ManhartPhotography

A district judge in New Mexico has affirmed a state Civil Rights Commission order that a small photography company pay $6,600 for refusing to violate the owners’ Christian beliefs by photographing a lesbian “ceremony,” even though same-sex marriage isn’t legal in the state.

Word of the decision by District Judge Alan M. Malott comes from the Alliance Defense Fund, which promised an immediate appeal of the decision against the Christian photographer and her husband.

Interestingly, both sides seem to disagree with the ruling. From Queerty.com, ” I wouldn’t want to see a court rule against a gay photographer who, on moral grounds, refused to take the business of a religious fundamentalist and homophobic couple. Because religion is a protected class, just like sexual orientation.”

From WorldNetDaily, “”Should the government force a videographer who is an animal rights activist to create a video promoting hunting and taxidermy? American small business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate, nor can the government make people choose between their faith and their livelihood.”

During the recent battle over proposition 8 in California, it was claimed that proposition 8 would have no effect on photographers. Opponents of proposition 8 cited this case as proof that it might.

The case developed in 2006 when Willock asked Elaine Huguenin, co-owner with her husband, Jon Huguenin, of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, to photograph a “ceremony” that Willock and another woman wanted to hold in Taos. Neither marriage nor civil unions are legal between members of the same sex in New Mexico.

There are implications here which photographers should be aware of.

Do you agree/disagree? Let us know in the comments.

Email the author at travis@manhartphotography.com or visit www.ManhartPhotography.com.

If you liked this article you can read more at Sacramento Photography Examiner.

For at least a decade most of the images we see on magazine covers, and in most advertising, have been manipulated. This probably doesn’t come as news to most of you, but I imagine we’d all be a bit shocked at how much and how often Photoshop is used.

For years we’ve seen studies and heard ample anecdotal evidence about how all these images distort our image of reality. 

Now there is one politician who wants to do something about it. Valarie Boyer, a member of the French parliament, has drafted a law that would require that all digitally altered photographs of people used in advertising be labeled as retouched. 

Click here for more information in the New York Times.

“Some think such a law would destroy photographic art; some think it might help reduce anorexia; some say the idea is aimed at the wrong target, given that nearly every advertising photograph is retouched. Others believe such a label might sensitize people to the fakery involved in most of the advertising images with which they’re bludgeoned.”

There are unanswerable ethical questions at stake here and manipulated images might be fairly low on our list of worries. (For example, it would be great to know if your financial advisor had your best interests at heart.)

However, it is undeniable the when we make decisions based on reality, we are better off. There is no reason adequate enough to cause potential body and image issues to our children. 

Those of us in the business of using photoshop have nothing to hide. We make changes at the clients request.  In fact, I want my own portrait manipulated. If I can look better, great! 

There are limits to this of course. Changes that aren’t subtle are easily recognizable to the people that know us.

Do you agree/disagree? Let us know in the comments.

Email the author at travis@manhartphotography.com or visit www.ManhartPhotography.com.

If you liked this article you can read more at Sacramento Photography Examiner.

As a photographer and Photoshop professional, I take great delight when I see Photoshop used to pull the wool over our eyes. Actually, what amuses me is when its used badly.

I frequent a blog full of Photoshop disasters, and was pleased to find this example.

See if you can spot the trick used on this listing. (Click Here to bring up a larger image).

The trick used here is called “cloning.” Cloning is used to copy a good part of an image and place it over a bad part of an image. For example, if you can find clear skin you can copy and paste that good skin over any blemish, including acne, and its subtle enough to not be noticed.

Cloning was used in this famous picture which got an AP Photographer fired, and its probably the most often badly used “trick”.

Have you spotted the trick yet? Look close at the grass. One spot of good grass was copied, and pasted over and over again to cover bad grass or bare lawn. Look for circles of repeating grass.

Do you agree/disagree? Let us know in the comments.

Email the author at travis@manhartphotography.com or visit www.ManhartPhotography.com.

Realtors call it “virtual staging.” This blog post from the National Associate of Realtors (NAR) explains… 

“Virtual staging is where you take an empty room and then digitally enhance it with furniture to make the space more inviting. For example, a stager may digitally add some artwork, chairs, tables and other items to liven up a vacant space, allowing buyers to see the potential of the home. The enhanced photos may then be used on the sales practitioner’s flyers, Web site, MLS and in advertisements for the listing.”

The whole point of this is to stage a home digitally at much less expense than actually bringing in new furniture and other items that don’t belong in the home.

NAR is aware that virtual staging needs to be handled with sensitivity. They’ve pointed out “virtual staging may be a violation of Article 12 of the Code of Ethics which requires that REALTORS® present a “true picture” in their advertising.”

I cant say I agree. Virtual staging is no different than staged pictures of a property that never actually existed in that state – using furniture or fixtures that aren’t present in the home and have never been there – is it really a “true picture” of the property?

There are a lot of ways to manipulate a photo, and some are much worse than others. If the end result of the manipulated picture is something you cant get to with a little paint a new couch, you’re probably taking it too far.

It may be much more troubling to remove something that doesn’t look good. A fine line has to be walked here, but it shouldnt be too hard to walk successfully.

Do you agree/disagree? Let us know in the comments.

Email the author at travis@manhartphotography.com or visit www.ManhartPhotography.com.

If you liked this article you can read more at Sacramento Photography Examiner.

The answer is… maybe not. 

Here’s a very short explanation. There are different level of HD. True high definition is currently 1080p, which means 1920 pixels (wide), by 1080 pixels (tall), and at least 30 frames per second (fps).

Most of the camera’s you buy at a retailer today will not actually take HD video at the 30 frames per second you need so that video doesn’t look choppy.

Here’s and example… Flip video offers an “HD” camera (which is a very fun little camera), but its not really HD. It offers a 1280×720 capture, which falls far short of HD. The Flip HD does capture 30 frames per second, (better than most at that size), but the 30 fps is still a little choppy.

The Flip is a good example because even though its HD video is better than most, it’s still not HD. The reason there’s so much confusion on the subject is that High Definition is a moving target. TV’s get better, and the standard changes.

Now for the good news. Even though it’s not true HD, it still looks very good. Sometimes the best camera is the camera that is convenient enough to carry with you all the time. If that means it has to be small enough to be in your purse or pocket, so be it.

With that being said, there are certain laws of physics that cant be overcome. If you can carry a bigger camera, generally, its a better camera. The more light a lens can gather, the better the end image. That means big lenses are better (all things considered). A tiny pocket camera simply cant compete with that big black unit you see the professional walking around with.

Buy the camera that will allow you to use it as much as possible… as big or as small as it needs to be.

Be wary of the claims on the box. Make sure they are giving you very specific numbers. Usually if their hype matches the specifications, they’ll be very open and up front with the numbers. 

Last but not least… no matter what the salesman/genius/expert at the electronics store says, do the research yourself. There are a number of great websites where you can find good, reliable information.

Try DPReview, or DCResource.

If you have a question about a specific camera, feel free to email me at travis@manhartphotography.com or visit www.ManhartPhotography.com.

If you liked this article you can read more at Sacramento Photography Examiner.