My old Fuji S602Z (3MP) is still 10x better than the 8MP on my Galaxy SII, they're fine for snaps/portrait shots but don't come close aside from speed of access

My brother coaches at a local rugby union club, anything from the U8's to U12's and a few years ago he dragged me in to organise their web site which had been neglected.



At one of the coaches/managers meetings the issue of photgraphs on the web was raised, each team from U8 to U18 all wanted their own gallery of matchday photos posting online, each one had at least one parent who was willing to provide photos on a regular basis, the question of legality of publishing the photos was raised especially for the junior age groups and of the sensitivity that some parents of the home and visiting teams feel about having their childrens images used online.



Other than the usual "PC rubbish" response (which was the majority) we got some feedback from a solicitor and our solution was to inform all parents as part of the player registration process that photos would be published online (more than anything the kids love to see themselves) but that identities would not be used - we don't hide individuals faces, don't edit anything and don't try and avoid close ups (which some other clubs do), but there are no captions to each gallery other than the date and the name of the opposition team.



To date (over five years) there have been no objections either at the matches or of the galleries on the web site.

In general, the fuss that suddenly sprang up out of nowhere about kids being imaged in school plays, sports days, games etc. I have always found very strange.



The impression to me was that people had suddenly started to hear widespread stories about paedos, child porn and abuse of children, and somehow, suddenly, loads of adults seemed to just assume there is a direct link between those evils, and relatives of other children in the same school potentially having images of our Johnny as a shepherd, or our Jane as Mary.



Instead of being summarily dismissed, schools quickly got on board, yet I have not seen any articulated REASONABLE objection to a parent being allowed to take such images at a school event. What are they? Does anyone on here feel that way? If so, why? Do you know anyone in that position? If so, what exactly is it that they are worried about?



Do they actually fear that one of the invited audience (which will never contain outsiders) may well be a paedo as well as a relative? Is that it?



If so, then what exactly are the objectors seeking to achieve?



The objections soon spread to sports days and other outdoor events, and now we have discussions like here about junior rugby teams. What is the fear here? That children engaging in outdoor activities are likely to be wearing sports gear and that somehow we must all be banned from taking pictures of what will be a great day for our kids/grandkids, just to eliminate the somewhat remote possibility that somewhere among the speccies, there's a paedo, and while the children are still fully dressed, well, a paedo may be turned on, and so we cant take the risk of the paedo having images to take away? Is that it?



Well then, when their kids are playing out all evening every summer, how do these tortured individuals allow that to happen? There is a whole world out there, and it is at least equally possibly that there is a paedo behind every bush or pair of curtains, snapping away. If your fear of a paedo taking an image is that great - how can you ever justify allowing your child outdoors at all?



What do you do if on holiday - say on the beach. Hundreds of cameras and camera phones packed in every location, and your kids wearing swimming costumes. Some very young kids wearing nothing at all.



If you could speak to the objectors about this inconsistent behaviour, what would they say? They don't want to risk a relative of a child at school being a paedo and having an image including their child, in a state of dress, but don't give a monkeys whether paedos are given free rein to take as many images as they want during the overwhelming majority of the rest of the child's life, especially outdoor life?



All kids, especially younger ones, get invited to birthday parties all the time. Loads of photos are taken. Yet how does objector parent cope with that? They won't even be AT the party, doesn't their over-worried brain scream at them that those images may fall into paedo hands?



I don't get it. If someone is phobic about these paedo possibilities, well, I suppose it's your kid, you make the rules, but how then can you ever let the child be exposed to any outside places, where the opportunities for paedo imaging are almost infinite? Isn't this essentially a totally illogical and absurd worry?

During our discussions over the inclusion of photos on the RU club web site the only reasonable, potential, issue that heard expressed was that if a photo of, say, an eight year old boy was shown with a caption that named him, then, potentially, an adult with an intention to abduct a child could use that information to trick his way past any questioning adults and also fool the child into thinking that he must know him as the adult knows his name.



A bit far fetched I agree, but child abductors (miniscule in numbers) have feigned friendship and family knowledge to target children in the past - it was a reasonable request to not caption any photograph I thought.



Other than that its the most favourite bit of the web site for the hundreds of 8 to 18 year olds who are members at the club especially the younger ones who check the updates all the time to see if they are featured in any of the photos (we have one mother who is very skilled at taking action photos and now does several age groups), I'd go so far as to say most of the kids wouldn't look at the club web site if the photo galleries weren't there and that they engender a club comradeship amongst the members, its very important to the club.

Top post.



The only point I can see is that which Jerry mentions – although the bigger issue with that, as I have heard, is that it may allow identification of a child by, say, a parent who is no longer part of the family unit and may wish to abduct the child of is abuse or whatever.



When I'm working at smaller conferences, I sometimes do the photography as well as the words. Delegates are told, at the start of the conference, that if any of them do not wish to be photographed, filmed whatever, then they need to absent themselves from any photo opp – and tell conference staff that they do not wish their image to appear anywhere. Now given that most conferences are pretty much fully filmed, that's all it takes with a bunch of adults – why schools etc cannot do the same is beyond me. Although it has complexities in terms of sports and plays etc, such an approach has to be better than the blanket nonsense and concomitant paranoia that currently goes with it.

If that happened, then the idiocy of the "questioning adults" would seem several factors more blameworthy than a caption. Why would such dolts be in charge of children? Are there any teachers in the house? What's the protocol if some adult you don't know unexpectedly turns up and says he needs to pick up little Johnny Doe?







So, in previous recorded photographic history, how many children have been abducted as a result of a captioned photograph? But yes, if a parent doesn't want their child captioned, that's not an unreasonable request, there could be many reasons, not just irrational fears of abduction. Simple privacy is one.

shot of my brother's new puppy



came up a bit noisy, room was pretty gloomy and obviously can't use flash, ISO ramped right up!

I have a (compactflash) memory card problem. I have a card in my camera that is writing and reading as you'd expect. I can view the previously taken photos on the camera - however, when I come to copy them to the PC (via a lead from the camera to PC as my card reader is broken) it tells me that the card needs formatting.



Any suggestions as to how I can get these photos off the card? Thankfully it's only the last 10 photos of about 1600 from a trip to Australia that are on this card.

How are you trying to copy them, just using Windows Explorer or some Photo Edit/Management suite?

I had a similar problem with a card a couple of years ago after a holiday in which around 150 photos would not reveal themselves when connected to a pc but the last 20 or so would, I knew I hadn't deleted them but they seemed to be lost.



After some advice on here I ended up spending a small amount of money on CardRecovery which got the photos back with very little hassle, can't remember what it cost but it was worth it !

This assumes the problem is with the card.



There are at least three other possibilities where the fault may lie: camera, lead, and PC.



The first job is to experiment to ascertain the culprit.

I was just copying them through explorer. I emptied my two 4Gb Sandisk cards fine, but got the format error with the 16Gb Kingston card. I trust the Sandisk cards more hence going through two 4Gb cards first rather than just sticking with the 16Gb one.







I found a windows support forum that recommended a freeware programme called Photo Recovery. However, first of all I tried an old laptop in the house that was running an old version of Windows, and that read the card fine via the camera.

We are not allowed to caption photos on our club website with the childs name (I coach 10 year olds at our local Union club). It's an internal policy and I have seen other clubs that do post captions with childrens names. I have posted photos with captions and any reference to names was removed by the moderator. Rugby clubs can face the wrath off the RFU (although never actually understood what this "wrath" entails) for not complying with child safety guidelines. Each club has a child protection officer and clubs will generally be cautious. I have heard the argument regarding naming children and this information potentially being used to abduct etc. It's very far fetched, I agree, but frankly you fight battles that have a point to them at rugby clubs and captions with names or not is way down on the list. There is another argument, and one that I would hope few people have experience of directly but the use of images of children to generate obscene material in photoshop. This is a very real issue. I don't get it and I hope I never do, but there are some twisted f**** out there who do this sort of stuff. Another reason not to have kids named perhaps.

We have also had the situation where it has been proposed that anyone taking photographs be CRB checked. We went through this last year and it was left undecided.



My take on things is with rugby clubs is there are legal requirements, there are requirements from the governing body and there are the bits every club adds on themselves as nobody fully understands 100% of either of the first two.



Then of course there's the swimming club my son also belongs to - how they do things is different again. If anything they seem more liberal, there are pictures of our swimmers on our website with their names.

Jeez.

The world has gone fooking bonkers!

Actually it has absolutely no impact on rugby or the kids enjoyment - so for me it's not worth worrying about. I will abide by club policy.

While I broadly agree with the rest of your post, this bit is cobblers. I bcan't find one instance of this being reported as a problem apart from a few over protective parents dreaming up e.

I was also trying to suss this one out.



Are the parents of DHM's under 10 rugby team concerned that the local paedos will super impose their kids heads on a porno picture so that they can knock one out over them?



Is there a whole new level of preciousness amongst parents these days or am I just not getting it being a non-parent?

Most of the concerns clubs deal with have never happened, and I didn't say any of our parents had made these comments - they haven't - but "over protective parents making up poop" have to be listened to as well and that's where rugby club safety officers tend to be very cautious. Clubs have to keep their reputations intact - stories spread, true or not.

Really? You wrote this and thought it was alright?

Suppose I generalised using the plurality of the rugby parents when it was only you singularly expressing what I conceive as a certain amount of irrationality.

Hey, but you're a parent and I aint.

It would seem to be one line of logic from your comment about Photoshopped 'obscene' materials that are made using images of real children.



If it's not, then what did you mean by what you described as an issue?

I've heard it cited by individuals, (parents and members) at our club too, whether its true or not, (and it seems to be far-fetched), whether or not you can find any examples on the internet, (I am not going to go searching for some

) is irrelevant, totally irrelevant - what DHM is stating is the position that a private club committee funded and guided by a central professional body have to take into consideration in order to allay the fears of the most paranoid and "prove" that their club takes child safety seriously, on and off the pitch, like his club our club have a nominated Child Safety representative, ours is by coincidence a female school teacher and so takes the job very seriously - by another coincidence she is also the same person who is particularly talented at taking very good photos of the action shots that the kids like to see on the web - in all things there is a balance to be taken.

But do you concede that DHM maybe succumbing to the real and modern day irrationality of [ucreeping paranoia[/u?

It's him, after all, using the rhetoric of child abduction and there being [isome evil f****[/i out there.



Is it the loss of confidence amongst parents that is the real issue?



*[iPhotography.[/i

The whole post, of which I have quoted only part, was measured and informative but the part quoted above sums up the situation (although what DHM writes does not only apply to rugby clubs).



My 11 year-old grandson plays for his local football club and I am unofficially recognised as the "official" photographer, if you see what I mean. I photograph all their games, their presentation ceremony and the Christmas party. I post low-res images on Facebook and high-res versions of the same images on Flickr. The photographs are not watermarked and copyright is specifically waived for non-commercial use by anyone connected with either participating club.



Before every game either I or one of our coaches approaches the opposing team's coach to explain the situation and to request permission to continue. Not once - ever - has any coach or accompanying parent declined or raised any objections at all. I always send links to their club to be freely distributed to their parents, etc. The local FA secretary is fully aware of the situation and has often used my images on their website and his own Facebook profile.



Common sense can prevail. Sometimes.

:12q7jcew



That wasn't the point that I was attempting to make.





I was attempting to gain a better understanding of DHM's response to Wizeb's interpretation of the issue he had raised.



Beyond that, DHM says that there [i:12q7jcewis[/i:12q7jcew an issue, and "one that I would hope few people have experience of directly but the use of images of children to generate obscene material in photoshop. This is a very real issue."



Not a perception of an issue, but "a very real issue".



For clarity's sake, I am not having a dig at DHM. But this does seem to rather get to the heart of the matter. If it is "a very :12q7jcewreal, then there will be evidence of it. By which I mean police warnings or court cases etc.



Otherwise, it seems that the issue – and none-the-less real – is the paranoia.



And it remains a point that DHM's apparent objection to how Wizeb rephrased his "very real issue" is hard to understand. What else would he imagine people would go to such lengths for, using "obscene" materials? Is there not then at play a further issue – that of a somewhat puritanical fear of spelling out things clearly, for what they are?



Jerry raises an interesting point though: at what stage does an organisation say: 'enough is enough – there is no evidence for this'?