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.