E_Nielsen

E_Nielsen

Lives in United States United States
Works as a Information Devel. Mgr.
Joined on Sep 22, 2009
About me:

Photo enthusiast

Comments

Total: 52, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

It's hard to find objective coverage in our news these days, but I did find an article in the L.A. Times about the federal land grab of The San Gabriel mountains in Southern California:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-protest-obama-san-gabriel-mountains-national-monument-20141010-story.html
According to the article, local residents protested this move because it was done without Congressional approval (executive order) and without input from local residents. The locals are extremely concerned about the inevitable limits to public access, stifling of economic growth, new fire dangers, and the threat of government involvement in their private property.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 12, 2014 at 18:02 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

AlexBakerPhotoz: I'm sure this will work well to make for the deficit in tax receipts from the top 1% and corporations.

Well, you could try to get more money from the rich. There's a great video on YouTube that explains how it would work. It's called Reconsidering The 'Tax The Rich' Mentality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI04B3BJ54c.
Keep in mind that the numbers in the video are a little outdated. The federal budget is now $3.77 trillion for 2014, our national debt is now over $18 trillion, and we're spending over 107 percent of GDP.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 12, 2014 at 17:41 UTC
In reply to:

jimofcan: So how is a Photograph a "commercial exploitation". Sounds like something the morons in the Tea Party would think up

You must be commenting about the Democrats, then, because the Forest Service under the Democratic administration is infringing on our rights by attempting to control what we do with our private property after we leave the wilderness. The Tea Party is vehemently against government overreach and excessive taxation.
Why don't you and your propaganda buddy visit www.teapartypatriots.org and read what they are really about. Leave a donation for them while you are there, too, to atone for your slander.
As a matter of fact, I was so impressed by my visit to their Web site, I think I'll go back and give them $100.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2014 at 12:55 UTC
In reply to:

KodaChrome25: Here is the updated press release from the US Forest Service website. I've yet to find the actual directive, either before of after the clarification.

http://www.fs.fed.us/news/releases/us-forest-service-chief-i-will-ensure-first-amendment-upheld-under-agency-commercial

The "clarification" from the Forest Service reveals their true intent: to regulate commerce OUTSIDE the wilderness area. They need to drop all language about the commercial use of photography - we cannot make money in the wilderness when we take the picture, and what we do with the photo after we leave is none of their business.
Stop government greed!!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2014 at 12:43 UTC

Many thanks to dpreview for this article.
This is a critical issue for Americans, and for photographers especially. While few would argue the need for the Forest Service to protect our publicly-owned wilderness from damage by heavy equipment, photographic images cause no damage and have no place in the proposed regulation. Furthermore, the owners of the images can do whatever they please with them; it is no business of the Forest Service if the images are used for personal reasons or financial gain.

I urge all photographers to submit their comments to the Forest Service and encourage them to scrap or revise this misguided regulation. That will be a lot cheaper for taxpayers than challenging the $1000 fines in the Supreme Court.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2014 at 12:21 UTC as 7th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Lensjoy: Read the public's comments at this link:

http://1.usa.gov/1x4r1l0

My own comment is below:
http://www.lensjoy.com/Blog/Blog_home.htm

Please make sure to add your voice.

Excellent post, Lensjoy.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2014 at 12:11 UTC
In reply to:

next shot: If you think gun control laws are bs wait till they try to stop people from taking photos when everybody has a cell phone camera.

Shutterbud, explain the statistics, please. Gun ownership keeps going up and the crime rates keep going down. Except, of course, in Chicago, D.C., and other places where the gun control nuts have succeeded in preventing citizens from protecting themselves.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2014 at 12:06 UTC
In reply to:

jimofcan: So how is a Photograph a "commercial exploitation". Sounds like something the morons in the Tea Party would think up

Jimofcan and Thoughts R Us: Get a room!
This is a photography forum. We don't need your mindless propaganda here.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2014 at 19:39 UTC
In reply to:

Turbguy1: The foundation of a Wilderness Area is based on the concept of:

“An area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain".

Commercial activity of ANY type, can be trammeling! It is just a matter of degree on a case-by-case basis. That explains the reason for a permit.

They can:

Ask appropriate questions about the activity (what are you going to do, and for how long?).

Issue a permit that places reasoned restrictions on the activity. (No more than 4 persons in a party, no overnight camping within 500 feet of a waterway or lake).

Deny a permit if it is found to be reasonable to do so.

What don't you get??

Take a stand when your unalienable rights are ignored by Congress, or you will surely lose them.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 19:58 UTC
In reply to:

Dr_Jon: IMHO a non-issue, worth a read:

http://www.wncoutdoors.info/2014/09/no-the-forest-service-is-not-planning-to-charge-you-1500-to-photograph-the-wilderness/

Excerpt:

"every news article I’ve seen has failed to incorporate those (rules for requiring a permit) into its story ...

Still photography—use of still photographic equipment on National Forest System lands that takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed or where additional administrative costs are likely, or uses models, sets, or props that are not a part of the site’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities.

Commercial filming—use of motion picture, videotaping, sound recording, or any other moving image or audio recording equipment on National Forest System lands that involves the advertisement of a product or service, the creation of a product for sale, or the use of models, actors, sets, or props, but not including activities associated with broadcasting breaking news"

The problem is that the proposed regulation has an anti-capitalist bias. If they were to stick to their jobs and make sure the use of props or other equipment doesn't damage the wilderness, then I would have no problem with the permitting system.
But if I take a photo (or video) in the wilderness and cause no more damage than the average conscienscious hiker, then why should the forest service have anything to say about how I use the photos? It's none of their business what I do after I leave the park.
One more thing - if I take a photo of someone in my family and it ends up on a Web site that inserts ads, am I subject to the $1000 fine for not obtaining a permit? The wording in the regulation is pretty loose...
The whole thing must have been conceived by a watermelon official in the organization (green on the outside and red on the inside).

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2014 at 19:56 UTC
In reply to:

jimofcan: So how is a Photograph a "commercial exploitation". Sounds like something the morons in the Tea Party would think up

Wow - what propaganda are you reading, jimofcan? You got it all wrong. How embarrassing.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2014 at 23:52 UTC
In reply to:

Turbguy1: The foundation of a Wilderness Area is based on the concept of:

“An area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain".

Commercial activity of ANY type, can be trammeling! It is just a matter of degree on a case-by-case basis. That explains the reason for a permit.

They can:

Ask appropriate questions about the activity (what are you going to do, and for how long?).

Issue a permit that places reasoned restrictions on the activity. (No more than 4 persons in a party, no overnight camping within 500 feet of a waterway or lake).

Deny a permit if it is found to be reasonable to do so.

What don't you get??

Photography is a form of personal expression, and that is an unalienable right. Just because it's a wilderness area doesn't mean we should be expected to give up our rights. I'm taking photos wherever I please - regulations be damned!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2014 at 23:50 UTC
In reply to:

jimofcan: So how is a Photograph a "commercial exploitation". Sounds like something the morons in the Tea Party would think up

Um, actually I think this is something the Tea Party would probably object to. As I understand it, they have been arguing for less government intrusion.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2014 at 23:44 UTC
In reply to:

erotavlas: EDIT: Actually I found this so everyone can relax now :)

U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell told the Washington Post today that the embattled agency would make changes in the language of rules governing media access, photography and video in federal wilderness areas.

"If you're news media, it has no effect at all," he said. "If you're a private individual, this doesn't apply."

Individuals who want to shoot on wild lands won't need a permit, even if they plan to sell their photographs, except if it involves props, the report said

Here is the Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/26/u-s-forest-service-to-clarify-wild-land-photography-permits-says-media-wont-be-affected/

IMHO, the Forest Service is over-reaching. The land belongs to all American citizens, so permitting should be limited to bringing in props or other equipment that could potentially damage the wilderness. The whole idea of requiring a permit for commercial photos is absurd and none of their business. The photos are our private property and should not be subject to regulations just because they may be used to make money.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2014 at 23:35 UTC
In reply to:

E_Nielsen: I have the original DP2 Merrill and absolutely love it. There is nothing short of a high-end DSLR that I would even consider to replace it, and even then, the bulk of a DSLR would be a problem.
The improvements in the new DP2 Quattro sound terrific, but I'm not sold on the shape of the body, as I need something compact and easy to carry. 'Would like to get one in my hands to see if the new form factor is less of a problem than it looks.

Thanks for your follow-up, webrunner. Very sound advice.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2014 at 22:19 UTC
In reply to:

E_Nielsen: In retrospect, Slater may have handled it wrong. He could have said that he took the photos, not the monkey. After all, where's the definitive evidence that the monkey pressed the shutter release? You can't tell from the photo.

Had he done that, the public may have been equally impressed albeit for a different reason: what other photographer can get that close to a wild animal and make it smile into the camera? Shoot, I can't even do that with humans!

Speaking of humans, that's who copyright laws were written for. It's a foolish notion to argue that animals should be granted copyright protection. Shame on Wikimedia Commons for grabbing Slater's photos and using that feeble excuse.

Gee, Krich13, you seem to take this rather personally. Are we looking at your selfies?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 23:26 UTC

In retrospect, Slater may have handled it wrong. He could have said that he took the photos, not the monkey. After all, where's the definitive evidence that the monkey pressed the shutter release? You can't tell from the photo.

Had he done that, the public may have been equally impressed albeit for a different reason: what other photographer can get that close to a wild animal and make it smile into the camera? Shoot, I can't even do that with humans!

Speaking of humans, that's who copyright laws were written for. It's a foolish notion to argue that animals should be granted copyright protection. Shame on Wikimedia Commons for grabbing Slater's photos and using that feeble excuse.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 23:00 UTC as 188th comment | 7 replies

I didn't see this one coming, either. I thought Canon might have finally taken one of my BIG product suggestions to heart and developed either an oversized ELPH for people with large hands or a new 2,500 mm lens sporting a built-in tripod with wheels (motorized, of course).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 22:07 UTC as 38th comment | 1 reply

I have the original DP2 Merrill and absolutely love it. There is nothing short of a high-end DSLR that I would even consider to replace it, and even then, the bulk of a DSLR would be a problem.
The improvements in the new DP2 Quattro sound terrific, but I'm not sold on the shape of the body, as I need something compact and easy to carry. 'Would like to get one in my hands to see if the new form factor is less of a problem than it looks.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 23:09 UTC as 7th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

clicstudio: It's a nice story, but not for a review site. DPR has lost its way…. They should remember the title of the site. Less news and more reviews.

clicstudio--
One option might be to not read the articles you are not interested in. Personally, I enjoyed this one.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 4, 2014 at 16:54 UTC
Total: 52, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »