Where are we now?

It's been two months since I wrote anything in this blog.

So what's been happening to slow me down?

Well, work got busy with some more politicking about who controls what. I won't even mention the disgusting antics of the Senior Management .
Personally, I got busy with some consultation work for an overseas venture that looks really interesting.
And something had to give. My photography went on the back boiler. As did this blog.
Apologies if you were looking for anything here or in Project 52 or Project 12.

I anticipate a change in circumstances for me over the next 3 months or so, so hopefully the posts will be more frequent.

In any event I was invited to an event a local radio-control yacht club was running yesterday. I had photographed their club events a year or so ago, and they invited me along to the national event they were hosting ( I probably would have been welcome if I hadn't taken my camera, but I took it anyway!).

The weather was a bit of a disappointment - partial cloud cover and very little wind - nice for humans, useless for sailors!

Last years pictures were full of drama with bow waves and churning wakes, this year not so much.

Here is a snap from last year:


And here is yesterdays efforts:


As you can see, no bow waves, no chop, and to my mind, less dramatic.

I'll put up a gallery later on with some more yachting pics from 2009/10 and 2011.

Hope you like them!

Web Makeover, Part 2

In the original Web Makeover article, I spoke about using Aperture 3 to produce "web journals" then incorporating them into my RapidWeaver site.
That worked, but any updates are a long-winded process.
So I investigated Rapid Album, a plug-in for RapidWeaver specifically for producing my photographic galleries. And it does the job.
But that doesn't mean I have stopped looking - and I am considering hand-coding my own solution, which is something I do at work a lot, but I really don't want to have to do it for this site - I could use the time for something much more productive :-)

I have checked out a new "plug-in" from the SymfoniP people - Gallery Box - which produces a Gallery a lot like many "off-the-shelf" websites that I have seen. They have the pictures in box with a "carousel" of thumbnails along the bottom. There are lots of options and it seems to work well. I might use it at sometime in the future.

But for now the quest continues for my version of the "perfect gallery" - I know it's out there, somewhere.

Software "Updates"

Yesterday was all about Realmac Softwares RapidWeaver.

I have used RapidWeaver since version 3.5 and I have followed along the sometimes bumpy ride of updates, right up until version 4+

Version 5.0 was released on December 1, and apart from the usual bug fixes and a “resource” feature (single folder storage of all your websites assets, replacing per page assets), there was not a lot that I could see to recommend it as it was a paid upgrade.

Then along comes the Mac App Store, and RapidWeaver 5.0 is now priced at £23.99. At that price, an upgrade was definitely in my near future.

So, do I upgrade using the untried and untested Mac App Store route, or I do bite the bullet an pay a few extra pounds and stick to the more traditional method?

To test out the Mac App Store I bought a copy of GarageBand 11 to see what would happen to my installed GarageBand 09. I suspected that, as the user has no control over the installation destination, then it would overwrite my existing install - and that is exactly what happened.

So for RapidWeaver, I chose the traditional route. I saw the price at £26.62 and thought, “OK, that’s a few pounds dearer than the App Store” - but of course Realmac had chosen not to display the VAT along with the price, which was a nice surprise when I got to the checkout.

End result was I got RapidWeaver 5.0 from Realmac at £31.94.

Oh, and by the way, after downloading the software I found some obvious bugs that shouldn’t have made it out into the world, and found that I had been pointed to the initial 5.0 release, not one containing the bug fixes Realmac brought out a few days later (V 5.01, then V 5.02). An update from within RapidWeaver brought me up to the latest version.

So, was it all worth it? Like most things, it depends. I regularly maintain 6 web-sites, and occasionally work on about a dozen more with RapidWeaver so I can’t afford to have it not work properly. Thankfully, I can run both V 5+ and V 4+ on the same machine without too many problems - you just need to be rigorous in keeping the project files separated! (And having both installed was another reason why I should have gone the Mac App route!) Also, you must upgrade to the latest versions of all your plug-ins (preferably before you install V 5).

If you maintain many websites with RapidWeaver on a professional basis then be cautious - there are still issues lurking about with the V 5 “upgrade” that could cause your re-publishing time to be very much longer than you are used to, and also colour picker problems - but Realmac say that they are working on these problems.

Incidentally, there were separate issues with the App Store version as well, which means that the App Store version is now on V 5.03, while my version number is V 5.02. Hopefully this will all come together in the near future.

If you upgraded to Mac OS X 10.6.6 and have the Mac App Store then go that route. If you are still on 10.5.8 then you have to go the Realmac website route.
Assuming, of course that you want to upgrade given the issues.

For your reference:
http://www.realmacsoftware.com/forums/index.php/forums/viewthread/42058/
http://www.realmacsoftware.com/forums/index.php/forums/viewthread/41461/

I have downgraded to the latest V 4 release, and that’s where I will stay for my production sites. I will still experiment with V 5, but I will not use it for anything important until the bugs are ironed out.

Bottom Line: RapidWeaver V5+ wasted a lot of my time - and while it cost me money too, the time lost is something I can never recover.
Not happy.

A pleasant kind of madness...

I am an aspiring photographer.
Some days I think I could approach world-class. Others, meh!

So today I left the house while it was still dark, rugged up warm against the cold (-5.5C) and proceeded down to the shore, where I set up my tripod and camera and started to wait for the light.
I was about 45 minutes early for sunrise.

So what does one do to pass 45 minutes in the cold?

Simple - one puts in ones earbuds, starts up the 60's classics playlist on the iPhone and dances.

Yes folks, if you hear of a crazy person standing on the shore before dawn, doing an incomprehensible series of movements that might, in some far out place in the world, be construed as dancing, then I was that person.

And you know what? I had a ball!

And I even got this - not world class, but I like it.



As I say, a pleasant kind of madness.

Web Makeover

I was bored with the look of my website.
I was using Rapidweaver with specific plugins for my photo album and I was bored with that, too.
I couldn't see my photos on my iPhone or iPad from my website (no Flash), so I looked around for an html only photography gallery type generator.
Turns out I had one all the time - Aperture 3 does "web pages" and "web journals".

In Aperture 3, select some photos, select new from the Menu, choose Web page or Journal (the journal allows you to add text blocks to your pages), set up your options and then "export" it to disk (or MobileMe, of course!)
So, that's what I did.
Then using Rapidweaver, I took my existing site, changed the theme and removed the unused pages plus my photography pages. I put in a "placeholder" page for the Aperture 3 webjournal, then exported the site to disk.
I used cut'n'paste to move the content of the source of the webjournal to where the source of the content of photography page would be, and then moved that file into the exported webjournal. I then moved the whole of the webjournal site over the top of the placeholder photography page in the Rapidweaver site. End result was that I had a lovely themed photography journal, integrated into my sites new theme.
Some css tweaks were needed to get the navigation working correctly on the webjournal pages, and I haven't as yet, themed the individual photo pages, but the end result looks fine to me.

Time from start to finish? 4 hours.

And the moral of this story? Well, I would say:" Choose your tools well"

Weekend Shoot

Yesterday I went to a local (man-made) pond where the local model boat club sails their creations. Sometimes it's serious racing, and sometimes it is just for fun.
I got there when most were heading for home and only a few die-hards had boats on the water.
Not to be deterred, I smiled, asked permission to shoot (you don't need to, but it's just manners to do so :-) ) and started.
So, we had moving subjects, unpredictable winds, varying light (intermittent cloud cover), swans, a new lens, and the background(s) were not great.
All the ingredients of a fun shoot ;-)

To see some of what I came up with, I put them here:
http://web.me.com/shanek54/ModelBoats/Photos.html

After about half an hour, I started talking to one guy whose boat wasn't in the water. We chatted about the boat and he was saying he made models for fun and he would bring down his air-craft carrier model one Sunday. It is 8+ feet long! I sure hope I am around that Sunday!

All in all, a pleasant Sunday and I got some practice with my new lens.
For the gearheads, I was using my Pentax K200D with a consumer zoom lens, the Pentax smc DA 55-300 f4-5.8.
Most photos are F7.1, ISO 100 - shutter speed varies. Website photos are low-res jpgs.

As I normally do with personal shoots like this, I make the photos available to anybody in that local club that wants them, with the only proviso being that if they use them for their website or for club promotion, then I get a credit ( © Shane Kelly ).
That's fair, no?

More on Photographic Competitions

I have spoken about Photography competitions before - but only about the local "League" ones. Today, I am going to talk about a competition run by a commercial entity here in Scotland.
The Whitelee Windfarm is currently "planting" huge windmills over the Eaglesham moor, about 20 minutes from central Glasgow. They are owned (apparently) by ScottishPower, and are making all the right environmental noises on their web site. I have no issue with this aspect of their operation.
What I do have issue with is the use of a "photographic competition" that is nothing more than a "picture rights grab".
Whitelee (or ScottishPower) have decided that getting amateurs to submit photographs in the hope of winning a £130 point and shoot camera is the best way to get images that they can then use for publicity purposes.

Nothing wrong with that, you say?
And I might have agreed with you if I had not read the "Terms and Conditions" closely.

Number 13 states:
"All entries must be the original work of the entrant and must not infringe the rights of any other party. The entrants must be the sole owner of copyright in all photographs entered and are responsible for obtaining all third party permissions to the taking of the photographs and use of those photographs in accordance with these terms and conditions. In particular, you represent and warrant that consent has been obtained from any clearly identifiable person appearing in any image to the taking of the image and the use of that image in accordance with these terms and conditions. Further, entrants must not have breached any laws when taking their photographs."

So, it needs to be your own work - fair enough. You must have had permission to enter and shoot on the land from which you took the photo, and if there is a recognisable person in the shot, you need a model release. And lastly, the photograph must have been taken lawfully.
Simple for a professional, onerous for an amateur.

Lets look at number 14:
"Entrants must not have offered any of their entries for sale or been paid for any publication of any of their entries. In addition, all images submitted must not have been published elsewhere or have won a prize in any other photographic competition."

So, basically, they are looking for new images that have not been published, even on your own website, or your flickr or facebook page. They want you to go out and get new pictures for them.

Lets see what no 15. says:
"Entrants will retain copyright in the photographs that they submit to the competition. By entering the competition all entrants grant to ScottishPower Renewables a royalty-free worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual right to use, publish, reproduce and exhibit any or all of that entrant's submitted photographs in any media format in any of its publications, websites and/or in any promotional or marketing material and to grant such rights to any third party to do same. This may include, but is not limited to, use of the photographs in accordance with paragraph 12 above. No fees will be payable for any of the above uses or for any of the rights granted by entrants hereunder. Entrants whose photographs are one of the Top Ten also agree to take part in post-competition publicity. While ScottishPower Renewables makes every effort to credit photographers, including in printed reproductions of their work, it cannot guarantee that every use of the photographs will include photographers’ names."


Basically, you give up all rights (except copyright) for any use of the image forever, while ScottishPower go on using it for nothing in any form (even ones not invented yet) - and they can assign the right to use it to third parties (i.e. anyone else they want) - and this not only pertains to the winners, but to all entries. On top of that, the top ten have to help publicise the windfarm, and it is not even guaranteed that you will get a mention!

Let's put this in perspective.
The conditions of this competition would not be accepted by a professional photographer without a substantial fee - the licensing provisions are simply too broad. They negate the use of the image for any other purpose that might earn the professional some income - nobody wants to use an image closely associated with another business.
So Scottish Power have decided it is cheaper (both in terms of publicising their Windfarm, and in getting some images that they can use for any purpose forever) to offer a pitiful "prize" instead of paying out £1000's per image to a professional.

Bottom line? You're legally responsible for everything about the picture - if you are not in the top ten you get nothing, and your pictures could still be used under the conditions stated above. If you are in the Top Ten, but not in the top three, you get a "goodie bag" with unknown contents. What's the bet it contains promotional material for ScottishPower?

If you want to enter the competition under those rules, then go ahead. I think you're crazy, but that's just my opinion.