeks of floundering that I suffered on these topics. I decided to post directly to you and to Tony Sleep's scanner list, a great list, and the LUG in hopes of preventing someone from suffering the misunderstanding of color management. I look forward to Mr. Sleeps review of the new crop of scanners too. You might wait for his sage analysis. Regards, Doug - Original Message - From: "Dan Honemann" <> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 4:30 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted > > Narrow it down, set up criteria based on what you think is > > important, like > > > > dpi, > > I want a dpi high enough that I don't run into grain aliasing; from what I > read here, sounds like > 3,000 dpi. > > > density range, > > Highest possible. From what I understand so far, this may be the most > important factor. Let's say > 3.6 DMax. > > > ICE, > > I shoot mostly Fuji velvia, provia and astia slides, but I also have a lot > of b&w negatives (agfa, delta, tri-X and XP2 super). My slides are a year > old or less, but the keepers have been living in carousels (boxed) and often > projected, so there is likely to be some dust. ICE could therefore be a big > timesaver for me with the slides; I understand it doesn't work so well with > Kchrome (only have a handful of these) and b&w like Tri-X (have a lot more > of this). My main priority, though, are the fuji slides. > > > ROC, > > GEM > > These could be real timesavers for me. But I hate to use them at the > expense of sharpness. I shoot with Leica lenses because my eyes can see the > better edge sharpness, contrast, color rendition, and lack of veiling flare. > I'm beginning to see that what I'm most concerned about with color image > quality is _contrast_. For b&w, it's tonality. I guess I want a scanner > that will do my Leica glass justice. Is that asking too much in the $3k > (US) price range? > > > etc, what you will be doing with the output, > > Color work will go to an Epson 1280 for 11x14 prints. B&W will go to an > Epson 1160 with piezo drivers/inks for 11x14 prints. > > > and of course the price you want to pay. > > Up to $3k, but I'd be willing to save up and spend more--even as much as > three times that amount--if it meant final prints that look as good as my > projected slides. That's why I spent the extra money on Leica lenses--I can > see a difference, and to me it is very much like the difference between the > Leafscan 45 scan and the Nikon ED 4000 scan of the girl's face midpage at: > > http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html > > Whatever this difference is (contrast?), it seems very similar to the > different look of slides shot through Leica vs. Nikon glass. > > > In fact what you want to get as a final output (to me at > > least) is probably the most important. > > My dream is to get final color prints that look as good as my projected > slides; cibachromes have really been disappointing to me. I also very much > like the look of the prints in Jim Brandenburg's _Chased by the Light_ > (which I believe were shot with Nikkors! which is why I'm hoping digital > imagery can give me the look I want). For b&w, I'm looking for deep, dark > blacks, true whites, and a rich tonal range inbetween. Guess I'm asking a > bit much, eh?! > > > Once the field is narrowed, then ask again and the > > answers will really help you make the decision. > > I wish I could afford to send all my slides out to be processed by a place > like West Coast Imaging (http://www.westcoastimaging.com/
Re: filmscanners: film flatness in Nikon 4000
I received a Coolscan IV about a week ago. I have had no problem with edge to edge sharpness with any of the methods of inserting film - mounted glassless slides, film strips or negative carrier. Here are some scans: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=192951 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=193824 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=193818 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=194076 All are made using the Nikon software. I am pleased with the shadow detail. But what do I know, I am new to film scanning - and this list.
filmscanners: Genuine Fractals
I bought a Nikon Coolscan IV about 10 days ago that has a full version of Genuine Fractals bundled in. There was no documentation for Genuine Fractals. Altamira's web site is useless. I have loaded Fractals as a plugin to Photoshop 6.0.1. When I tried to use Genuine Fractal, I saved a TIFF file produced by Vuescan to GF's STN file in Photoshop. When I retrieved the file and tried to scale it, I saw a thumbnail of the photo that had a heavy pattern embedded. When I opened the scaled image, the photo had the pattern overlay (I am guessing here) that all but obliterated the image. Does anyone know what I am doing wrong? Is this a license disabling device? GF came with no instructions and no serial number. I did not even see a serial number insertion on the installation. Any reference to documentation would also be helpful. Thanks, Doug Landrum, Digital Dunce.
filmscanners: Genuine Fractals
To report on my problem with Genuine Fractals: 1. Thanks to all for your responses. 2. Independently, I found an Altamira support phone line in the Nikon readme file, called, spoke to a very friendly woman that gave me the tip that I was improperly trying to save a 16 bit per channel file and that 16 bits per channel flies will not function with GF. 3. I tried GF with an 8 bit per channel file and it worked fine. 4. The Coolscan IV comes with a full version of Genuine Fractals 2.0. 5. My digital education continues - I can put away the dunce hat and rejoin the first grade class. Thanks, Doug Landrum, Digital First Grader
filmscanners: Coolscan IV
My Coolscan IV is about two weeks old. I have been switching between Nikon Scan 3.0 used as a TWAIN import for Photoshop 6 and Vuescan (7.0.10 to date). Nikon Scan 3.0 has worked without the crashes that some have complained of. Nikon Scan wors flawlessly on my system - my OS is Win 98SE. So far the Coolscan IV has been very satisfying. Vuescan has not performed any better that Nikon Scan 3.0. Nikon Scan seems to scan color negatives better than Vuescan. The analog gain in Nikon Scan is better that using Vuescan multi passes for dark slides. That is all for my observations to date.
filmscanners: Re: Coolscan IV; Nikon Scan 3
Please see my responses (in Bold if the formatting comes through) to the questions that shAf posed: > Douglas writes ... > > > > ... Nikon Scan 3.0 has worked without the crashes that some have > > complained of. Nikon Scan works flawlessly on my system - my OS is Win > 98SE. > > I think this says more for the maturity of the device drivers for this > OS, than the Nikon programmers, although they certainly have been given > plenty of time to mature too. Let's keep an eye on some of the particulars > ... if someone else posts a problem, maybe we can figure out what's > different between your computer and theirs. E.G., what type of hardware > controls your scanner ... USB, firewire, SCSI? The Coolscan IV has a USB interface. > > > So far the Coolscan IV has been very satisfying. > > Vuescan has not performed any better that Nikon Scan 3.0. Nikon Scan > > seems > > to scan color negatives better than Vuescan. > > Someone else has posted experiencing problems with focussing their new > Nikon ... as if the sensor had a VERY shallow depth of focus, that is, VERY > sensitive to film flatness. What has your experience been?? No problem with focus so far. I have been using fairly flat slides and negatives - B&W and color. > > > The analog gain in Nikon Scan > > is better that using Vuescan multi passes for dark slides. ... > > NS "analog gain" would be more analogous with Vuescan's manual control > of "exposure". Thanks. I'll try the "exposure" in Vuescan. > > Also, let us know what color space profiles NS allow you to choose from > ... which is primarly why I scan with VS ... for wide gamut options, "Adobe > wide" is a terrible highbit editing space (altho it is well understood and > there shouldn't be any problem in converting from there to another). But, > it would be better if NS allowed for choosing the LS-40's own device space, > a specific ICM file, or creating 'raw' RGB. Nikon Scan has a choice between several gamma 2.2 and gamma 1.8 colorspaces. 2.2 Spaces: sRGB Bruce RGB NTSC (1953) Adobe RGB (1968) CIE RGB Wide Gamut RGB Wide Gamut RGB (compensated) Scanner RGB 1.8 Spaces: Apple RGB Color Match RGB Apple RGB (compensated) I am using the sRGB colorspace and it seems to work well - although I am new to this. Nikon Scan 3 also has a factor default CMYK or custom profile option. A factory default or custom ICM profile can be set for the monitor. I have mine set for a Gateway VX700a ICM profile. > > shAf :o) >
Re: filmscanners: Minolta Elite, Nikon LS-40, Acer 2740S
Egil wrote: > Has anyone got any good advice on which one I should choose, Minolta Elite, > Nikon LS-40 (CoolScan IV) or Acer 2740S? I know of the differences "on > paper", and I like the Acer for SCSI batch scanning of slides, the Minolta > for SCSI and singlepass multiscanning, and the Nikon for the LED's and > auto/manual focus. > > How do they compare on image quality (sharpness, color, noise...)? > > I will be scanning slides, mostly Kodachrome. > > > Egil Rognvik > Faced with the same choice, I chose the Nikon. My choice was based primarily on the Nikon having greater dynamic range and my belief that it would handle darker slides better. To my delight, the Nikon seems to scan color negatives very well. Having no experience with the other scanners, I can't comment. I am pleased with the Nikon to date. You can see some of my earliest scans - I am a beginner at this - on this link: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=3861 The color photos are scans from the Coolscan IV. The B&W's are flatbed scans of prints. I like the Nikon Scan 3 software. It works on my Win 98SE platform perfectly as a TWAIN import to Photoshop 6. I also like the USB interface. I avoided the extra $150 to $200 for a good SCSI card. I have also used the Coolscan IV with Vuescan. Vuescan works a little better on some slides, but not as well as NS 3 on color negatives. You may want to wait for the release of the new Canon that specs out at 4000 ppi. I did know about the Canon until after I bought the Nikon.
Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan 3.0 with Win98 / Win98SE for LS30/LS2000
Julian: The specs for my LS-40 that came with Nikon Scan 3.0 call for Win 98SE. I don't know if that is required for the USB support or if it is an issue with NS 3.0. I do like NS 3.0. My present work flow method is to launch NS 3.0 as a TWAIN import on Photoshop 6 and scan with factory default settings except to select the film type and, with color positives or negatives, to turn on the Digital ICE. I then do all my adjustments in Photoshop. It is really great to see how much I can dig out of dark slides. So far the LS-40 and NS 3.0 are meeting my expectations - but what do I know, I'm new to this. - Original Message - From: "Julian Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 4:52 PM Subject: filmscanners: Nikonscan 3.0 with Win98 / Win98SE for LS30/LS2000 > I want to try Nikonscan 3 too (with LS2000), but can't work out if I must > have Win98SE or not. The website says you do, but that may be only for the > Firewire interface. I have only Win98 original. Does anyone know if you > can use the old scanners with Win98 original? > > TIA > > Julian > > At 05:26 20/04/01, you wrote: > >Cheers for the replies everyone... > > > >I installed 98 instead of 98SE,ooops!! > > > >back to the drawing board.. > > > >Leo > > > Julian Robinson > in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia >
Re: filmscanners: Nikon D1x and LS4000
In what I downloaded from the Japanese site, the comparisons were apples to oranges to my eye. The full frame LS-4000 shot did not download fully or properly. But from what I downloaded and saw, the magnification was much larger than the D1x shot. From what I saw, the grain on the edges was pretty sharp with the LS-4000 shot. The lack of image sharpness may be due to a camera lens that is not sharp edge to edge. Not being able to read Japanese, I could not discern the author's scientific method. There are a lot of variables with this kind of testing that need to be neutralized as much as possible. I have had no experience with any lack of edge to edge sharpness on my LS-40. I believe the optics are very similar to the LS-4000. - Original Message - From: "Ryan K. Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 12:09 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon D1x and LS4000 > > >Here you can see that the ED 4000 picture are sharper in the middle and > >not so sharp > > Hmm.. anyone know how similiar the optics are in the 8000ED? Perhaps it > has a greater depth of field (hoping)? > > > > Ryan K. Brooks > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=113369 > http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=115567 >
Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan3.0 and LSIII
Bob Shomler wrote: <> Nikon Scan 3.0 will return 12-bit color from the LS-40 and 14-bit color from the LS-4000. - Original Message - From: "Bob Shomler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 6:05 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan3.0 and LSIII > >Compared to Vuescan, scratch removal is much better > > Ed made some changes to IR cleaning between Vuescan 6.7.5 and the 7.0 series. I find many instances of incomplete scratch cleaning from LS-30 in 7.x that are completely removed using 6.7.5. Still true with 7.0.14. I haven't tried Nikonscan 3, since it reportedly does not deliver hi-bit scan data. > > I get around Vuescan's cleaning deficiency by using 6.7.5, but of course would prefer to use the current release. I sent Ed a note a month ago describing this along with an example. He replied then that "I'm completely bogged down with some work right now and can't really look into this for a few weeks." So perhaps when he has time to get back to this there may be some improvements to Vuescan's IR clean function. > > Bob Shomler > www.shomler.com > > - > >There was some discussion recently about using the new Nikonscan 3.0 with > >older Nikon scanners. This is my experience with a Coolscan III:- > >The new interface is much better with more controls and the help is at last > >accessable. > >Scans from negs are improved in that the highlights are not being blown out > >as much. > >As has been said bulk scanning crashes, but I've overcome that by using > >Twain in "Thumbs Plus" which works very well. Occasional crashes but I > >assume that's to be expected when using 2 Beta programs in sync > >Compared to Vuescan, scratch removal is much better, skin tones are warmer, > >and healthier looking, colors are more vivid. > >In all thanks to whoever originally brought this to the list > >John Bradbury
filmscanners: Nikon Coolscan IV Focus
I have posted on the list a couple of times that I find no lack of depth of field on the Nikon Coolscan IV - LS-40. After seeing several posts that question the depth of field on the LS-4000, I decided to perform an experiment with the Coolscan IV and post the results found here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=117469 This is a comparison of the corner portion of a Kodachrome slide scanned using three separate focus points on my Coolscan IV using Nikon Scan 3.0 with the Digital ICE "off". I selected an old slide of no particular artistic value. The slide shows about average curvature in the mount for Kodachrome. The first image shows the corner section with the autofocus point at the center default. The second image shows the results moving the autofocus point to the lower center of the edge. The third image shows the autofocus point dead on the flower pedal in the corner enlarged. The whole slide scan is shown as the fourth image with the corner enlarged highlighted. The values of the manual focus slider in the tool pallet of Nikon Scan 3.0 were 101, 99 and 96 respectively. I saw no difference in the quality of the focus with the raw scan data imported into Photoshop 6.0 scaled to 300%. Any larger scaling of the images showed pixels. The JPEGs posted show what I saw at a 300% scaling of the raw image. The LS-4000 may have different optics or the greater ppi of the LS-400 may show more critical focus but the 2900 ppi of the Coolscan IV does not show any focus problems to me. Douglas F. Landrum Laguna Beach, California [EMAIL PROTECTED]
filmscanners: Kodachrome ICE
I was surprised by Jack Phipp's comments that Digital ICE does not work with Kodachrome. I have used it with Kodachromes from the '50s to the early '90s when I switched, with great reluctance, to Fuji E6. On my Coolscan IV, ICE has worked fine with Kodachrome using Nikon Scan 3.0 and so has the light clean filter on Vuescan. - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 12:16 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: oops! Digital ICE, Digital ROC, Kodachrome > > > Jack Phipps wrote: > > > Opps? > > > >> It is important to try it on your negatives. > > > > > > Since when did Kodak make Kodachrome negatives? > > > > Sorry, I should have proofed better. > > > > Jack > > > > > Does ASF know why certain Kodachrome succeed in working with ICE and > other don't? Does it depend upon the dye versions that were used during > development, the age of the film or does the subject matter seem to > change the effectiveness? > > Speaking of negatives, does ICE work with any "real silver" B&W > negatives (not chromogenic). > > Art >
Re: filmscanners: Nikon ED 4000 and sharpness
Mikael: Sorry, I don't buy your conclusions. I have not seen unsharpness on the edges of my scans with the LS-40. The Japanese images showed sharp grain on the edges. From many years of focusing grain under an enlarger, believe me, you do not even see grain if the film is out of the plane of focus a minor tick. So far the LS-40 with Nikons ED glass and autofocus is superb. What I see in the Japanese LS-4000 images is a lens that does not perform well at the edges on an image blown up several times larger than the D1x image. I see imprecise experimental methods. Doug - Original Message - From: "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 10:59 PM Subject: filmscanners: Nikon ED 4000 and sharpness > ED 4000 and overall sharpness > > --http://216.33.148.250:80/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=e4441e5cfe7a0820543 48e6ac73fa7e4&lat=987892127&hm___action=http%3 > > What I have been written about weeks ago. Ed 4000 and curved film and the > problem with sharpness over the whole picture are now confirmed. Take a > good look at 5 pictures. I think the pictures talks for them self. > The 2 lower pictures are clearly un sharp and the conclusion text are not > in proportion to the problem .As a photographer I expect overall sharpness > of a picture from LS 4000 and I have not the time to put my negative or > slides in a glass holder. > Mikael Risedal > Lund > Sweden > > > >From: "Ron Ostrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: filmscanners: Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED Review > >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 15:32:24 -0400 > > > >Here is a link to the Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED review: > > > >http://imaging-resource.com/PRODS/LS4K/L40A.HTM > > > >So far I think this is the only 4000dpi scanner they have reviewed. > > > >Ron > > > > > > _ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. >
Re: filmscanners: Filmscanning vs. Flatbedding
Tony wrote: I reverted to the original, masked off all but the bright bits and went through the same only adjusting the levels etc to get them right. A quick cut and paste to a new layer over the first, and the result was just astonishing. Tony: Could you please expand on how you masked off the image and used layers? This part of Photoshop has me confused. Doug
Re: filmscanners: which space?
Paul: I just went through the same learning curve. Try this site and look for the article on setting color management on Photoshop 6 http://www.computer-darkroom.co.uk/ Good luck, Doug - Original Message - From: "PAUL GRAHAM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. Uk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 12:09 AM Subject: filmscanners: which space? > Hi, on a steep learning curve here with scanning and PS6 > > still a bit befuddled by all the colour management issues.. > when I get raw scans from a scanner.. eg Nikon 4000, they don't come in any > 'space', right? > so should I assign (convert) them to a particular one? isn't that wacking > the data right off the bat? > if so, which one are most folks using - Adobe RGB or Ektaspace? or another? > > (I will be doing high bit m/f scans and outputting to inkjets. RGB only, no > CMYK repro interest) > > seems best to start things off how I mean to carry on, so any advice is > welcomed. > > pg >
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
John Brownlow wrote: Okay but that's not invasion of privacy in the sense of the French law or touted UK law (it won't happen). That's just non-released commercial usage. As far as I am aware there's no invasion of privacy statute in US law. My response: In California, where I practice law, a state constitutional right of privacy was added by initiative about 25 years ago. What it really means in the context of street photography, I do not know. The area of privacy is constantly changing. All of these discussions are interesting as to what various people believe is the law in this area. It is complex, constantly changing and very fact specific. People in California in particular look at being slighted in some manner as an opportunity to win the lottery of litigation assuming that they can find a lawyer to prosecute a lawsuit on a contingency fee basis. I think that the law is evolving into the concept that you cannot publish a person's likeness without permission subject to some very narrow exceptions. I think that this is unfortunate. A recent case decided by the California Supreme Court found that the likenesses of the Three Stooges drawn by an artist and placed on T-Shirts sold a Venice Beach were misappropriations of the likenesses for commercial purposes. Other cases have found that broadcasts of non-celebrities engaged in personal traumas - car accidents, rescues from peril, criminal activities and the like - by "reality" TV shows were not protected by journalistic privileges but were violations of the right to privacy. Can plain old HCB street photography in jeopardy? This area of law is not my area of expertise - I am a corporate lawyer. I know enough to be wary. I do some street photography and do not get model releases. I have always wondered what a model release is anyway. If I were to draft one that truly covered my risks, the release would probably be several pages long. Do photographers wandering around the street really get these things? If so, what so they say? - Original Message - From: "Johnny Deadman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Filmscanners" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 3:37 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street > on 5/20/01 6:19 PM, Lynn Allen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy? > > I've never heard of that. I would like to know more if it is true. > > > > OK, True Story; this happend in the late 50's: A Greyhound excursion bus > > tour (50's version of Princess Cruises), photographer's assignment is to > > photograph happy people enjoying themselves on the excursion. > > One photo shows a happy, smiling couple obviously enjoying the trip, and the > > company uses it in a *small* brochure. The couple's spouses, who were *not* > > on the trip, are less than thrilled. > > Divorce. Lawsuit. Greyhound settles out of court. Art Director is fired (I > > get his job). > > Okay but that's not invasion of privacy in the sense of the French law or > touted UK law (it won't happen). That's just non-released commercial usage. > As far as I am aware there's no invasion of privacy statute in US law. > > -- > John Brownlow > > http://www.pinkheadedbug.com >
filmscanners: Re: [DS] virus alert ?
This is a hoax. See: http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/sulfnbk.exe.warning.html - Original Message - From: "Klaus Knuth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 5:55 PM Subject: [DS] virus alert ? > Just received a message from a buddy in Hong Kong to delete an email > attachment called > > sulfnbk.exe > > from the c:/windows/command directory, before it wipes out the hard drive on > June 1. > > Could very well be a hoax, but since I'm not sure I'd rather not find out > the hard way. > > Klaus > > > ==^ > EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dgQY.b2Brce > Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! > http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register > ==^ >
