A couple of weeks ago I thought I would try photographing people in a local weekly market. One stall holder turned his back whenever the camera pointed in his direction, another asked for his photo to be deleted as he was on the run, and a third said as a Muslim he didn’t allow any photos of his face except on his passport and driving licence. I was asked if I had permission to do this (from who?). In days gone by there was only the smallest chance of a photo appearing anywhere and people weren’t bothered but with social media now everyone is suspicious of your motives. I have been watching online courses by Joel Meyerowitz and Steve McCurry and although their back catalogue includes hundreds of candid shots they both espouse striking up a dialogue and getting people to agree to being photographed. Photographers like Vivian Maier used a Rolleiflex twin lens reflex so it wasn’t obvious they were pointing a camera at anyone and it gave an interesting perspective, I suppose you could do the same with the rear screen folded out.

For those of us who sell stock photography these would qualify as Editorial shots so could be sold legally in that category and therefore visible on websites. Whether you would want to do that is another matter but no-one has the right to demand control over their images taken legally. I do know one person though whose image I must never put on a public site because the consequences for the family could be disastrous, so they have to stay extra vigilant when out and about.

Next you will be wanting a diffuser or bounce card, a reflector…….!

The truth is administrators for groups like this are volunteers who have no knowledge of the rules around photographing in public and children in particular and often hold the commonly held view that you cannot photograph anyone without their consent, so to avoid any imagined legal consequences it is easier to take the action they have.

Well done on landing the Light and Land gig, I did their Northumberland Coast and Castles three years ago and really enjoyed it.

As for people changing to mirrorless I guess they do so to future-proof their system given that for Canon/Nikon a new mount is involved and production of lenses for the older mount is being cut, and of course they are more than happy for customers to replace their old glass with new.

It focuses down to 2 metres so is great for larger insects! Coupled with the new body it looks like a winning combination.

That’s excellent, and 50% keeper rate is very impressive as well.

To save myself the hassle of painting the stairs with all those fiddly spindles I invited a national joinery outfit to replace the lot with glass and oak. As soon as the posh lady came through the door my mental estimate doubled; she spent ages measuring up and told me the cost and I realised I had been wildly optimistic, luckily I was sitting down. Plan B, off to B&Q for primer and paint.

Churches with Ango-Saxon origins were altered and extended in the following centuries, as in this one where the dome, tower and windows are glaring examples. In churches near me the original elements are almost buried within the fabric and need to be sought out. However there is still a wonderful sense of stillness and timelessness as captured in the third photo above, which makes it my favourite.

A very lucid explanation from pentaxian450, although I would qualify his comments about filters. I agree that in most circumstances a high dynamic range can be resolved in post processing but this will often require two or three exposures; just lightening shadow areas will often result in noise and the details may not be as sharp, so for those who like to get everything right in camera or when only one shot is possible due to movement in the subject then a graduated ND filter is the answer. Also for longer exposures an ND filter is essential when reducing the aperture is not sufficient.