Adobe Photoshop Hits Twenty
Community Celebrates Software that Changed the Way We View the World

SAN JOSE, Calif., – Feb. 18, 2010 – Adobe® Photoshop®, the software product that redefined creativity in the digital age, turns 20 on Feb. 19, 2010.

Around the world, Photoshop fans are celebrating the impact their favorite software has had across photography, art, design, publishing and commerce.

In the United States, the National Association of Photoshop Professionals (NAPP) will be hosting a special Photoshop 20th Anniversary celebration for over a thousand attendees in San Francisco at the Palace of the Fine Arts Theater today.

The event will feature Adobe’s senior vice president of Creative Solutions, John Loiacono, as well as vice president of Photoshop Product Management, Kevin Connor, Photoshop co-creator Thomas Knoll and famed Adobe creative director and Photoshop evangelist, Russell Brown. To be a part of this celebration and view the live Webcast, visit: www.photoshopuser.com/photoshop20th.

The festivities continue overseas in Japan, Southeast Asia and throughout Europe.

In honor of the 20th anniversary, Adobe Germany will host a special 20-hour online marathon, featuring over 15 local Photoshop “gurus” demonstrating their favorite tips and tricks live for Photoshop fans. In India and France, digital imaging contests will be held to showcase the work of Photoshop users.

A special Adobe TV broadcast will also air on the anniversary date at http://tv.adobe.com/go/photoshop-20th-anniversary, reuniting the original “Photoshop team” for the first time in 18 years, to discuss their early work on the software and demonstrate Photoshop 1.0 on a rebuilt Macintosh computer.

The Photoshop community is also sharing their favorite stories online, with the product and its over 400,000 fan-strong Facebook page, the hub for a worldwide look at the product’s impact. A new “Celebrate” tab directs users to a 20th anniversary logo, which many have already personalized with Photoshop and used as a replacement for their profile image. Connect with the Photoshop team at www.facebook.com/Photoshop or http://twitter.com/photoshop, and add the tag #PS20 to tweets about the anniversary.

“For 20 years Photoshop has played many different roles – it has given creative people the power to deliver amazing images that impact every part of our visual culture and challenged the eye with its ability to transform photographs,” said Shantanu Narayen, president and chief executive officer at Adobe. “It’s no exaggeration to say that, thanks to millions of creative customers, Photoshop has changed the way the world looks at itself.”

The impact of Photoshop is everywhere – billboard signs, magazine covers, major motion pictures, even the logo on the coffee cup you drink out of every morning. All have likely been touched by the software. Over 90 percent of creative professionals have Photoshop on their desktops and today Photoshop is used by professional photographers, graphic designers and advertisers, as well as architects, engineers and even doctors. Whether it’s bringing visual effects to life in the blockbuster film Avatar, helping save lives in partnership with forensics departments and the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or challenging the human eye to determine if an image is real or fake, Photoshop continues to find new uses and advocates.

How It All Began
In 1987, Thomas Knoll developed a pixel imaging program called Display. It was a simple program to showcase grayscale images on a black-and-white monitor. However, after collaborating with his brother John Knoll, the two began adding features that made it possible to process digital image files. The program eventually caught the attention of industry influencers, and in 1988, Adobe made the decision to license the software, naming it Photoshop, and shipping the first version in 1990.

“Twenty years ago, Adobe predicted that it would sell 500 copies of Photoshop per month,” said Thomas Knoll, co-creator of Photoshop at Adobe. “I guess you could say, we beat those projections! It’s amazing to think that millions of people use this software today. We knew we had a groundbreaking technology on our hands, but we never anticipated how much it would impact the images we see all around us. The ability to seamlessly place someone within an image was just the beginning of Photoshop’s magic.”

Over its 20-year history, Photoshop has evolved significantly from a simple original display program to a wildly popular application that has over 10 million users worldwide. With each release, Adobe has introduced technological innovations that defy the impossible. Layers, introduced in Photoshop 3.0, gave designers the ability to create complex compositions easier than ever before. The Healing Brush, another groundbreaking feature introduced in Photoshop 7.0, allowed users to magically retouch images by seamlessly removing blemishes and wrinkles, while preserving lighting and texture. Photoshop tools like crop, eraser, blur and dodge and burn have become part of the creative vernacular worldwide.

The Photoshop team thrives off its rich beta tester program, with active and vocal users who have submitted requests and helped shape the development of features throughout the years. Adobe has maintained a strong connection with its customer base through blogs, user research, customer support, forums and feedback from Adobe “evangelists” who travel the world to engage with Photoshop users.

Helpful Links
National Association of Photoshop Professionals (NAPP) Photoshop 20th Anniversary Celebration: www.photoshopuser.com/photoshop20th

Adobe TV Photoshop 20th Anniversary Broadcast: http://tv.adobe.com/go/photoshop-20th-anniversary

Photoshop Facebook Page: www.facebook.com/Photoshop

Photoshop Facebook Page: www.facebook.com/Photoshop

Photoshop Twitter: http://twitter.com/photoshop

Photoshop Family Page: www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family

Adobe Photoshop Family
Building upon Photoshop’s history of innovation and leadership, Adobe offers a line of Photoshop desktop and Web-hosted solutions for every level of user. Each product in the Photoshop family gives users across the spectrum of digital expertise the power to manage, edit, create and showcase images.

Photoshop CS4 and Photoshop CS4 Extended software are at the heart of the Photoshop family, providing unrivaled power and editing freedom. Photoshop Lightroom(r) addresses the workflow needs of serious amateur and professional photographers, helping them find, manage, enhance and showcase images in powerful ways. Photoshop Elements software provides accessible tools and sharing options for photo enthusiasts. Snap-shooters can quickly and easily share and edit photos with simple gestures on their iPhone or Android devices. Photoshop.com completes the Photoshop line providing an online photo sharing, editing and hosting resource for all.

About Adobe Systems Incorporated
Adobe revolutionizes how the world engages with ideas and information – anytime, anywhere and through any medium. For more information, visit www.adobe.com.

It seems some people see Conspiracy Theories where there really aren’t any. To address some users’ question Scott Kelby took the “easy way” out and did a video with Matt Kloskowski and talked about the timing of Lightroom 2, Photoshop CS4 with Camera Raw 5. I say “easy way” because it was easier for Scott and Matt to sit around talking than having to actually write (his words, not mine).

So check this post out (and watch the video if the mood strikes you–post comments on SCOTT’s blog, not here). Lightroom 2 vs. CS4 & Lightroom Conspiracy Theories

Source: The New York Times blogs
Written by Errol Morris

As almost everyone knows by now, various major daily newspaper published, on July 10, a photograph of four Iranian missiles streaking heavenward; then Little Green Footballs (significantly, a blog and not a daily newspaper) provided evidence that the photograph had been faked. Later, many of those same papers published a Whitman’s sampler of retractions and apologies. For me it raised a series of questions about images.[1] Do they provide illustration of a text or an idea of evidence of some underlying reality or both? And if they are evidence, don’t we have to know that the evidence is reliable, that it can be trusted?

Hany Farid, a Dartmouth professor and an expert on digital photography, has published a number of journal articles and a recent Scientific American article on digital photographic fraud. He seemed to be a good person to start with. If a photograph has been tampered with, he’

s the person to analyze how the tampering has been done. I wanted to discuss with him the issue of the Iranian photograph starting with the issue of why we trust photographs in the first place.

Read entire post

Reinterpretation of photographs presented by Colin Powell, by Daniel Mooney.

Additional excerpt:
There is a larger point. I don’t know what these buildings were really used for. I don’t know whether they were used for chemical weapons at one time, and then transformed into something relatively innocuous, in order to hide the reality of what was going on from weapons inspectors. But I do know that the yellow captions influence how we see the pictures. “Chemical Munitions Bunker” is different from “Empty Warehouse” which is different from “International House of Pancakes.”

The image remains the same but we see it differently.

Change the yellow labels, change the caption and you change the meaning of the photographs. You don’t need Photoshop. That’s the disturbing part. Captions do the heavy lifting as far as deception is concerned. The pictures merely provide the window-dressing. The unending series of errors engendered by falsely captioned photographs are rarely remarked on. –E.M.]

Written by Mike Nizza and Patrick Witty

The image that Agence France-Presse obtained from Sepah News on Wednesday.

As news spread across the world of Iran’s provocative missile tests, so did an image of four missiles heading skyward in unison. Unfortunately, it appeared to contain one too many missiles, a point that had not emerged before the photo appeared on the front pages of The Los Angeles Times, The Financial Times, The Chicago Tribune and several other newspapers as well as on BBC News, MSNBC, Yahoo! News, NYTimes.com and many other major news Web sites.

Another image that The Associated Press received from the same source on Thursday.

Agence France-Presse said that it obtained the image from the Web site of Sepah News, the media arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, on Wednesday. But there was no sign of it there later in the day. Today, The Associated Press distributed what appeared to be a nearly identical photo from the same source, but without the fourth missile.

Read entire story

Editor’s Note: Even from the small images above, it’s obvious to anybody who knows anything about digital imaging, that the image has been altered. Aside from the cloned clouds of dust, the sky surrounding the 4th missile obviously doesn’t blend naturally. Clearly Sepah News service doesn’t employ the best Photoshop artists…file this one under OOOPS!  

Source: Bermama.com
BEIJING, Feb 18 (Bernama) — An award-winning photographer in Tibetan antelope protection has apologised to the public for a picture he faked showing more than 20 of the animals roaming peacefully under a railway bridge where a train was passing, Xinhua news agency reported Monday.

“I’ve carefully read through all the Internet postings about the picture, which I’m ready to say, was modified with Photoshop software,” wrote Liu Weiqiang, 41, on a forum of xitek.com, a website for photographer, on Saturday.

A posting appeared on the same forum last Friday pointing out three evidences to show Liu’s photo was fabricated.

Read entire story

Who We Are: The UPDIG Working Group is an ad-hoc industry consortium of nonprofit associations, digital imaging professionals and allied trade groups and manufacturers, dedicated to promoting worldwide standards in the commercial application of digital imaging.

Vision Statement: Our industry is in a state of great change, and established ways of making and working with photographs have been supplanted by entirely new ones. The enormous capabilities and efficiencies of digital capture and delivery have revolutionized the image marketplace at an astounding rate. But they have also created gaps in creative and quality control that have frequently led to confusion, inequities, loss of quality, and unnecessary expense. We recognize the need for worldwide imaging quality and delivery standards that will facilitate reliable and repeatable image reproduction

The work-product of the film-based photographer — the transparency or print — has served as the capture and storage medium, as well as the primary vehicle for color/colour management throughout the entire supply chain. The lack of the transparency or reference print has left a void in the image-quality control chain that can only be filled by integrated color/colour management according to accepted ICC workflows.

As the foundation of the image supply chain, it is essential that photographers establish and adhere to the best practices of color/colour management. Further, it is essential that entire imaging supply chain implement these practices. We plan to identify terminology and workflow for each stage of image creation and delivery. Through these guidelines, we will ensure that color / colour will be as accurate as possible, enhancing creative control and economic efficiency

It’s important to note here that integrated color/colour management (ICC / ICM) is a mature, proven technology that is already used by many imaging professionals. This effort is to ensure that the adoptation of these best practices will happen as quickly and easily as possible.

Mission Statement: Our mission is to bring the creators, distributors, customers, and other vendors in the imaging trades together to identify and promote digital imaging standards. We will identify a delivery protocol that promotes creative and quality control, and builds value and efficiency.

Version 2.0 – The Universal Photographic Digital Imaging Guidelines

These 12 guidelines — provided as a Quick Guide plus an in-depth Complete Guide — aim to clarify the issues affecting accurate reproduction and management of digital image files. Although they largely reflect a photographer’s perspective, anyone working with digital images should find them useful. The guidelines have three primary goals:

• Digital images should look the same as they transfer between devices, platforms and vendors.
• Digital images should be prepared in the correct resolution, at the correct size, for the device(s) on which they will be viewed or printed.
• Digital images should have metadata embedded that conforms to the IPTC standards, thereby making the images searchable, providing usage and contact information, and stating their creators or copyright owners.

Files For Downloading:
The PDF of the UPDIG Guidelines for desktop printing (1.2 MB)
The PDF of the UPDIG Guidelines for offset printing (2.2 MB)

Historians can request version 1 by writing to info@updig.org.

How to Join: For access to the discussion forum for this initiative, please contact UPDIG and indicate the trade organization or group that you are representing.

News photographers routinely process images using Adobe Photoshop software. But there has been a basic premise in the world of photojournalism that what was allowed in making prints in the pre-digital days of darkrooms is all that is acceptable today.

Back in the days of the darkroom, we used very basic tools to develop prints. In black and white printing, the contrast of a picture was controlled by a paper’s grade. The higher the number of the paper, the higher the contrast. In the wire agency darkooms I’ve worked in, we typically used grades 3,4 and 5. We allowed “dodge and burn” to lighten or darken areas. A dodge tool was made by taping a small piece of cardboard the size of a quarter onto a paper clip. A burn tool was a piece of cardboard the size of an 8×10 sheet of paper with a hole in the center. If a print had dust spots caused by a dirty negative, we used Spotone, a photographic paint that was dabbed onto a print with a very fine paint brush to eliminate the unsightly marks.

One other tool that was allowed when printing color pictures was changing color balance. This was done by placing filters between the light source of the enlarger and the paper that the image was being printed on.

When we moved to scanning negatives and then to shooting digital, we began using Photoshop. This program allows us to do the same things we did in the darkroom. Changes in contrast, dodging and burning and color balance are now done with software. The most controversial tool in Photoshop that we use is the cloning tool. The only accepted use of this tool is to clear dust from the image. We have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to using the cloning tool to change content, and by that we mean removing something that exists in a photo, moving or replicating it or adding to a photo.

The tools we use in Photoshop are levels, curves and saturation for changing contrasts; and, color balance to bring the image back to the way the natural eye would see the color. Here is what we tell our photographers in the Handbook of Reuters Journalism.

Photoshop is a highly sophisticated image manipulation programme. We use only a tiny part of its potential capability to format our pictures, crop and size them and balance the tone and colour. For us it is a presentational tool.

The rules are – no additions or deletions, no misleading the viewer by manipulation of the tonal and colour balance to disguise elements of an image or to change the context.

Photoshop is a powerful image processing program with many more tools to help photographers produce the best quality image they can for the type of photography they do. There is not a Photoshop program for use by news photographers and another for advertising, where image-changing is tolerated. What we in the news photo community need to regulate is what tools are used for photojournalism and what are not.

Read the original post and comments.

Altered image on left, original on right

Global Picture Editor Tom Szlukovenyi called the measure precautionary but said the fact that two of the images by photographer Adnan Hajj had been manipulated undermined trust in his entire body of work.

“There is no graver breach of Reuters standards for our photographers than the deliberate manipulation of an image,” Szlukovenyi said in a statement.

“Reuters has zero tolerance for any doctoring of pictures and constantly reminds its photographers, both staff and freelance, of this strict and unalterable policy.”

The Reuters Picture Kill Advisory

The news and information agency announced the decision in an advisory note to its photo service subscribers. The note also said Reuters had tightened editing procedures for photographs from the conflict and apologized for the case.

Removing the images from the Reuters database excludes them from future sale.

Reuters ended its relationship with Hajj on Sunday after it found that a photograph he had taken of the aftermath of an Israeli air strike on suburban Beirut had been manipulated using Photoshop software to show more and darker smoke rising from buildings.

An immediate enquiry began into Hajj’s other work.

It established on Monday that a photograph of an Israeli F-16 fighter over Nabatiyeh, southern Lebanon and dated Aug 2, had also been doctored to increase the number of flares dropped by the plane from one to three.

“Manipulating photographs in this way is entirely unacceptable and contrary to all the principles consistently held by Reuters throughout its long and distinguished history. It undermines not only our reputation but also the good name of all our photographers,” Szlukovenyi said.

Read entire story

Additional news about this story:
Reuters admits altering Beirut photo via ynet
Adnan Hajj isn’t even trying anymore via The Shape of Days
Reuters Doctoring Photos from Beirut? via little green footballs
Reuters purges photo database via Guardian Unlimited
Roto-Reuters: News Service Flushed Out for Faked Pic via The Powers That Be
Another Fake Reuters Photo from Lebanon via The Jawa Report
Reuters says Mideast photographer doctored shots via CNN 

See the PhotoshopNews story Kate doesn’t like Photoshop – Digital Ethics

Source: Los Angeles Times Calendar Live
By Steven Barrie-Anthony, Times Staff Writer

Steal a toddler’s lollipop and he’s bound to start bawling, was photographer Jill Greenberg’s thinking. So that’s just what Greenberg did to illicit tears from the 27 or so 2- and 3-year-olds featured in her latest exhibition, “End Times“, recently at the Paul Kopeikin Gallery in Los Angeles. The children’s cherubic faces, illuminated against a blue-white studio backdrop, suggest abject betrayal far beyond the loss of a Tootsie Pop; sometimes tears spill onto naked shoulders and bellies.

The work depicts how children would feel if they knew the state of the world they’re set to inherit, explained Greenberg, whose own daughter is featured in the show. “Our government is so corrupt, with all the cronyism and corporate lobbyists,” she said. “I just feel that our world is being ruined. And the environment — when I was pregnant, I kept thinking that I’d love to have a tuna fish sandwich, but I couldn’t because we’ve ruined our oceans.”

“End Times” debuted in Los Angeles in April (a portion was previously posted to the gallery site, ), and soon thereafter an Internet brouhaha broke out that has continued to this day. Bloggers such as Andrew Peterson called Greenberg’s lollipop technique abusive and exploitative, while Greenberg, her husband, Robert Green, and gallery owner Paul Kopeikin defended the work, the process and one another. The conversation, cycling between rational and hyperbolic, says as much about Net communication as about the art in question.

“Jill Greenberg is a Sick Woman Who Should Be Arrested and Charged With Child Abuse,” Peterson wrote under his pseudonym Thomas Hawk at ThomasHawk.com, a blog that focuses on new media and technology. For Peterson, Greenberg’s technique was “evil.”

“When the Michael Jackson trial was going on, people kept saying, ‘What kind of parents would let their child spend the night alone in a room with Michael Jackson?’ ” wrote Peterson, an investment advisor from San Francisco. “It seemed absurd. And it seems absurd that any parent who loved their child would purposefully take their children to Greenberg’s studio to then be tormented to the point of emotional outrage.”

Green responded with an e-mail that Peterson appended to his blog: “I’m married to the artist in question. With that said, some facts: Jill did not ‘abuse’ the children…. The parents were there monitoring the whole time. This is the exact technique used in ads and movies and TV.” Cordial at first, but later, on his own blog, AnotherGreenWorld.blogspot.com, Green wrote of Peterson: “He has no morals, no ethics, nothing that would make me recognize him as a fellow human being.”

Read entire article

LIVINGSTON, MT (April 20, 2006) – The National Park Service, a branch of the U.S. Department of the Interior, has published new rules authorizing the NPS to begin collecting location fees for video, film, and commercial still photography projects. The new regulations appeared in the Federal Register (Vol. 71, Number 71) published April 13, 2006, and will take effect on May 15, 2006.

The news came in the form of a press release issued Friday by the NPS Office of Public Affairs saying that they will now implement “location fees for commercial filming and still photography.” Currently film and video permits are required in National Parks but there have not been location fees until now. Administration charges to issue the free permits have ranged from no cost at all up to $200 per project.

“This is a first step in a process of departmental regulations that will apply to the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,” Lee Dickinson, special use coordinator for the National Park Service, told News Photographer magazine today.

The new location fees start at $150 per day and – with monitors and other charges – could exceed $500 per day.

The new rules are modeled after the existing film permit regulations and fee structures that are used by the Bureau of Land Management and now will be applied to all federally operated National Parks.

Read entire article

Text of the notice shown below:

[Federal Register: April 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 71)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19127-19129]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13ap06-15]

================

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary

43 CFR Part 5

RIN 1093-AA10

Making Pictures, Television Productions, or Sound Tracks on
Certain Areas Under the Jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary is revising regulations found at
43 CFR 5.1 to allow implementation of legislation that directs the
establishment of a reasonable fee for commercial filming activities or
similar projects and still photography where a permit is required.

DATES: Effective Date: April 13, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Dickinson, Special Park Uses
Program Manager, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW., ORG CODE
2460, Washington, DC 20240, telephone: 202-513-7092, or e-mail:
Lee_Dickinson@nps.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Law 106-206 (codified at 16 U.S.C.
460l-6d) directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to
establish a reasonable fee system (referred to as a location fee in
this publication) for commercial filming and still photography
activities on lands under the Secretaries’ jurisdiction.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) regulations at 43 CFR part 5
prohibit the National Park Service (NPS) from collecting fees “for the
making of motion pictures, television productions or sound tracks * * *
”. The Office of the Secretary is revising the current regulation by
removing the prohibition.

Background

Lands of the United States were set aside by Congress or the
Executive Branch to conserve and protect areas of untold beauty and
grandeur, historical importance, and uniqueness for future generations.
Often it is the uniqueness of the land that attracts filmmakers. This
tradition started with explorers who traveled with paint and canvas or
primitive photo apparatus before the areas were designated as a
national park, wildlife refuge, or forest. Generally, land management
agencies allow commercial filming and still photography when it is
consistent with their mission and will not harm the resource or
interfere with the visitor experience.
While many commercial filming and still photography permits issued
by the land management agencies are for small productions involving
educational material or commercial advertising, a significant number of
commercial filming permits have been issued to makers of major motion
pictures.
Public Law 106-206 specifically requires permits, reasonable fees
for use of federal lands and reimbursement of costs incurred by the
government as a result of both commercial filming and certain still
photography activities. Congress recognized in this law that when
commercial filming and certain

[[Page 19128]]

still photography activities are allowed on Federal lands, it is
necessary to manage the activity through a permitting process to
minimize the possibility of damage to the cultural or natural resources
or interference with other visitors to the area and the agencies will
incur costs in providing this management.

Key Issues

The Department of the Interior (DOI) regulations at 43 CFR part 5
which prohibit the NPS from collecting fees for commercial film
productions are in conflict with the Pub. L. 106-206. Therefore, to
implement the fee requirement of the law the Office of the Secretary is
revising the current regulation by removing the prohibition.
In June 2004, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) at the
request of some members of Congress began a review of NPS policy and
guidance related to issuing special use permits for special events and
for commercial filming and still photography. In a report issued May 6,
2005, the GAO concluded that the NPS could have collected and retained
at least $1.6 million in location fees for commercial filming and still
photography activities permitted on park lands if Pub. L. 106-206 had
been implemented. One recommendation of the report was that the NPS
“Expedite the implementation of the law that requires the Park Service
to collect location fees and costs for commercial filming and still
photography, when appropriate.”
In order to expedite the implementation of Pub. L. 106-206, the
Office of the Secretary will implement this final rule which will
remove from current regulations found in 43 CFR 5.1(b)(1) the statement
that prohibits the National Park Service from charging a fee “for the
making of motion pictures, television productions or sound tracks. * *
*” This rule will allow the NPS to charge fees during an interim
period while a Department-wide rule, which includes the Bureau of Land
Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is promulgated. The
Department-wide rule will establish a fee schedule specific to this
rule.

Compliance With Other Laws

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

This document is a significant rule and has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
(1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on
the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities.
(2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
(3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of
their recipients.
(4) While this rule follows the direction of Congress by
implementing the provisions of Public Law 106-206, OMB has determined
that the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior certifies that this rulemaking will
not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions.
c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per
year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

Takings (Executive Order 12630)

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have
significant takings implications.

Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
federalism assessment.

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed regulation requires individuals and companies wishing
to do commercial filming and still photography park lands to obtain a
permit from the superintendent managing the park land. The permit
holder is also responsible for reimbursing the agency for costs
incurred and to pay a land use fee. The mechanics of applying for the
permit and the forms involved are not addressed in this proposed
regulation, but are addressed in existing NPS regulations and internal
guidance. The NPS uses application forms NPS 10-931 (Film–Short Form)
and NPS 10-932 (Film–Long Form). Both forms are assigned OMB Control
Number 1024-0026 and expire December 31, 2006. Therefore, these
regulations do not contain information collection requirements that the
OMB must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment, health, and safety
because it is not expected to:
(a) Increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature
and character of the area or causing physical damage to it;
(b) Introduce noncompatible uses that might compromise the nature
and characteristics of the area, or cause physical damage to it;
(c) Conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses; or
(d) Cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants.
Based on this determination, the regulation is categorically
excluded from the procedural requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) by Departmental guidelines in 516 DM 6, (49 FR
21438). Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement has been prepared.
The location fee authorized by Public Law 106-206 and governed by
this proposed regulation is a fee collected when a permit is issued by
the NPS for a commercial filming or still photography activity. Any
analysis required by the NEPA, as well as the National Historic
Preservation Act, would be conducted in conjunction with the permitting
process and would

[[Page 19129]]

evaluate the impact of the requested activity on the resource.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with Executive Order 13175 “Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249), the
President’s memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government
Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22961), and
512 DM 2, we have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized
Indian tribes and have determined that there are no potential effects.

Clarity of This Regulation

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make
this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as
the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2)
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with
its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of
sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its
clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided
into more (but shorter) sections? (A “section” appears in bold type
and is preceded by the symbol “Sec. ” and a numbered heading; for
example Sec. 14.10 Purpose). (5) Is the description of the rule in the
“Supplementary Information” section of the preamble helpful in
understanding the proposed rule? What else could we do to make the rule
easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this
rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, DOI, Room
7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may also e-mail the
comments to this address: Exsec@ios.doi.gov

Administrative Procedure Act

In this rulemaking, we are revising existing regulations in order
to implement Public Law 106-206, a law to allow the Secretary of the
Interior to establish a fee system for commercial filming and certain
still photography activities on Federal land. The existing regulations
at 43 CFR 5.1 prohibit charging fees for these activities and the new
law, Public Law 106-206, (codified at 16 U.S.C. 4601-6d), requires the
Secretary to charge fees for these same activities. This rulemaking
will delete the prohibition in the existing regulation. Therefore, we
are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this
as a nondiscretionary revision that is required by law. We find good
cause, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and 553(d), that notice and public
procedure are unnecessary and this rule will take effect upon
publication. However later this year we will publish in the Federal
Register and request comments on a proposed rule on commercial filming
and still photography activities for Department of the Interior
agencies, including the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and Bureau of Land Management.

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 5

Motion pictures, Recordings, Television.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of the
Interior amends 43 CFR part 5 as follows:

PART 5–MAKING PICTURES, TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS OR SOUND TRACKS ON
CERTAIN AREAS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR

0
1. The authority for part 5 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also
issued under DC Code 8-137 (1981) and DC Code 40-721 (1981).

Sec. 5.1 [Amended]

0
2. Revise Sec. 5.1(b)(1) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) No fees will be charged for the making of motion pictures,
television productions or sound tracks on areas administered by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The regular general admission and other
fees currently in effect in any area under the jurisdiction of the
National Park Service are not affected by this paragraph.
* * * * *

Dated: April 6, 2006.
P. Lynn Scarlett,
Deputy Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 06-3529 Filed 4-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4312-52-P

OpenRAW Releases Initial Results of 2006 RAW Survey – Over 19,000 Photographers and Imaging Professionals Provide Data on their Experiences, Preferences, and Concerns regarding RAW Imaging Technology

Will the digital camera you buy tomorrow fairly serve the future of photography? Are today’s camera manufacturers making decisions that may adversely affect the preservation of photographic works for future generations? More than 19,000 digital photographers and preservationists from around the world have now weighed in with opinions on RAW imaging technology, a concept that many compare to a “digital negative.”

The OpenRAW initiative is a one-year-old international organization representing the interests of photographers and digital imaging practitioners. From January 31 to March 15, 2006, OpenRAW conducted an international online survey (http://www.OpenRAW.org/2006rawsurvey/) designed to give photographers and other interested parties a voice in the further development of RAW imaging technology. The response was outstanding. During the six-week 2006 RAW Survey, over 19,000 individuals – professional photographers, dedicated amateurs, and other imaging specialists – answered all 25 of the survey’s targeted questions. The average respondent had 19.5 years’ experience in photography.

Although RAW imaging technology is routinely discussed in photography forums, until now no systematic information had been gathered about the experiences, requirements, preferences, and concerns of users of digital images regarding RAW technology and its future. At the same time, many photographers and archivists believe that camera manufacturers are making important decisions about RAW image technology with little or no input from the people who buy and use their equipment, or who are involved in the preservation of photographic works.

“The massive changes that have occurred since the founding of OpenRAW only one year ago – continued proliferation of proprietary RAW formats, encryption of camera settings in RAW files, and the disappearance of camera brands from the market – have greatly increased uncertainty for photographers,” says Juergen Specht, leader of the RAW imaging advocacy group. “Unless RAW file contents are openly documented, no one – from photography’s top professionals to the family amateur – can be sure that their RAW images will be useable in the future.”

The 2006 RAW Survey responses have now been analyzed and a detailed report of the results will be published on the OpenRAW Web site (http://www.OpenRAW.org/) over a five-day period beginning on April 25, 2006.

These results will be released as follows:

*April 25th, 2006 – Chapter 1: Who responded to the 2006 RAW Survey?

*April 26th, 2006 – Chapter 2: Perceptions of the Advantages and Disadvantages of RAW Imaging Technology

*April 27th, 2006 – Chapter 3: Preferences about RAW Image File Conversion and Editing Software

*April 28th, 2006 – Chapter 4: Experiences, Beliefs, and Preferences Concerning RAW Imaging Technology

*April 29th, 2006 – Chapter 5: Preferences among Camera Features in a Hypothetical Camera Purchase Decision

Each chapter will be accompanied by a brief summary of responses to survey questions related to the topic covered. Additional analyses of survey results will be reported in a series of articles published at http://www.OpenRAW.org/.

“We believe that decisions by the digital photography industry should take account of the requirements and preferences of the photographers and those who make their living or pursue their artistic vision through this medium,” adds professional research statistician Calvin Jones, who developed the survey and analyzed responses. “OpenRAW will continue to share the results of this information gathering effort in the hope that we can serve the future of the art and craft of photography.”

The following organizations support OpenRAW and the 2006 RAW Survey:

AKVIS LLC (http://akvis.com)
Dave Coffin (http://cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/)
Foto.iFokus (http://foto.ifokus.se)
Digital Imaging and Photography Blog (http://imageering.blogspot.com/)
Luminous Landscape (http://luminous-landscape.com/)
PhotoShopNews (http://photoshopnews.com/)
Udi Fuchs (http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/)
Digital Photo Blog (http://volker.canalblog.com/)
350D (http://www.350d.org/)
Absolute Stock Photo (http://www.absolutestockphoto.com)
AKAM.NO (http://www.akam.no/)
Arkiv Inc. (http://www.Ar-kiv.com/)
Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org/)
Atlantic Software Exchange Inc. (http://www.atlanticsx.com/)
Beaux Arts Photography (http://www.beautiful-landscape.com)
Berufsfotografen.com (http://www.berufsfotografen.com)
Bibble Labs Inc (http://www.bibblelabs.com/)
DataRescue (http://www.datarescue.com/)
Digital Domain Inc. (http://www.ddisoftware.com/)
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Photographie (DGPh) (http://www.dgph.de/)
DPGR (Digital Photography in Greece) (http://www.dpgr.gr/)
dpMagic Software Inc. (http://www.dpmagic.com)
Digital Photography Review (DPReview) (http://www.dpreview.com/)
Dutchphotozone.com (http://www.dutchphotozone.com/)
DxO Labs (http://www.dxo.com/)
Dyxum (http://www.dyxum.com/)
Earthbound Light (http://www.earthboundlight.com)
European Color Initiative (ECI) (http://www.eci.org/)
Extensis Inc. (http://www.extensis.com/)
National Association of Professional Photographers – Italy
(http://www.fotografi.org)
Fototipp.hu (http://www.fototipp.hu/)
FREELENS (http://www.freelens.com/)
Glass Lantern LLC (http://www.glasslantern.com)
Petteri Kettunen (http://www.iki.fi/petterik/jpgind/jpgind.html)
Irfan Skiljan (http://www.irfanview.com/)
Iridient Digital Inc. (http://www.iridientdigital.com/)
Jaewook Chung (http://www.jaewookchung.com/ncfix)
Joneshouse (http://www.joneshouse.ca)
D1scussion (http://www.juergenspecht.com/lists/d1scussion/)
Lemke Software GmbH (http://www.lemkesoft.com/)
Molinaripixel (http://www.molinaripixel.com.ar)
MyFourThirds.com (http://www.myfourthirds.com)
NikonCafe (http://www.nikoncafe.com/)
Nikonians (http://www.nikonians.org/)
Outbackphoto.com (http://www.outbackphoto.com/)
Photolink.de (http://www.photolink.de)
Photos of the Year (http://www.photos-of-the-year.com/)
Pixmantec ApS (http://www.pixmantec.com/)
Leo Davidson (http://www.pretentiousname.com/jp2raw/index.html)
PRODIG (http://www.prodig.org/)
ProFotoSoftware Ltd (http://www.profotosoftware.com)
Pro Shooters LLC (http://www.proshooters.com/)
RAW.gr (http://www.raw.gr/)
Rawformat (http://www.rawformat.com/)
RawWorkflow.com (http://www.RawWorkflow.com/)
Script Software (http://www.scriptsoftware.com)
StockPhotoTalk (http://www.StockPhotoTalk.com)
Tidalwave (http://www.tidalwave.it/bluemarine/)
Vinland Corporation. (http://www.vinland.com/)

For more information please visit the OpenRAW web site: http://www.OpenRAW.org

Email: Juergen Specht, OR@OpenRAW.org or Calvin Jones, OR@OpenRAW.org

The problem
The U.S. Copyright Office issued its report on Orphan Works only a couple of weeks ago. The end of that report contained proposed language for an amendment to the Copyright Act. That proposal is now being fast-tracked in Washington with a good chance of passage before the end of this Session. In my opinion, if that language is enacted in its current form, it will be the worst thing that has happened to independent photographers and other independent visual artists since Work Made for Hire contracts.

Orphan works are basically works whose copyright owners cannot be located. The term “Orphan Works” is really a dangerously misleading phrase. It makes it sound as if it includes only a few works that are not valued enough by their creators to warrant taking care of them. That may be true for owners of many kinds of copyrights. However, the reality is that for independent photographers and illustrators, the majority of your published photographs may well become Orphan Works. The reason for that is that, unlike just about every other category of copyrighted works, photographs and illustrations are typically published without any copyright notice or credit to the photographer or illustrator. The one exception to that has traditionally been editorial uses, but even there the trend seems to be away from providing credit lines. As more and more photographs are published on the Internet, credits become even rarer. Worse, even if you registered your photographs at the Copyright Office, there is no mechanism for identifying you or your photograph or for locating you through those records, if the user does not know your name.

The full text of the Copyright Office proposal is in this PDF document; the rationale and the draft language for a bill is the very last section. (For your convenience, the draft language is reproduced here.) The supporting documents — appendices, public comments, roundtable transcripts — are on the Orphan Works page of the Copyright Office site.

Under the proposed legislation, a person or other entity who wants to use a copyrighted work is required to make only a “good faith, reasonably diligent search” to locate the copyright owner. If, after making such a search, the user is unable to locate the copyright owner, he/she/it gets an almost free license to use the work. If the copyright owner never comes forward, the user gets to use the work for free. Even if the copyright owner discovers the use and demands payment, the MOST the copyright owner can get is “reasonable compensation,” i.e. a reasonable license fee for the use actually made. There is NO possibility of statutory damages or attorneys’ fees, even if the work was registered before the use was made without your permission.

Wait, it gets worse: If the copyright owner discovers the use and demands payment, “where the infringement is performed without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage, such as through the sale of copies or phonorecords of the infringed work, and the infringer ceases the infringement expeditiously after receiving notice of the claim for infringement, no award of monetary relief shall be made.”

The fact that the potential compensation is so low presents a fatal impediment to collection: if you discover one of your works being used and demand only your reasonable licensing fee, but the person refuses to pay, you cannot afford to sue to collect the minimal amount to which you are entitled. Without the possibility of an award of attorneys’ fees or statutory damages, no lawyer would take your case; and if he or she did, you would end up paying far more legal fees than you could possibly collect.

The bottom line is that, even if you have done everything right, including registering your photographs immediately at the Copyright Office, every photograph that you publish may be up for grabs if it doesn’t have a published credit. Yes, people have to contact publishers to try to identify and locate you, but if that doesn’t produce your name and/or contact information for any reason, they may be entitled to a free, or almost free, pass.

The full text of the Copyright Office proposal is in this PDF document; the rationale and the draft language for a bill is the very last section. (For your convenience, the draft language is reproduced here.) The supporting documents — appendices, public comments, roundtable transcripts — are on the Orphan Works page of the Copyright Office site.

What we are doing
ASMP has formed a coalition of organizations which I am representing in connection with Orphan Works that includes the Graphic Artists Guild, the National Press Photographers Association, the Stock Artists Alliance, Advertising Photographers of America, Editorial Photographers, Professional Photographers of America, the Illustrators Partnership of America (which carries with it approximately 40 other organizations), and the Picture Archive Council of America (with their General Counsel Nancy Wolff). Some of the other photographers organizations that we have approached have not yet responded to us, so that list may grow.

Canadian photographers also have a considerable stake in the matter. The Canadian Association of Photographers and Illustrators in Communications (CAPIC) is working to educate its members about this threat.

Overseas photographers are also concerned with this issue. In the UK, the Association of Photographers Ltd (AOP), British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies (BAPLA), British Institute of Professional Photography, British Photographers’ Liaison Committee, Chartered Institute of Journalists, Design and Artists Copyright Society, National Union of Journalists, and Picture Researchers Association have joined the coalition. On the Continent, Pyramide Europe, Union des Photographers Créateurs (France), Association of Professional Photographers of Spain, Association of Swedish Professional Photographers and Finnfoto (Finland) have joined. Although their political clout is necessarily indirect, their economic interests are definitely at stake. Not only would an Orphan Works law change the nature of the U.S. market, but it could set up pressure for similar laws in other countries.

ASMP is working on the Hill to try to change this proposed legislation. We are also exploring possible non-legislative fixes. However, what we really need is letters from as many ASMP members as possible.

I try not to ask for member help unless it is really necessary because I don’t want our members to appear to legislators to be people who simply write on every issue, no matter how important or unimportant it might be. Right now, I am pleading with you to take action. This is a big one, gang, and we really need to work together here.

Thank you for your help,
Victor S. Perlman
General Counsel and Managing Director
American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. (ASMP)
150 North Second Street Philadelphia, PA 19106-1912
Phone: 215-451-ASMP Ext. 1207
Fax: 215-451-0880
E-mail: perlman@asmp.org
URL: http://www.asmp.org

ASMP has posted a draft leter and has a list of Senate Judiciary Committee members on this special announcement page.

The Copyright Office has suggested legislation that, in its current form, could have a devastating impact on the professional photographers. The proposal would limit, or in some cases eliminate, the damages available against an infringer of an orphan work. An orphan work is a work presumed to have copyright protection, but whose owner cannot be located even after a reasonably diligent search conducted in good faith.

Professional Photographers of America notes that while it does not oppose the creation of a narrow orphan works exception, the Copyright Office proposal goes too far by making it impossible for a copyright owner who later discovers the use of an orphan work to recover even a reasonable royalty. For the last three weeks, PPA has been actively lobbying Congress to make sure that any orphan works legislation that is introduced differs significantly from the original proposal.

“While well-intentioned, the Copyright Office’s proposal would strip thousands of photographers and other visual artists of their rights,” says PPA CEO David Trust. “Unless major modifications are made, legislation based on this proposal would disastrous.”
Of particular concern is a portion of the proposed statute that would deny any monetary relief to the owner of an orphan work if the infringer’s use was not for commercial advantage and they stopped the infringement when notified by the rightful owner. According to PPA, the statute fails to consider that for the vast majority of professional photographers, non-commercial personal use copying would obliterate the entire market for their work. In addition, most photography infringements have long been completed by the time they are discovered, so requiring that an infringer cease the infringement is, at best, meaningless. The provision also creates a situation where a copyright owner proves infringement and “wins” his lawsuit but is left with no award of damages, legal fees or costs.

The other troubling section of the proposal concerns damages for commercial uses of orphan works. Under the proposal, the maximum monetary award in these cases is a “reasonable royalty” for the use; attorney fees, costs and statutory damages are all unavailable.
“While the award of a reasonable royalty sounds good in theory, the reality is that when you are paying hundreds of dollars an hour in legal fees, the damages proposed in this statute are worthless,” adds Trust. “Under the current proposal an orphan works infringement would not generate enough in damages to make a suit economically viable or even to make the threat of such a lawsuit credible.”

Despite the problems with the proposal, Professional Photographers of America has not yet mobilized its 15,000 members to action. Instead, PPA will make a direct appeal to the members of the House Intellectual Property Subcommittee on March 8 when it testifies at a hearing on this issue.

“If Congress introduces legislation that follows the Copyright Office proposal as written, then we will mobilize our members to immediate action,” notes Trust.
# # #

For additional background information on orphan works: http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/
PPA Analysis of the Copyright Office Proposal: http://www.ppa.com/files/public/PPACommentsCO-OWFinalReport.pdf

PPA Alert to its Members: http://www.ppa.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=543

Technical questions regarding the legislation should be addressed to Stephen Morris in PPA’s Copyright and Government Affairs Department. He can be reached at 404-522-8600, ext. 253 or by e-mail at smorris@ppa.com.

A number of trade groups that represent photographers have recently raised the alarm about proposed changes to U.S. copyright law that address so-called orphan works – works whose copyright holders cannot be located.

In statements on their web sites, The American Society of Media Photographers has called the proposal “a disaster for photographers” and the Professional Photographers of America says it could have a “devastating impact on professional photographers”. These trade groups believe that photographers face special risks from the proposed changes because their work is so often published without a credit or byline and could too easily fall under the definition of orphaned works.

Read entire article

Among the many temptations of the digital age, photo-manipulation has proved particularly troublesome for science, and scientific journals are beginning to respond.

TRACKING FRAUD At The Journal of Cell Biology, Michael Rossner and Laura Smith, top, and Ira Mellman, above, use Photoshop to catch manipulated photos submitted for publication.

Some journal editors are considering adopting a test, in use at The Journal of Cell Biology, that could have caught the concocted images of the human embryonic stem cells made by Dr. Hwang Woo Suk.

At The Journal of Cell Biology, the test has revealed extensive manipulation of photos. Since 2002, when the test was put in place, 25 percent of all accepted manuscripts have had one or more illustrations that were manipulated in ways that violate the journal’s guidelines, said Michael Rossner of Rockefeller University, the executive editor. The editor of the journal, Ira Mellman of Yale, said that most cases were resolved when the authors provided originals. “In 1 percent of the cases we find authors have engaged in fraud,” he said.

The two editors recognized the likelihood that images were being improperly manipulated when the journal required all illustrations to be submitted in digital form. While reformatting illustrations submitted in the wrong format, Dr. Rossner realized that some authors had yielded to the temptation of Photoshop’s image-changing tools to misrepresent the original data.

In some instances, he found, authors would remove bands from a gel, a test for showing what proteins are present in an experiment. Sometimes a row of bands would be duplicated and presented as the controls for a second experiment. Sometimes the background would be cleaned up, with Photoshop’s rubber stamp or clone stamp tool, to make it prettier.

Some authors would change the contrast in an image to eliminate traces of a diagnostic stain that showed up in places where there shouldn’t be one. Others would take images of cells from different experiments and assemble them as if all were growing on the same plate.

To prohibit such manipulations, Dr. Rossner and Dr. Mellman published guidelines saying, in effect, that nothing should be done to any part of an illustration that did not affect all other parts equally. In other words, it is all right to adjust the brightness or color balance of the whole photo, but not to obscure, move or introduce an element.

Read entire article
(free registration required to read entire article)

JCB’s Instructions to authors (from their web site)

Image acquisition and manipulation. The following information must be provided about the acquisition and processing of images:

1. Make and model of microscope
2. Type, magnification, and numerical aperture of the objective lenses
3. Temperature
4. Imaging medium
5. Fluorochromes
6. Camera make and model
7. Acquisition software
8. Any subsequent software used for image processing, with details about types of operations involved (e.g., type of deconvolution, 3D reconstructions, surface or volume rendering, gamma adjustments, etc.).

No specific feature within an image may be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed, or introduced. The grouping of images from different parts of the same gel, or from different gels, fields, or exposures must be made explicit by the arrangement of the figure (i.e., using dividing lines) and in the text of the figure legend. If dividing lines are not included, they will be added by our production department, and this may result in production delays. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable if they are applied to the whole image and as long as they do not obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent any information present in the original, including backgrounds. Without any background information, it is not possible to see exactly how much of the original gel is actually shown. Non-linear adjustments (e.g., changes to gamma settings) must be disclosed in the figure legend. All digital images in manuscripts accepted for publication will be scrutinized by our production department for any indication of improper manipulation. Questions raised by the production department will be referred to the Editors, who will request the original data from the authors for comparison to the prepared figures. If the original data cannot be produced, the acceptance of the manuscript may be revoked. Cases of deliberate misrepresentation of data will result in revocation of acceptance, and will be reported to the corresponding author’s home institution or funding agency.

Press Release: (Weymouth, MA) capv_convert_date(’20060117′) January, 17 2006… InfoTrends, the leading worldwide digital imaging and document solutions research and consulting firm, is pleased to announce the release of its highly anticipated multi-client study, North American Professional Photography Market (http://www.capv.com/home/Multiclient/ProPhotography.html) .

The study provides camera, printer, software, supplies, and service providers with the information necessary to support their marketing efforts, product planning, and distribution initiatives in the professional photography market in North America.

According to the study, there are over 131,000 professional photographers in North America , and they spend nearly $800 million a year on cameras, lenses, printers, ink and media, software, and other accessories. Approximately 65% of these professional photographers use film cameras for some of their shoots, however, InfoTrends’ estimates that 70% of all professional photos are taken with digital cameras.

The study indicates that by the end of the decade, 90% of professional pictures will be taken with digital cameras, and less than 40% of professional photographers will still use film cameras. Pro photographers continue to purchase new digital cameras and backs as performance improves; however, falling prices are keeping overall camera revenue flat.

“The transition to digital is changing the economics and profile of the professional photography industry,” commented Jeff Hayes, Group Director at InfoTrends. “Digital technology is lowering the barriers to entry and increasing competition. Successful pro photographers in the future will have more automated workflows from capture through publishing, establish a strong Web presence, and diversify their offering to include more post-capture products and services.”

The prevalence of digital cameras in this industry is increasing, but many professional photographers are struggling with photo editing, management, and printing issues due to the volume of digital pictures taken, the learning curve associated with software, and demands from their clients. Photographers indicate that they are spending more of their time in post-shoot activities and less time marketing and taking pictures.

“Many photographers struggle with pulling all the pieces together to get the most out of digital technology, especially after taking the shot,” noted Hayes. “While advances in image sensors, lenses, and photo printers are exciting, many of the biggest productivity and business improvements are coming from editing, color management, workflow, photo management, and collaboration.”

Research for the study consisted of interviews with over 1,750 professional photographers, 200 commercial photography customers, and 1,200 consumers that have used professional photography services. All the market sizing and research findings are split by key segments, including commercial, editorial, portrait and wedding, fine art/nature, and school photography.

The study is available immediately. For more information about the study or to make a purchase, visit our online store http://store.infotrendsresearch.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=NAProPhotoMC05&Click=537 or contact Matt O’Keefe at (781) 616-2100, ext. 115 or matthew_okeefe@infotrends.com .

InfoTrends is the leading worldwide market research and strategic consulting firm for the digital imaging and document solutions industry. We provide research, analysis, forecasts, and advice to help clients understand market trends, identify opportunities, and develop strategies to grow their businesses. Additional information about InfoTrends is available on the Web at http://www.infotrends-rgi.com .

Source: CNET via Reuters

As part of the surprise move, the Tokyo-based company said Thursday it will sell a portion of its digital single lens reflex (SLR) camera assets to Sony for an undisclosed sum and cease production of compact cameras by March of this year.

The company said it will stop making photographic film and color paper by March 2007, pulling out of a market in rapid decline due to the spread of digital cameras, which store images digitally.

The world’s third-largest maker of camera film after Eastman Kodak and Fuji Photo Film had said in November that it would significantly downsize its loss-making camera and film operations, but not completely shut them down.

“I wanted to put a clear end to the matter,” Konica Minolta President Fumio Iwai said at a press conference, where the company also announced that Iwai would be replaced by Vice President Yoshikatsu Ota on April 1.

Konica Minolta said in November it expected to post a group net loss of $407.9 million (47 billion yen) in the fiscal year that ends in March.

But the decision to completely pull the plug on the business caught analysts and archrival Fuji Photo off guard.

Read entire CNET article

Konica Minolta Press Release

Konica Minolta Announces Withdrawal Plan for Camera Business and Photo Business

Konica Minolta has long been a leading company in photo imaging business covering wide range of imaging from input to output. In addition, we have provided inspiring products and services by fusing our unique technologies.

In camera business, we have expanded picture-taking opportunities by developing innovative technologies such as the world’s first autofocus cameras. In 1962, our camera, well-accepted for its high reliability, boarded on the US’s first manned spaceship “Friendship 7.” Also, ever since introduction of the world’s first body-integral autofocus SLR camera, Maxxum/Dynax series, in 1985, SLR cameras have become more popular among picture-takers, and we have succeeded in selling 16 million units of interchangeable lenses since then.

However, in today’s era of digital cameras, where image sensor technologies such as CCD is indispensable, it became difficult to timely provide competitive products even with our top optical, mechanical and electronics technologies.

In photo business, represented by the silver-halide photography such as color film and color paper, we have produced Japan’s first photographic paper in 1903, and Japan’s first color film in 1940, thus pioneering joy of photography for more than a century. In 1984, we introduced the world’s first compact washless photofinishing system known as a minilab system. The minilabs contributed to the expansion of worldwide photographic market by making photos closer to consumers and amazingly shortening delivery time.

However, traditional silver-halide photographic market is shrinking astonishingly by the surge of the worldwide digitization. In such a changing world, profits for camera and photo businesses worsened in recent years, and it became necessary to drastically reform business structure for the further growth of Konica Minolta. Ever since we decided and announced restructuring guidelines of our businesses on November 4, 2005, we have been considering practical and detailed plan, and we would like to announce our decision made today as follows:

1) Camera Business
In camera business, we have reached an agreement with Sony Corporation(Sony), having numerous image sensor technologies such as CCD and CMOS, to jointly develop digital SLR cameras in July 2005. In order to continue to have our customers use Maxxum/Dynax lenses, and to maximize possibilities of the optical, mechanical and electronics technologies accumulated through development of SLR cameras in the years to come, we came to the conclusion that it was best to transfer assets concerning camera business to Sony. Since then, we have been negotiating with Sony, and as a result, we have reached an agreement with Sony to transfer a portion of assets regarding digital SLR camera system to Sony*1. In this relation, we have decided to withdraw from camera business*2, such as film cameras and digital cameras, within Konica Minolta Group as of March 31, 2006.

Sony is planning to develop digital SLR cameras compatible with Maxxum/Dynax lens mount system, so that the current Maxxum/Dynax users will be able to continue to use them with Sony’s digital SLR cameras. In addition, we will consign camera service operations for Konica Minolta, Konica,Minolta brand cameras and related equipment to Sony.

*1 Pease refer to the news release, “Partial Transfer of Assets Related to Digital SLR Cameras “, separately announced today.
*2 Except for digital SLR cameras and interchangeable lenses produced for Sony.

2) Photo Business
In today’s shrinking photographic market represented by color film and color paper, we have been considering to scale back and to continue photo business at an appropriate size; however, when we foresee the photographic market, it is quite difficult to maintain profitability in this field, and we have decided to withdraw from photo business. As schemed below, we will, as much as possible, avoid causing any inconvenience in providing products to our worldwide customers in the course of withdrawal.

For color film and color paper, while considering our customer needs, we will step-by-step reduce product lineup and cease our color film and color paper production by the end of fiscal year ending March 31, 2007.

For minilab business, we will cease production of the system by the end of fiscal year ending March 31, 2006; however we will have such company as Noritsu Koki Co., Ltd to provide maintenance and customer services so as not to cause any inconvenience to our customers.

*1 Pease refer to the news release, “Consignment of Service and Maintenance Operations for Minilabs “, separately announced today.

In line with the above scheme, with consideration to our customers and regional situations, we will step-by-step reorganize our sales offices and withdraw from all of our photo sales activities by September 30, 2007.

3) Personnel Management
As a part of Konica Minolta Group’s restructuring, we will proceed with withdrawal plan for camera and photo businesses and aggressively shifted their management resources to other Konica Minolta Group companies. While continuing this effort, in order to rationalize a number of employees, we have decided to reduce worldwide Konica Minolta Group employees by 3,700 from the current 33,000 including early retirement offering by September 30, 2007*.

* The early retirement offering is for Konica Minolta Group’s holding company, five business companies and two common function companies in Japan.

The expenses to be incurred with this restructuring are already included in the forecast for fiscal year ending March 31, 2006.

Konica Minolta Group will make our utmost efforts not to cause any inconvenience to our customer due to the decision we made this time. At the same time, camera and photo businesses are our traditional businesses ever since our founding, and we wish to express our heartfelt appreciation to the worldwide Konica Minolta fans for their patronage to our products for more than a century.

Konica Minolta Group is aiming to become more powerful corporate group by swiftly meeting market changes and pursuing “selection and concentration”. We will, from now on, be concentrating our business resources on non-consumer businesses, such as the core “business technologies” field, the strategic “optics and display devices” field, and the growth expected “medical imaging” and “sensing” fields, increase competitiveness, and endeavor to further expand corporate value.

Outline of camera business Main business: Manufacturing, sale, and related services of photographic equipment such as digital cameras, film cameras and lenses
Fiscal year ended March 31, 2005: Net sales: 117,000 million yen (Forecast for fiscal year ending March 31, 2006 is 75,000 million yen)
Operating Loss: 7,300 million yen

Outline of photo business Main business: Manufacturing, sale, and related services of consumer and commercial photographic materials, inkjet media, and related equipment
Fiscal year ended March 31, 2005: Net sales: 151,500 million yen (Forecast for fiscal year ending March 31, 2006 is 110,000 million yen)
Operating Loss: 1,400 million yen

Partial Transfer of Certain Assets Related to Digital SLR cameras

Since July 2005, Sony Corporation (Sony) and Konica Minolta Photo Imaging, Inc. (Konica Minolta PI) have been working on the joint development of digital single lens reflex (SLR) cameras. Sony, Konica Minolta Holdings, Inc. and Konica Minolta PI are pleased to announce that they have decided to transfer a certain portion of Konica Minolta PI ’s assets related to digital SLR cameras to Sony, and at the same time, that Konica Minolta PI will consign its customer service operation for Konica Minolta cameras and related products* to Sony. Agreement to this effect was reached today.

Under this agreement, on March 31 2006, Sony will receive certain assets from Konica Minolta PI that are necessary for the development, design, production and so forth of digital SLR cameras compatible with Konica Minolta PI’s “Maxxum/Dynax lens mount system”.** Sony will accelerate development of new digital SLR cameras based on and compatible with the Maxxum/Dynax lens mount system with a view to marketing these models this summer.

On the basis of its ongoing “selection and concentration”, Konica Minolta Group will concentrate on its core “business technologies” field and its strategic “optics and display devices” field and withdraw from camera business*** as of March 31, 2006. At the same time, Konica Minolta PI will partially transfer certain assets related to digital SLR cameras to Sony.

From April 1 2006, Konica Minolta PI will consign the customer service operations for Konica Minolta cameras and related products* to Sony, and Sony will implement service operations from that date onward.

* Konica Minolta, Konica and Minolta brand film cameras, digital still cameras, lenses, accessories etc.
** An original lens mount system to connect camera body and lens adopted in Konica Minolta Maxxum/Dynax series SLR cameras
*** Excludes production of digital SLR cameras and interchangeable lenses for Sony

Source: Phoenix New Times
Written By Leanne Potts

“Keeping Shadows: Photography From the Worcester Museum of Art” Photos lie. You knew that.

What you probably didn’t know is that photos were lying more than a century before Photoshop became a verb. Photographers were mucking with their images way back in the 19th century when the medium was still young, painting or scratching out pesky objects and faces they didn’t want in their image.

That’s one of the more remarkable revelations in “Keeping Shadows,” an exhibition on the history of photography currently at the Phoenix Art Museum. Drawn from the collection of Massachusetts’ Worcester Museum of Art, “Shadows” features more than 100 images ranging from 19th-century daguerreotypes to 21st-century photos from NASA space probes. There’s work by big-deal photographers like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Mapplethorpe, Cindy Sherman, Cecil Beaton, and Ansel Adams, but this is more than a greatest-hits compilation. “Shadows” explores our relationship with photography by showing how the medium, and our perception of it, has evolved during the past century and a half.

Since the days of daguerreotypes, we’ve been unsure of how to regard these amazing bits of captured light and shadow. Are photos infallible depictions of reality, or fabrications that cannot be trusted? Middlebrow hobby for the Kodak point-and-shoot set or high art? Or is photography a magical hypervision that shows us parts of the world our eyes miss?

“Keeping Shadows: Photography From the Worcester Museum of Art”

Details:
More than 100 images by various photographers spanning 1845 through 2001 and drawn from one of the nation’s finest photographic collections. Continues through March 12. Admission is $9 for adults, $7 for students and seniors. Call 602-257-1222 or go to »web link.

Where:
Phoenix Art Museum
1625 North Central Avenue

Read entire article

Source: The Digital Journalist
Written By Robert Trippett

The moment a photojournalist releases the shutter a sacred threshold is crossed. The instant after the shutter blinks open and closes, whether it is for a thousandth-of-a-second to freeze the impact of a baseball bat on a ball, or several hours to soak up the faint glow of a passing comet, the door also shuts for a photojournalist to manipulate that captured representation of reality. Any technical choices made before that moment – whether a choice of cameras, light, lenses, filters, exposure settings, or simply where to stand – are generally accepted as tools for achieving the photographer’s vision. Any digital post-processing beyond the accepted darkroom techniques of yore, such as burning or dodging, are usually considered a prohibited manipulation of that sacrosanct moment of exposure.

Adobe Photoshop is an ingenious, powerful, and insidiously seductive tool, offering total control of a photograph down to the subatomic level of individual pixels. We have all heard the career-ending horror stories about photojournalists who have used this dynamic tool to flagrantly alter their photographs. Others may just fudge the line a little as they attempt to enhance their images. Where does one look for guidance in delineating this murky line between vision and manipulation? The career of W. Eugene Smith casts a cautionary shadow on the subject. Smith, a darkroom wizard whose credo was “Let Truth Be the Prejudice,” had no compunction about sandwiching two photos together into one to create his famous Life magazine portrait of Albert Schweitzer. Smith’s undeniable passion for his subject left his creative impulses unchecked, and in this case he lost his bearings and strayed grossly over the line.

In light of a discussion about the post-processing of one of the entries in this year’s White House News Photographers’ Association “Eyes of History 2005″ contest, I thought it might be useful to pose a few simple questions:

Read entire article