While the Beast from the East batters our land, it’s a different storm worrying photographers : the new General Data Protection Regulations, or GDPR.
There are a lot of loops that self-employed photographers, like me, have to jump through. One of those loops, the Data Protection Act, is changing shape and name. The General Data Protection Regulations, or GDPR, come into effect on the 25th May. However, the General Data Protection Bill (which turns it into British law) does not get it’s second reading until 5th March 2018, so it is not sure it will be implemented at the same time.
How will GDPR affect photographers?
I should start by saying that I am not a legal expert and this is how I am interpreting the state of play at the moment after lots of reading and contacting the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). There is plenty of other information for small businesses out there about the changes in the law, but not much clear information about photography. So this post is purely about that.
Is my work purely art?
Under the current Data Protection Act exemptions exist for photographers for images taken as art and for journalism.
Speaking with the Information Commissioner’s Office they said, “The GDPR allows member states to introduce exemptions/derogations. These will be set out in the Data Protection Bill – it’s likely there will be a similar exemption for personal data processed for the purposes of “journalism, literature and art” but as the Bill has not yet been approved and adopted by Parliament, we can’t yet confirm what those exemptions will be. ”
Out with the Old
Under the old Data Protection Act 1998, there was definite provision for art and journalism.
“32. Journalism, literature and art.
(1)Personal data which are processed only for the special purposes are exempt from any provision to which this subsection relates if—
(a)the processing is undertaken with a view to the publication by any person of any journalistic, literary or artistic material,
(b)the data controller reasonably believes that, having regard in particular to the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression, publication would be in the public interest, and
(c)the data controller reasonably believes that, in all the circumstances, compliance with that provision is incompatible with the special purposes.”
In with the new
The proposed GDP Bill is worded differently.
“Journalistic, academic, artistic and literary purposes
24 (1) In this paragraph, “the special purposes” means one or more of the following— (a) the purposes of journalism; (b) academic purposes; (c) artistic purposes; (d) literary purposes.
Schedule 2 — Exemptions etc from the GDPR Part 5 — Exemptions etc based on Article 85(2) for reasons of freedom of expression and information
150 (2) Sub-paragraph (3) applies to the processing of personal data carried out for the special purposes if— (a) the processing is being carried out with a view to the publication by a person of journalistic, academic, artistic or literary material, and (b) the controller reasonably believes that the publication of the material would be in the public interest. (3) The listed GDPR provisions do not apply to the extent that the controller reasonably believes that the application of those provisions would be incompatible with the special purposes.”
Am I exempt?
That’s a lot of legalese, but I interpret that as, if produced for purely artistic purposes, photography will continue to be exempt from data protection laws.
So, an amateur street photographer taking candid shots in the street will be exempt from the the Regulations. The arts are free of constraint, according to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
(I should point out that the current government are making noises about removing us from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. So things may change in the future. Our current freedoms of expression may change or disappear altogether.)
If I am reading the law correctly, and I reiterate I am not a lawyer, photographs would only be able to be used without the law applying if used for journalistic/academic/artistic or literary purposes.
So, if I took a photograph of you on the street and published it as art, then it would be exempt. I would be carrying out my freedom of expression. But, I do need to limit the use of that photograph to just that purpose. If I were to use your image for advertising, or I sold you copies in return for you letting me use your image, then that becomes data and the GDPR rules come into force.
The exemption is unlikely to hold if you enter into a contract with the subject. Therefore, wedding photographers should ask the couples to make their guests aware of who the photographer is and individuals should have the option of not being photographed. That makes life really difficult for documentary photographers. Permission should certainly be sought before wedding shoots are used for publicity.
A contract does not necessarily mean the exchange of money. Just promising to send a copy of a photograph to someone in return for letting you take their photograph is a contract. Then the photographer should get a model release form signed.
This is a regularly debated topic and the answer from the ICO is no.
“In relation to street portraits of individuals; these will not be ‘biometric’ data.” Even so, I would be cautious about uploading to public sites photographs that contain people’s names or other information that may be sensitive.
Occasional Professionals Beware!
Most professional photographers will be prepared for GDPR. Some won’t.
Those who should worry are all the ‘semi-professional’ or ‘semi-amateur’ photographers who just shoot the occasional event, or sell the odd print. These are often not even registered as self-employed and are not insured. They are unlikely to comply with the current Data Protection Act. The new fine for failing to comply, which includes registration, is jumping up from a few thousand pounds to €10 million.
The ICO have been quite good at giving guidance instead of fines to date, but the new laws are stricter. One complaint from a parent whose child’s photo was shared without permission, or you sending an unsolicited email to a former client without their permission, could start an avalanche of penalties. Will HMRC or DWP look at people investigated by the ICO? Will they jump on those who try making an untaxed income from selling photographs? Will they also be studying the lists of people who are registered with the ICO to see if they are registered as self employed?
Now is a good time to either legitimise your business or step away from it altogether.
For those businesses and individuals who use photographers, searching the ICO database is a good guide to whether the photographer is a legitimate and trustworthy business.
If you walk down the street and see a shop window that is an untidy mess, would you go in? Or, would you visit the shop selling the same products a few doors along that has a stunning window display? Photographs of your business are like that shop window, and there are very good reasons for using a professional photographer to create those images.
I recently looked at websites of local businesses I considered using. Poorly written with photographs both composed and exposed badly, I wasn’t inspired. They sold services costing between £600 and £3000, a similar price range to cameras. So, I compared them with a well designed Olympus web page. Then, I looked at a cheap high-street retailer’s website. Like the camera manufacturer, they too had a crisp, tidy web presence with great product photos.
If businesses don’t put as much effort into promoting their own products as that low-end shop, are they saying that they don’t value their own goods as highly as Primark does a £3 T-shirt? It’s probably not their intention, but from a customer’s point of view, it does look that way.
The customer will walk on.
Isn’t professional photography expensive?
Go to Google and type in “Why are professional photographers” and look at the suggested predictions. At the top of the list is “… so expensive.”
I would argue that photographers are not expensive. You are paying for a high quality service, an outstanding product and a lot more time than the couple of hours spent shooting the photos. A professionally shot photograph is a valuable product.
What are you paying for?
A photoshoot takes much more time than the ¹⁄250 second click. Hours, or even days, can be spent developing and editing the pictures.
You buy into some of the photographer’s running costs too. They pay for various registration fees, advertising, web space, National Insurance and pension contributions, income tax, travel, plus endless other running expenses. Like any business, they have to earn those costs back, building them into their fees.
Also, you access the fortune invested in at least two sets of professional-grade equipment. Two sets? Imagine the photographer’s camera failing at an event. A friend’s DSLR stopped working halfway through a wedding service recently and they had no back-up.
How would you feel receiving blurry, grainy images because the lens was too slow and the camera’s low-light performance not good enough. Professionals own good quality equipment.
You are also contributing to their insurance costs.
If you only read one section of this post, read this one!
Some amateur photographers rush at the opportunity to photograph an event without considering whether or not they are insured. This is a big risk.
Business Insurance is costly. My private home insurance doesn’t cover me for developing commercially shot images in my house. If my business computer caught fire and burnt the house down, it would be my business insurance that pays. Nor will the private insurance cover the cost of replacing my camera equipment if it were lost or stolen while I was working.
Social, Domestic and Pleasure car insurance won’t cover driving to and from a commercial shoot. I need business cover for that too.
There is another insurance that is even more important that so many people don’t even consider, and it’s one that you should check if you are employing anyone to do work for you. That is Public Liability Insurance.
Photographer’s household policies won’t cover accidents when they are working. There is no legal obligation for a business to have this insurance, but it is foolish in the extreme for them not to. It is something you should check before engaging a photographer.
Accidents can and do happen. Studio lights fall over, battery packs catch fire, valuable items get smashed, cameras break or get stolen, memory cards lose all their data and people get hurt. You might end up with no photographs and want compensation for that.
It could be worse!
While researching for this article, an insurance broker told me a horror story. A couple of years ago, a photographer raised his camera to his eye, stepped backwards to take the shot and knocked into someone who fell, banged their head and suffered brain damage. Although insured for £1 million public liability, it was not enough to cover the £1.5 million claim made against them. They were left £500,000 shortfall.
Don’t be afraid to ask to see an insurance certificate. If a photographer has £5 million public liability insurance, you can be certain that they take their profession seriously.
How to choose a professional photographer
Perhaps not since the dawn of time, but certainly over the last 100 years, businesses employed professional photographers to promote their services.
There are excellent professional photographers in this world. Most are friendly and well versed in the artistic and technical aspects of photography. As with every trade, there are some whose work doesn’t meet up to the exacting standards you expect. Choosing the right photographer is a minefield.
What should I expect from a photographer?
As I pointed out above, if you are advertising your wares, you need high quality photographs to reflect their worth. If you are getting married you will want a photographer who will produce an album of photographs that you will look at with joy and not disappointment.
Professional photographers need to deliver exactly what their customers expect every time. They need to guarantee great images that illustrate their customer’s identity. A folk singer’s promotional photos will be very different from those for an accountant, which, in turn, will be different from wedding portraits.
It’s not just the photography that counts. Photographers must get along with everyone, yet also become invisible and blend in with the crowd.
Is the photographer reputable?
There are hundreds of fantastic professional photographers. There are some that are not so fantastic. Six people in as many weeks told me how disappointed they were with photos they had commissioned from what they discovered were rogue wedding photographers; they had all of the equipment but lacked the skills.
Were these charlatans trying to make a quick buck? If so, they picked the wrong trade; it’s hard work being a professional photographer and the outgoings are enormous. Or, maybe they were misled into thinking their photography was good enough when it wasn’t. That happens a lot.
Digitally fixing another photographer’s failed images is something many professionals, including me, have been asked to do. I’ve seen wedding photos with a host of rudimentary mistakes, including a bridal portrait with a road cone lying on its side in the background. I’ve been shown children’s pictures with blown-out highlights on sweaty faces, pets with crusty eyes and important family members missing from wedding albums. This is sad both for the clients and for the photographers whose reputations are forever tarnished.
Going through the trauma of getting a photographer’s fees refunded at a small claims court does not bring back a wedding day. Choosing the right photographer for you will guarantee great results.
How do I find the best photographer for me?
If you are commissioning a photographer you want them to provide photographs that tell your story or reflect your feelings. A photographer should know what you are looking for and choose the correct lighting and camera settings to achieve that.
Websites and portfolios can be a good guide to the quality of the work, but they only display a small selection of of the photographer’s work, images they choose to showcase. They are not a true record of the overall standard. Furthermore, can you be sure that the photos were taken by that photographer? Plagiarism is commonplace.
Personal recommendation is often sited as being the best way to choose a photographer. A lot of work comes my way through word of mouth and I get a lot of return custom. I am grateful for that, but not everyone who gives a recommendation is necessarily qualified to do so. A friend was raving over her wedding photos. In truth, they were not that good. In several of the pictures she had stray hairs running across her face, a rudimentary mistake that should have been fixed before the shoot and, if not then, certainly afterwards during editing. Horizons were wonky and unwanted distractions were in many of the shots. She paid £3000 for that album.
Membership of a trade body may be a measure of quality, but some fantastic photographers shun these establishments.
It’s not all doom and gloom. Most professional photographers are good and, even if you choose one at random, you are most likely to get a skilled artist.
The best way…
The best way of deciding whether to employ a photographer is getting a first-hand experience of them at work. Any photographer worth their salt will take you on a pre-event photoshoot.
Apart from seeing if their images are any good, you will discover if this is someone you want at your event, or associated with your business. You’ll also get to know whether their photographic style is to your taste.
On a pre-event shoot, the photographer can also decide if they want to work for you too. I am lucky, all my clients have been great. I do know photographers who have turned commissions away because the clients’ expectations were unrealistic, or simply because they could not get on.
Happy New Year! A purely human arbitrary concept, chosen in the past by our ancestors, it doesn’t correspond with an annual astronomical event of any importance that dictates when New Year’s Day should be. In reality, it is only 365 and a bit days after the last time we, in the West, set the daily counter to 1. Other cultures choose other dates. Our ancestors could easily have chosen any other day in the year. Perhaps we should wish each other a happy New Day every day instead.
Really! There is no such thing as reality
I really enjoy challenging what we perceive. Our perceptions are not reality, they are all a contrivance of our brains. Interpreted partly from the data sent along the optic nerve, much of what we think we see is actually invented in our minds. We use more stored information to create the world around us than what our eyes detect; what we already know about the world contaminates everything we see. We also perceive the world half a second after events occur. What we think we see is not reality at all.
Our anatomy and memories trick us too
Furthermore, our eyes’ construction is limiting. Detecting only a very small part of the electromagnetic spectrum, most light we cannot see. Also, the structure of our eyes are as unique as fingerprints. How you see the world may be quite dissimilar from how I see it.
Like old, fading photographs, memories blur over time too. Suggestions change what we recall and other events intermingle with what we remember. There is no absolute truth in what we remember seeing.
Photographs distort reality
Can we apply this same fluidity to reality when creating a photograph? We do it all of the time, often unintentionally. When viewing pictures, we subject them to the same filtering and corruption by our eyes and brain as when we view the rest of the world. Furthermore, the photograph itself is not reality, just an interpretation of it.
A telephoto lens can make the sun seem huge in a frame. A fifteen-second exposure smooths out water and makes flashing beacons appear to be lit all at the same time. This is not how it appeared to me standing there taking the shot.
JPEG vs Raw
Your camera’s internal computer processes raw data from its sensor. If it is set to take JPEGs then the processor will be pre-programmed – probably by a technician on the other side of the world – how the picture should look. If you apply a digital filter in camera, the processor alters the data. Applying differing luminosities to the millions of red, green and blue coloured pixels making up your image, the camera then adjusts them according to whatever filter you choose.
Throwing away the redundant data in a process called compression, the camera records one usable, shareable and widely compatible JPEG file onto the memory card. All modern cameras can produce great results in this way.
The camera always lies
A talented photographer I know takes amazing photos. Setting to record only JPEGs, her finished images straight from the camera look great, almost every one a wall-hanger. Her work-flow takes me back to my youth, entrusting my rolls of Kodachrome to a local laboratory to develop, process and print. Her methodology emphasises the importance of getting the composition and exposure just right.
Another option is ‘shooting raw’. The camera records the all raw data from the sensor into a file on the memory card without any processing. That gives more versatility. It lets you make the adjustments instead of the camera. Raw file developing, using tools like Lightroom or On1 Photo Raw, is non-destructive; anything you do to the file can be undone. Nothing is thrown away or lost as it is with a compressed JPEG. Akin to creating prints from a film negative, you can produce any number of different-looking JPEGs from that raw file without damaging the original.
Each result is your interpretation of reality. Every one is different. Yet, none of them a true or complete record of the event.
Although more versatile, shooting raw has its disadvantages. File sizes are larger and raw file previews are not universally compatible.
Changing reality: to edit or not to edit
There is a school of thought that a photo should always be untouched and a direct record of what was seen when it was taken. For reportage, I agree; the picture must be an honest representation as possible. News photographers – quite rightly – lose their reputations for editing pictures to deliberately mislead.
In portraiture and art shots, I have no qualms about removing a spot from a face or adding blur to soften wrinkles. In most photography, we are trying to create something aesthetically pleasing. If a lamppost detracts from a landscape I can’t physically remove it as I do litter. Is there anything wrong with deleting it using a computer to make a stronger composition? After all, our brains do it all the time.
When photos are changed…
For me, creating photographic art is very different from just recording an event. I do my best to remove a distracting object that would otherwise spoil the shot; I’ll pick up litter and put in the bin when making the photo and compose the shot to exclude distractions. In the above photo it was a lamppost that unbalanced the shot. There was no way I could fix it while shooting, so I removed it with digital editing.
It’s art, it doesn’t matter that I have changed it. Saying that, it isn’t something I often do, using the clone or other editing tools; I rather get the image right in camera. But, the above image is far stronger with the lamppost removed. It doesn’t hurt anyone by my removal of it and I am not deceiving anyone by doing so.
I could crop the image above to exclude the lamppost or used a longer lens as I did in the following shot. But, would that loose the feeling of isolation? I think so.
… they become art.
When creating a photograph, unless using a lens of the same focal length and depth of field as our eyes, we step further away from our usual perception of reality. Maybe, that is why we like unusual angles, very short and very long exposures, hyper-real imagery and high-contrast monochrome in our photography. By seeing the world in a new and unusual way that our eyes and brain cannot perceive, it looks new and unusual.
It’s that difference that can make a photograph compelling. It’s what makes it art.
Four people in the last week have asked me about buying a camera. With Christmas not that far in the future this is probably a good time for me to write about this.
I usually reply with a question: What sort of photography do you want to shoot? The needs of a wildlife enthusiast are very different from those of someone who just wants to take holiday snaps. Cameras are expensive pieces of precision equipment and you’ll want the system, design and model that will best suits your needs and budget.
Don’t Fall for Reviews or Personal Recommendations
Publishers don’t win advertising revenue by featuring unfavourable reports of their sponsor’s latest shiny new kit, so I’m sceptical of professional camera reviews. I read separate reviews of the same camera in two popular photography magazines. One reckoned the camera was a technological wonderment, the second gave it a mediocre rating. The first review was adjacent to an advert for that manufacturer – a manufacturer that didn’t advertise in the second magazine.
Reviewers also fuss over tiny performance differences. It makes good reading, but the small variances within similar price brackets make little difference to the majority of photographers.
There are some cameras that are game changers, but in the most part, similar priced cameras are similar in both design and features.
When looking for a camera a few months ago, I asked other photographers for their advice and was met with vigorous promotions of the brands they invested in. You’ll never hear a photographer saying, ‘I bought X but made a terrible mistake and wish I had got Y instead.’ They endorse the brand they use with an enthusiasm to put sales staff to shame. They’ll also decry rival brands with equal gusto.
I’m not going to recommend the brand that I use to you (I use Olympus). For me it is the perfect system to meet my needs. But that does not mean it is necessarily the perfect brand or model for you. That is a decision only you can make.
My Recent Decision
My main DSLR still takes fantastic quality pictures, but it’s six years old now and technology has moved on. I need performance beyond its capabilities for my work. Researching the market, I found a bewildering array of models.
Every reputable manufacturer produces fantastic cameras throughout their price ranges and I needed to find one that worked for me.
In the words of the song and album title by the late, great George Harrison, All Things Must Pass. I was met with a barrier that Olympus had discontinued producing DSLR cameras, and so the lenses I had would not fit their mirrorless range without an adaptor. That left me with a quandary. Should shift to a totally different brand and system and sell off my old equipment, or stick with the Olympus brand and adapt what I had to fit the Micro Four Thirds mount.
How I Made My Mind Up
I made a list of my priorities: exceptional low-light performance for photographing events without a flash; a fully articulating LCD screen to view when I use a low-set tripod and for macro work; lightweight, so not to suffer a neck injury from carrying it all day, and robust enough to take hiking or cycling in all weathers. If the camera could be made compatible with my existing equipment, that would also be a deciding factor.
I needed a camera of good enough quality so I could use it for shooting a wedding or party, but also slip in my pocket without damaging it. I wanted something discreet for candid street photography.
Because much of my work is built around training, a large, clear articulated screen with a live preview of depth of field was a must. Finally, I set a budget.
Ergonomics is so important; some cameras are just too fiddly for my large hands. After numerous trips to shops trying different models, I rejected plenty. Even on some large cameras, I found my fingers inadvertently hitting other buttons when I pressed the shutter. With some cameras, I could not hold them to my eye without them pressing uncomfortably onto my nose .
High pixel count is a marketing ploy. 16 megapixels – about the smallest pixel count on the market at the moment – is twice the size needed to produce high quality A3 prints. Wedding album photos are far smaller and many images I sell end up online, reduced in size to around 2 megapixels. Larger image files also take more time to upload and use up valuable storage space. I neither needed nor wanted a 50 megapixel monster.
The Perfect Camera For Me
There are two brands I am really adverse to. I won’t mention their names but one I think makes really ugly cameras, and artists should use great-looking equipment. The second brand, and this is purely anecdotal from conversations with other photographers, seems to break down a lot.
I did find and buy camera perfect for my needs. I decided to stick with Olympus. For me, it’s perfect. It fits my hands, it’s portable, it looks stunning, I can fit it in my pocket, it’s robust, it has a large, clear LCD display and viewfinder, the image quality is fantastic and it has game-changing image stabilisation.
If you are interested it’s an OM-D E-M5 mark ii mirrorless camera. At some point I will also buy an Olympus E-M1 mark ii.
As I said, this is not my recommendation to you. Like any other camera owner, I am pleased with my purchase, but I want you to find the right brand, system and model to suit your needs.
Which Camera System is the Best for You?
Like all aspects of photography, there are compromises to be made. There is always a trade-off to be made. Here is a quick run-down of the common camera systems with some of the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Digital Single Reflex Camera (DSLR)
The most expensive, but delivering (arguably) the best quality, DSLRs are large in size. They can be heavy to carry, but versatile for shooting many different types of photography. That versatility is brought about by buying a range of lenses. The quality of the lens has more to do with the quality of the final image than does the body of the camera.
Camera bodies usually come in three levels: entry, enthusiast and professional, with some overlap. The build quality and performance increases with each, as does the complexity of use and the price bracket. Prices range from a little over £300 to over £13,000.
Sensor sizes can vary. Cameras with larger sensors are bigger and they cost more. They do have greater dynamic range than another contemporary camera with a smaller sensor. Saying that, the performance of modern DSLRs (and CSCs) with smaller ‘crop sensors’ – up to half the size of a 35mm ‘full frame’ sensor – is outstanding.
Mirrorless (Compact System Camera, or CSC)
CSCs also can produce excellent quality images and come in the same three price brackets. The most expensive are around £5000, the cheapest nearer to £300. They too have interchangeable lenses. They are usually far smaller than DSLRs although share similar sensor sizes. Their small size is their big attraction. Saying that, some models are just as large as a DSLR, a marketing error realised by Sony whose sales of their over-sized mirrorless camera, the A7Rii, were disappointing.
Instead of viewing the world through a prism and a mirror like the DSLR, the viewfinder is electronic. This has an advantage that you can see pretty much how your photograph will look when you press the shutter. Information like the histogram and blown highlight and shadow warnings can be seen.
Most mirrorless cameras have a ‘contrast detect’ focusing system. It is slower to focus than the ‘phase detect’ system used when looking though the viewfinder in DSLRs, but is also more accurate in some circumstances. Modern electronics have narrowed the margins between the two systems and many photographers won’t notice the difference.
In Live View (looking at the image on the back LCD screen) a DSLR will also usually uses contrast detect. Some mirrorless cameras, such as the Olympus OM-D E-M1, have both focussing systems available.
There are mirrorless cameras without a viewfinder. They rely on you using the live view screen, like taking a photo on a phone. These are cheaper and often smaller, but can be difficult to use in bright light. Furthermore, holding a camera at arms length is unstable. Some have viewfinders you can purchase separately that are mounted on to the flash hot shoe.
The Bridge Camera are so called because they bridge the gap between compacts and DSLRs/CSCs. They are similar to CSCs in most respects apart from having a single, permanently attached zoom lens. They are often marketed on the range of this zoom, and are sometimes called super-zooms because of this.
The image quality is good, though not as good as an interchangeable lens camera. No lens can perform exceptionally well across a wide range of focal lengths because of optical limitations; images will be soft at the zoom’s extremes and colour fringing (chromatic aberration) may be noticeable along high contrast edges in the picture; you may see a purple or green fuzzy line around the edges of a person pictured against a bright background.
The sensor is also much smaller than in CSCs and DSLRs and this can bring a noticeable difference in image quality. The smaller sensor also makes it more of a challenge to get a blurred background.
If any one component of a bridge camera fails then the camera becomes unusable, if you scratch the lens, the whole camera is out of action.
Compact and Phone Cameras
The compact camera market has collapsed since the advent of the camera phones. There are still some models available, but many are more like small bridge cameras than what we used to think of as compacts.
The ubiquitous camera phones are the backbone of services like Instagram, Twitter and Facebook where people can quickly and easily share images of what is happening in their life. They are familiar to almost everyone and so I won’t wax lyrical about them. The quality of the images has come on enormously. They are not as versatile as the cameras listed above, but they serve a purpose and can produce great results.
Consider Buying A Pre-Owned Camera
Do you use Flickr? It’s a photography sharing site owned by Yahoo. Images are not heavily compressed as they are on Facebook, and photo metadata, which may include your copyright details, are preserved. Facebook strips images of their metadata.
One of the great things about Flickr is that one can search for images taken by a specific camera model. Choosing cameras that are now ten years old, I searched through images taken with the Olympus E-3 and E-510, Panasonic Lumix DMC-L10, Nikon D40X, Canon 40D, Sony A700 and Pentax K100D Super. There are still fantastic photos being taken with those cameras. Much newer models are available than these for a lot less cost than they were new.
There is an old saying that the most important component of any camera system is the one holding the camera and looking through the viewfinder. Flickr proves that point; you don’t need the latest model to capture great images, you need the photographic skills. (If you lack those, contact me for training!)
Newer models will produce better results in extreme lighting conditions and may achieve faster shutter values. But, all the cameras listed above still produce excellent images and they are available second-hand for a song. If you have a restricted budget, then do think about buying second hand.
If you don’t like the camera then you can sell it on again and the resale value won’t change that much. A used camera also means a far lower carbon footprint. Older cameras are likely to have had firmware updates. Plus, the raw files will be compatible with software like Lightroom, On1, Photoshop or Elements. That’s not always the case with new cameras.
Check out user Reviews for Older Model Cameras
User reviews will also tell you if an older model has common flaws and how long they last. Check the shutter count against the life expectancy of the camera as the mechanics of a shutter will wear out. My pro-level DSLR should be good for between 250,000 and 350,000 shutter actuations, consumer end cameras have a lower life-expectancy of around 50,000 shots.
Where to Buy
Reputable dealers like Camera Jungle, Wex and MPB all sell used camera equipment. Their descriptions are accurate and cameras come with a guarantee. Some great deals can be found on online auction sites too, but there is an increased risk of buying a stolen camera. If buying privately, do ask the vendor for photos of the serial numbers of both the camera and the lens. If they refuse, don’t buy. There are internet-based services that help track stolen camera equipment using the serial number.
What if I Really Want a New Camera
Low light and high ISO performance have improved enormously in recent years and I needed that facility for my work. If you do need very fast shutter values in low light, then a new, high-end camera might be what you require.
Look for discounts from retailers selling open box, returned and display models to save you a few tens of pounds. You may consider ‘grey’ goods, cameras built for overseas markets. Take care. You can get caught out by import duties and not all camera manufacturers offer a worldwide guarantee.
Don’t Forget the Lens
High-end cameras don’t always come supplied with a lens because you are expected to choose lenses to meet your needs. Cheaper cameras are usually supplied with one-or-two reasonable quality kit lenses.
Good quality lenses make far greater difference to the quality of your photos than a change of camera body. Buy the fastest lens you can afford, i.e. the one with the lowest -number.
If you are stuck choosing, please do contact me either on social media or by replying below and I’ll gladly help you choose the right model for you.
This article is an extended version of two of my columns first published in the Northumberland Gazette.
Earlier this year, a collective groan resounded around me; yet another election. The one silver lining for me is that political activity can offer a super opportunity for photographers.
I’m too young to remember the decade of the protest movement, though I love the music. Great photographers of the sixties, like Benedict Fernandez, made their name with classic images of the demonstrations and rallies that changed the world.
On the March People are on the march once again. NHS cuts and hospital closures, the increasing wealth gap, loss of social care, opencast mines, homelessness, tax-dodging corporations, standing up for war refugees and social equality inspired many ordinary people demonstrate recently. Despite being passion-fuelled, these protests are usually good-natured, colourful affairs, bringing a wide mix of people together in a carnival atmosphere. Protesters want you to see them standing up for what they believe in. They expect and welcome photographs. They are a street photographer’s dream.
Be aware if you shoot overseas Britain doesn’t have the same overly-strict privacy laws as France. It seems incredible to me that the homeland of both Robert Doisneau and Henri Cartier-Bresson introduced legislation that killed street photography there. Even if it is not a legal requirement, asking for (or even paying for) permission to take someone’s portrait is something to consider. Do check local laws and customs before travelling overseas with your camera.
Street Photography in The UK In the UK, if you see an interesting face on the street, there is nothing stopping you from capturing it. That does not equate to you stalking and harassing people with your camera, which will get you into trouble.
It’s not always possible, but I try to have polite interactions with those I photograph on the street. I then send them copies of their image. Especially so for the street performers I photograph, I also give them permission to use my pictures as a thank-you for being entertained.
Can I photograph that building? Architectural photography is another popular genre for those who take to the streets with their cameras. Security guards may challenge you, but there is nothing in UK law they can do to stop you shooting images from the street, though the police can if you are causing an obstruction.
There are restrictions in Britain. You can be told not to photograph from within privately owned property, including shopping centres. Do so against the wishes of the owner and you are then committing trespass. You can be asked, or even forced if you refuse, to leave. In England, there is no right to roam. You don’t have the right to enter private land, such as school grounds or farmers’ fields. Doing so and trampling crops or breaking down fences may be criminal damage.
Photographing members of the armed forces, intelligence services and police officers with the intent of preparing an act of terrorism will land you in prison. Poking your lens through the fence of a military base, a dockyard, a factory or the Prime Minister’s private house can end you in hot water too.
There are other common sense limitations, too many for me to fit into the confines of this article, but easily found on internet searches.
Express your politics Valuing my human right of political expression, I turned out to vote and hope you did too, whichever party you support. One thing I didn’t take with me was my camera. Photography is not allowed in the polling station.
The Northumberland leg of the Tour of Britain passed by us today. My E-M5ii was mounted on a tripod with the 45mm f/1.8 lens. I pre-focused it and composed the shot, setting it to shoot its maximum frame rate, achieving around 10 frames per second
With my older E-5, I had it set to continuous autofocus and has the 12-60 f/2.8 zoom mounted. I chose the slower frame rate, achieving around 4 frames per second.
I was digging around for a particular photo and found this one instead. I had intended to publish it on my blog over the Easter weekend, but time ran away from me. The picture was actually taken back on a freezing cold, blustery day at the start of the year.
I’m not a religious person, but a good guy I knew has just past away and he was. So, this is for David.
The art of photography is wide-ranging, appealing to so many different tastes. Still life is the staple for some while capturing birds interacting with their environment is the aim for others. For me, the timelessness of black and white is king, while others yearn for colour. Many prefer to carefully compose a landscape using the unadulterated natural lines of hills, water and trees. I think a person, animal or bird changes a scene to something far more dynamic.
I think the same applies with architecture. Buildings, bridges, streets were put there for people and adding people into that environment changes the entire feel of the image. These are, of course, my subjective tastes and not everyone will agree.
The psychology, techniques and even the terminology of photography are similar to those of hunting. Heading out into the field, carefully aiming, breathing out and waiting for that split second to get that perfect shot, then gently squeezing the trigger could easily describe either activity. Photography is without the slaughter.
It’s not without its controversies though. I’ve always been fascinated with street photography. There was a trend a while ago for photographers to force their camera into faces, capturing unflattering views of people’s features close up. These did the reputation of photographers no good at all. Fortunately, times have changed again and projects like Brandon Stanton’s “Humans of New York” and Max Gor’s “Raw Streets” work in London have a much more deferential approach to photographing strangers. Both Stanton and Gor’s excellent and respectful work are often on-location portraits and usually much less about the interaction with the urban setting, although Gor does some splendid candid work too.
In style, they are quite different from the great Henri Cartier-Bresson who stepped back and documented people interacting with their world. The documentary, candid style that he pioneered is what really appeals to me.
When he said your first 10,000 photos are your worst, Cartier-Bresson was speaking in a very different time. His quest of trying to capture what he called the ‘decisive moment’ has been lost, swamped by the scatter-gun photography of multiple exposures and the trillion snaps a year that are vomited out by those seeking to record and share their every waking moment. If he lived today, I wonder if he would have said your first 100,000 photos are your worse. Photography for many has become more akin to dropping a cluster-bomb rather than hunting for that shot.
Saying that, there is nothing wrong with shooting multiple exposures. For wildlife and sports photography it is a boon. My next camera, the Olympus OMD EM1 mk ii, has an unbeatable 60 frames per second frame rate. But, that is not why I am buying it. It’s the image quality, versatility and portability that enable me to get the images I love to take. I can think of no camera better to have on a street assignment or for shooting puffin on the Farne Islands.
Of course, if you head out into the street, recording what you see, you will capture moments in time that are uncomfortable, images that challenges the viewer to ask questions about the world we live in and even make judgements about the rights and wrongs of publishing some pictures.