Blue, Black, White, or Gold dress

The internet meme of the coloured dress and the strange way so many people disagree on the colour is something known to photographers as white balance.

It is the way we see colour, and the fact we always see it in context of surroundings and lighting.

XKCD did a nice example in https://xkcd.com/1492/

The dresses are identical, the background makes all the difference.

A lot of the photographs I take are done under AWB (Automatic White Balance), as that usually works out the right white balance to apply. However, I was shocked in a recent blog post when I included the picture here..

That is blue, a rather nice shade of blue. In fact, I have a blue of that shade in stock even, though not in PLA. It is nice, but it is not reality. The cube was in fact green. It did not matter for the blog post so I left it, but it is one of the few occasions where AWB has got it way wrong.

Basically the colour of my worktop/desk around it was the culprit. I set a fixed 5200K WB and took another shot of the same cube...

This is much closer to reality, but perhaps not quite as dark a green as it should be - at least it is green! Of course, some of that is how my monitor displays the image.

Interestingly, taking a picture of the cube against my monitor looks good.

Isn't colour a fun thing :-)

Canon EOS 1DX MkII

The new Canon EOS 1DX MkII is finally with us. It was meant to be released some time in April I think. Sadly York Cameras closed down a few years ago, so I ordered from Calumet in April, and was on their waiting list. Oddly being a CPS Platinum member no longer helps - why Canon?

They were told various dates by Canon, including end of May, and then 6th June, and then maybe end of June.

I was hoping to try the new camera out on my LA/Vegas trip (7th), and on the wedding blessing (26th) and I was getting rather concerned that it would not arrive in time.

So, I went to LA without my new camera. Surely, if anywhere would have it, then that would be Hollywood!

The concierge at the W Hollywood was very good, calling round camera shops. Best Buy claimed to have them available to collect in store on the Friday (10th) if you ordered. The Canon USA on-line store said in-stock for delivery before we left (6th). But I was very reluctant to order one whilst in the US in case it did not arrive on the promised day and I ended up without it, having paid.

Samy's Cameras have several stores in the area, and one in Hollywood said they would have one in on the Friday (10th). As we did not drive to Vegas until the Saturday, that was the plan.

So on the Friday we went to Samy's Cameras. An impressive camera store! They did not have one, and were puzzled that someone told us they would! They said they had one in the warehouse and could have it dropped in to the store later that day - yay! They took my number (which was tricky as none of us knew our US numbers on our holiday SIMs). I asked about the new WiFi adapter and he checked and only then said "Oh, we don't have the camera in the warehouse". Not impressed.

Anyway, we asked if any other stores had them, and he said no. So we went to Universal and ate at Bubba Gump (they do chicken too). Anyway, when we came back the concierge said they had found one, in Samy's Cameras in Pasadena! (So much for no other stores having them, FFS). However, someone was buying it, but his card was not working! But now they were shut. We should have given her our number!

We went there on the Saturday on the way to the I15, waited for them to open, and yes, they did indeed have one the day before, and the guy's card had failed, but he had come back at 5:30pm and it worked and that was the only one they had. We had missed it by half a day all because of the apparently totally inept sales assistant in the Samy's in Hollywood.

OK, off to Vegas. Again, not keen to order as only in Vegas a few days, but Best Buy says they can get one ordered to the store for Wednesday. We fly back on Wednesday. My plan was to order one on the Monday and see if we can pay for it to be expressed for Tuesday instead.

Thankfully, by the time I got up on Monday, PDT, it was afternoon in the UK and Calumet had emailed saying they had them in at last and mine was shipped for Tuesday at the office in the UK. So no need to go to Best Buy, phew. I decided against DHLing it to Vegas.

Now I am back, I have had a bit of a play with it. The offer of a CFast card does not work - having completed the on-line form it insisted a mandatory field is not completed, but does not say which (and they all are). No reply from their support people yet. Maybe the offer is a scam?

Anyway, first impression of the 1DX MkII...

It works well, and is very much like the 1DX. The built in GPS is very good - one of the main features I wanted as I like geo-tagged pictures, and had the GPS module on the 1DX all the time, meaning I rarely took a flash anywhere. Whilst it is very good in low light the flash is a useful addition to some pictures, obviously, and I was having to choose flash or GPS. Oddly the inbuilt GPS is not quite as good - struggles to lock in doors, and has no compass. Why the downgrade Canon?

Another really annoying feature is that unlike the 1DX, the wifi disables auto-power-off! I used to leave the camera switched on. It would auto power off and use no power so would be fine even if not used for weeks to just pic up and take a picture. If in the office or my house it would also immediately upload the picture via wifi. Then, on auto power off the wifi goes off.

Now, I have to faff with turning wifi on and off (in a menu) or turn the camera off, which is a total faff. Also, the GPS in mode 2 carries on checking occasionally when auto power off, but this seems to have no back off or time limit, which means it too will drain the battery after a few days. If I go for the "turn it off" option, then that loses the GPS lock and takes ages to get it again, so I want the auto power off for that, meaning I have to faff with turning wifi on and off. To make it worse, on the 1DX you could use the "transfer on SET" feature when wifi was off - it would turn the wifi on and send the selected images. That would not be a bad compromise, but guess what - that does not work on the 1DX MkII.

These are simple things, but really, why the backwards step Canon? Just make it work, make it auto power off, and back off  the GPS, to zero power usage if left on. Reading some comments on line I am not alone in leaving the camera on, ready to take pictures with no messing about.

Also disappointing that the wifi is not built in yet - it is possible to squeeze wifi on to an SD card even, so why not build in to the camera?

As for focus speed, image quality, etc. I need to do more playing with it. It seems good. The video is easier to do than on the 1DX. Maybe a follow up post on the actual photography aspects in due course.

P.S. One small puzzlement - it is specified as approx 20.2M effective pixels, but the images are 5472x3648 which is 19961856 pixels, so not even 20M.

Photographing children

Interesting article here on police intimidation in the UK.

Basically a reporter taking a couple of pictures for a story, having identified himself as a reporter, from a public street, where a school was evacuated because of a bomb scare.

The police intimidated him in to deleting the pictures!

The odd thing is some of the reaction on twitter. Some people seem to think that taking pictures of children is illegal. The police officers suggested the pictures may be for "personal use" and that somehow that made their request for the images to be deleted valid.

Now, let's put this in context. I do not think that even pedophiles find images of normal fully clothed children arousing. If they did, then they just need to get a copy of the Mothercare catalogue to be happy. And bear in mind that people see children in public places all the time. If someone finding a fully clothed child arousing was somehow a "harm" to that child, you could not take children out in public at all, just in case. Do consider, just going shopping with them, many CCTV cameras are taking a picture of your kids 25 times a second.

But just think about it - I bet every parent of every kid there has pictures of those children for "personal reasons" and did not for one second think that in some way wrong or illegal. I have loads of pictures of my kids and grandchildren, even with no clothes on! Bear in mind the vast majority of child sex abuse is by family members, so that is not an irrelevant comparison by any means.

This is nothing to do with pedophiles whatsoever. This is a lot to do with police state intimidation of the press!

I am shocked that any reporter caved in to this - but I can appreciate the police can be intimidating. That is the problem, after all. Personally, I hope I would have had the nerve to ask:-

"Either my taking these pictures is a crime, in which case you are asking me to destroy evidence of a crime, or it is not, in which case I can go about my business without intimidation from you. Which is it?"

Maybe I would not have the nerve. At best I would turn off, and hence lock, the phone and offer it to them to either use as evidence to charge me or to return later with an apology - and then leave the scene.

The fun part is that the technology is already changing, and I am surprised any reporter with any clue is not already set up to auto-upload all photos to his editor in real time as a matter of course. That solves the issue with a "sorry mate, already in the cloud, nothing I can do".

One thing someone asked if whether the "press" are special, and for the most part they are not. The freedom of the press is a basic principle of any free and democratic society, but everyone is allowed to take pictures in public, pretty much. The press do, however, have some exceptions in the Data Protection Act to cover public interest where personal information is involved, so the fact kids may be identifiable from such pictures would not be an issue when published.

So the problem goes away with technology, thankfully. But this does not address the total paranoia of people that think anyone with a camera is up to no good. We all have eyes, and can see what we can see in public - using a camera is not a big step from that and is legal and normal and sensible. I hope that the fact that almost all of us now carry several cameras all the time is going to change that paranoia.

P.S. As a courtesy I did check my daughter was happy for these pictures of my grandson to be published. The original taking of these pictures was not seen as any issue by me or her though.

Signal #IPBill

Signal is a simple app for your phone - and you should install it and use it?

Why? well, for one simple reason it allows both iPhones and Android to message each other using data and not SMS or MMS. It also allows calls via data.

But the real reason is privacy - what you send and receive or say using signal is private.

It is free and literally took a matter of seconds to install and start using. It ties in to your phone number and contacts and just works.

But wait a second! Encryption is difficult because of validating keys. People have "key signing parties" for things like PGP email. How can you tell the person you are talking to is the person you think they are?

Well, signal actually makes that easy too - you can easily, when you meet someone, point your phone at their screen and it reads a fingerprint of their key and checks it matches. If ever it changes later the phone will tell you that there is a problem.

They make privacy simple, and the Investigatory Powers Bill has nothing in it to allow snooping on your texts and calls in the network, when using Signal. It does not outlaw using Signal either (would be hard to without outlawing https for access to banks too). As worded now it could try to order this non UK company to put in a back door, and they are pretty guaranteed to tell them to sod off. The source code is available and inspectable so even if they were compelled to comply it would be obvious.

You can even secure the message archive in the phone independently to any encryption the phone offers.

So, download, install and use Signal - why not?

As used by members of the House of Lords to protect their privacy...

Will Govnt allow companies to offer communications services which can't be read?

In spite of saying that I had not made clear what I was asking the government to actually do, they have now published my revised petition which is the same but says I am asking them to answer a question.

Please sign https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120148



So let's try and get a straight answer shall we?

Photographing kids

Lewis having fun

My wife and I took our two grandchildren to Hobbledown farm this week. It is set up very well for young children, and they both had a great time. They were totally worn out by the end of the day (and so was I, by lunch time). There was one small incident where the cafe served toast on mouldy bread and then had a "couldn't give a shit" attitude, but the site management were horrified and gave us a ticket to come back - for which Sandra has vowed to bring a picnic! However, it was a fun day.

As I do not get the chance to have a day out with the grandchildren often, I took my camera.

Now, I know that taking photographs is not a crime, and that (in general) taking photographs in public, of the public, and even of children, is not illegal. I was, however, keen to avoid any issues with paranoid parents. As private land they can make rules on such things as a condition of entry, but seem to have no restrictions, and even seem to encourage photos and video in competitions, which is good.

I suspect that I am the one being paranoid here. I get the impression from news stories that the public, and some of those in authority, think of photographers as some sort of terrorists or pedophiles, and to be treated with suspicion. It is a tad ironic that I am far more concerned about backlash against my using a camera than I am about either terrorists or pedophiles ever being an issue for any of my family.

I had no hassle. I saw one other parent with a good camera (well, a Nikon, but you get the idea :-) ).

Bobby taking pictures on a DS

Even so, it is a tad ironic (am I using that word correctly here?) that if parents are concerned over some random person taking pictures of their kids, they might look at those of us with a good camera. With a typical phone camera you will have a wide angle shot with a small aperture (especially as it wass sunny) and get loads of other kids in sharp focus. With a good camera I think I managed to only take shots which have no other children clearly visible (either zoomed in to one subject or shallow depth of field to blur background).

One possible factor was my jacket. I have a high visibility jacket which I use when cycling, and I was mistaken for someone "official" a few times (e.g. asking directions). That said, I did wonder what one would have printed on a hi-vi jacket to warrant taking photographs and the best I could come up with was "FORENSICS", but my wife won't let me put that on my jacket, sadly. It almost certainly helps that I was not seeming to be taking pictures of random kids.

So, maybe people are not as paranoid about photography as I thought. I hope that is the case.