Video Hardware Review Justin Clamp

justinclampthumb

Today I am featuring a hardware review of the Justin Clamp – specifically, we are looking at a Manfrotto iteration of it.  Why is it called a Justin Clamp?  Well…I’m not sure why it’s called a Justin Clamp to be honest.  I guess some guy named Justin came up with the idea, but regardless, it’s a pretty cool idea!  So, “What is a Justin Clamp?”, you ask?  So glad you did, because this hardware review both shows you the quality of this Manfrotto version of it, and the video really serves to help show, explain, and walk you through the features.  It’s a pretty straightforward (hopefully) hardware review, and really adds to your lighting options when you consider the versatility of where you can position lights with this clever device.  Take a look:

Pros

  1. Lightweight and portable
  2. Easy to use
  3. Sturdily built
  4. Adds a huge range of options for portable lighting

Cons

  1. Price to use ratio – this will really only be handy for those who are into using off camera lighting in interesting and unique places, so if you don’t like to venture outside traditional setups often, the price might be a bit high to justify use
  2. Awkward shape – While the Justin Clamp is small enough (as the video hardware review above indicates), it is a bit awkward which can take up a lot of space in a camera bag.  If you are into run-and-gun style photography, your bag is likely smaller, and this could eat up precious real estate in a small photo bag.

It seems you are all enjoying the presence of multimedia on the site, from videos to photos, and eBooks, given traffic reports lately,!  The last Lightroom video seemed particularly enjoyable, so thanks for all that have enjoyed it thus far! So, with that in mind, there’s more of that coming on a regular basis.  I’ll try to get a video tutorial or gear review up more regularly.  Some interesting changes may be coming down the pike though, so I will have to just wait and see.  In the meantime, keep enjoying the videos.


Adobe Pricing and Licensing Policy Poll

New Poll

Participate in the poll – and share with your friends.  The larger the number of entries, the better the results, and the more convincing the data will be:

 

Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.

The problem with words…

Recently, I learned that the Isle of Palms (IOP) in South Carolina has made it illegal for photographers to take commercial photography onto the public beaches.  The specific phraseology of a recently posted page for IOP states that:

“Commercial activity, including photograpy, is prohibited on the Isle of Palms beach.  Unless a special exemption is granted by City Council, photographers who take portraits or photographs on the Isle of Palms beach as part of a commercial transaction are in violation of City ordinances.”

For now I will ignore the part where they mis-spelled photography as ‘photograpy’ (because it’s probably just a typo).  Instead I would like to take a moment to discuss the larger implication of making photography illegal.  It is noted further down that commercial photographers can “obtain an exemption” but this is far different from the traditional practice of “requiring a permit”.  This is basically making photography illegal.  You can be granted an exemption from legal enforcement if you request it from City Council, but that is entirely different than requiring a professional photographer to pay for a permit at City Hall.

IOP Laws on Commercial Photography

View the full page here

Keep in mind that coastal beaches are publicly owned and maintained by the state, and thus public access is required.  While restricting the nature of access is fine, the verbiage here presents serious problems and implications for photographers.  So, the burning questions in my mind are:

  • Can IOP do this?
  • Is this an acceptable practice?
  • Does the ASMP know about this?  If so, why aren’t they taking appropriate actions?

Why has no one come forward to challenge the legality of this law, because on prima facia grounds, it seems to run in direction contradiction with traditional practices toward permitting and banning of commercial activities.  Typically, commercial activity requires simply paying a fee at the local municipality, obtaining the permit to continue, and then continuing.  That is not the case here – they are requiring an exemption to be granted by the entire City Council!  Lastly, I also cannot help but wonder where organizations like the ASMP haven’t gotten involved or taken exception to this.

I understand what SC is trying to do, and don’t necessarily have a problem with the intent – what does appear to be problematic though…are the words.  Worded correctly, there would be absolutely no issue with this, but as it currently stands, there is a definite problem with the words!  What do you think?  Vote in the poll or sound off in the comments…

When do you prefer to capture your images?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...