I have a "@#%&*! I'm getting older" question.
My current main issue is that when I have my C300 mounted on my shoulder rig, the flip out viewfinder is a little too close for my eyes to focus well through my glasses. I can actually see better that close without glasses, but then my distance vision isn't great, and my stigmatism (though mild) kicks in. When the camera is on the shoulder rig, its a little high so that I'm looking up slightly at it.
I was thinking about getting bifocals just for shooting with the "reading" part near the top. My opthamologist said that some times car mechanics have the close up "reading" portion put in both the top, and bottom of their glasses. That way they can see the car parts they are working on when the car is above them on the lift, but also look for tools and read the instructions when they look down.
The guy who actually makes the glasses wasn't as enthusiastic. He said he once had a customer who was a pilot who wanted the "reading" portion on in the top side of the lenses so he could read the instruments that were on the ceiling of the cockpit. However, after wearing them for 10 minutes, he decided against it because they were too distracting to wear otherwise.
Right now I'm thinking I'll just pull the glasses down my nose a bit and make do with my naked eyes when I look up at the viewfinder. I doubt that's going to be optimal though.
Any insights or advice that you have would be welcome!
I rarely work for ABC News. My equipment billing sheet is from 2002. Question; is the rate for basic camera/sound package still $550? Van $30? Mileage I assume is .56 (IRS 2014 rules) Thanks.
I follow Carlos Miller’s Photography Is Not a Crime blog for a reason. Ninety-nine percent of the time photographers are harassed due to either ignorance about First Amendment rights by law enforcement and other agencies or at times those agencies or employees deliberately ignoring the rights of media and citizens.
First – the media has no more nor less rights than any citizen of this great country. So if a videojournalist is pushed back and locals are allowed to stay near a homicide scene that is wrong – illegal. Journalists can, however, be allowed closer and are even protected under some state laws so they can have access to disaster and other areas closed off to the general public for safety reasons.
So all of this leads to what appears at first glance to be yet another case of cop v. citizen caught on a cell phone. Take a look at the videos here and then let me explain my take on it.
If you watched all nine videos you’ll note some are extremely short, which I’ll attribute to Ikhinmwin possibly either having difficulty uploading or editing or both (those are the one or two second clips).
I went to her youtube channel fully intending to support her and find fault with the police…and after watching the videos and reading the comments, I find fault with both the police and her.
The police could have ignored her…but they did have a point in the fact her bike was legally on the street/over the curb. You can even see that in her own video. And refusing to move a bike because you don’t want the tires to get dirty? Hmmmm…
This is a case that (at least to me) is up in the air – still out waiting for more information. If Ikhnmwin shot this as one clip, it has been edited. It is possible she shot multiple clips…and I for one would like to know which is the case because what is posted does not bode well for her. Her own video shows her bike was on the street and her reason for not moving it seems rather petty. I do think the officer came after her too harshly…and between the two of them, the situation escalated. And the officer is the one who should have been professional enough to let it go. But – there was absolutely no cooperation or courtesy from Ikhnmwin either.
Final score? The cops came out smelling worse but the so-called victim doesn’t come off much better. And if the court of public comments has anything to say (and be warned some of them are pretty nasty) simple courtesy might have averted an arrest.
There's a person in my area that owns a private still photography business. For many years, he has also been the official photographer that is called to document fatalities in car wrecks for the city and county police. Apparently, it is widely known that he also sells those "exclusive" pictures to insurance companies for his private business. I don't shoot stills, so this is not a competitive complaint and aside from being unethical, I don't understand how it is not seen as a conflict by those allowing it. Is this or anything similar to it happening in your area? What do you think about it?