10-14-09 – Software Hootennany

*bites tongue* I hate NY. Seriously. This is the closest thing to a police state that I have ever lived in. I’m actually waiting for something like this to happen to me, I won’t be quiet and compliant, and it won’t be pretty.

i dont know if you’ll have as much of an issue with it upstate as you would near Manhattan. I took pictures as I was driving over the Verrizanno (I lived on Long Island for 8 hellish years). No one saw me or said anything but the signs are posted all over.

i dont know if you’ll have as much of an issue with it upstate as you would near Manhattan. I took pictures as I was driving over the Verrizanno (I lived on Long Island for 8 hellish years). No one saw me or said anything but the signs are posted all over.

Saratoga’s a pocket-sized artsy town that embraces it, but albany gets touchy around the capital building or any of the historical sights.

http://www.freedomtophotograph.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1069817341&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&

by tunnelman @ 12 May 2005 01:47 am
I’am a NYC Bridge and Tunnel Officer at the Queens Midtown Tunnel. The Bridges and Tunnels as well as entrance and exit (marginals) streets are NOT public property. They are owned and operated by the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA) and are therefore private property!!! As far as the law goes there are laws, and signs to remind people of such laws, which prevent photos from being taken on TBTA property.

Private property, unfortunately that means if you are standing on the property they can make you stop shooting. If you raise a stink you probably will be arrested and charged with trespassing.

This does not mean that you cannot stand on public land and photograph bridges or any other building or landmark. keep in mind though that some building images are copyrighted and you need a release to use the images for commercial purposes (Empire State, etc…)

edited to add: http://www.panynj.gov/press-room/media-access.html

I’m doing two HDR and I don’t know for the third.

/unless we’re doing a dedicated HDR in the next 6 months or so. Then I would save one of them.
//are we doing a dedicated HDR some time?

That is my thought too.

One of mine I’ll probably link the original, because the before/after is pretty dramatic. One of them will probably be multiple exposures, so I think it’d bog down the post.

Which brings me to a question:

I have an image that’s a combination of two exposures of the same subject(s), but taken at different levels. I stacked the images, but rather than adjusting the transparency of the layer, I made most of that layer transparent (kind of a reverse of what we did for ‘colour popping’. Is that kosher? I can link the shot in question if need be.

That sounds very similar to HDR to me, and as such I would think that would fly.

Now here’s a question: What about composites of the same scene stacked similarly to an HDR, but where subjects may be in different places in the scene creating duplicates of the subject? It’s something that can happen with HDR (ghosting of cars moving in a scene, etc), but it can be taken advantage of by stacking exposures a la HDR and even erasing through the layers to bring those those subjects out more. On the one hand, we’ve already said you can’t add in (unrelated?) subjects, but in this case, they’re part of a series of exposures of the same scene, and that can happen with the HDR exemption we’re already allowing. How/Where do we draw the line?

I think the point was not to have any lines.

As long as you took all the photos you can do anything you want to them.

In other words. No putting Abe Lincoln in your picture. (Unless you took the photo of Abe)

Anything else is fair game for this contest.