At last month’s huge U2 show at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, Calif., how could you tell the difference between the professional photographers and your average amateurs?

Answer: the professionals were the ones whisked away after Bono and friends finished their third song, and the amateurs were still there, happily shooting to their heart’s content.

Nearly every person at any show these days is going to have some form of camera with them, be it a point-and-shoot, an iPhone or some other camera phone, and it seems that there is almost no way to imagine keeping all those devices out.

That new reality is forcing an increasing number of bands to come to grips with the fact that they can’t really control the images from their shows, and that, for the most part, they’re better off letting fans cram Facebook and Flickr with such pictures anyway.

“It’s an acknowledgment of the way technology is changing, and how much digital cameras have become a part of our lives,” Rob Sheridan, the creative director for Nine Inch Nails, told CNET News. “Now that everyone has video and still cameras in their phones, and pocket digital cameras take HD video and great quality pictures, not only is it impossible to keep cameras out of shows, but it’s fighting an increasingly uphill battle against what is now a cultural norm: people freely documenting their lives and the things they do to share it with friends and family.”

In fact, the only people who may emerge frustrated from this new paradigm are the professionals. For those shooting with credentials, the phrase is “three songs and you’re gone,” said Bob Carey, the president of the National Press Photographers Association, meaning that pros are generally allowed to shoot from a designated “pit” near the stage during a band’s first three songs, and then they have to leave.

Last month, I was one of those sporting a photo pass at the 96,000-fan U2 Rose Bowl show. And even as I was clicking away during those first three songs, I was acutely aware that there were hundreds of people even closer to the stage than I was, toting cameras capable of taking some pretty great pictures. Indeed, a quick Flickr search confirmed just that.

Little dynamos
Many of those fans–and thousands more throughout the Rose Bowl that night–were shooting with nothing more than a camera phone. And no one worries about the dissemination of images taken with devices like that. But some people were shooting with cameras like Canon’s new PowerShot G11, a little 12.5-ounce, 10-megapixel dynamo much more than capable of producing professional images.

So, while the professionals are being ushered out after those three songs, how is it that the fans are able to keep shooting?

The answer is camera policies in effect at concerts, which are almost always defined by the bands themselves. And conversations with people throughout the music industry make it clear that while there are no standard policies, and that the rules run the gamut from “anything goes” to “no pictures, please,” artists today are increasingly tolerant, even encouraging, of fans taking all the pictures they want.

Look, for example, at the Nine Inch Nails Web site, which spells out the band’s open camera policy, “inviting fans to capture the events with anything from a cell phone to a hi-def video camera.” The reason is clear: “The results have been overwhelming, filling our own galleries with thousands of images and videos from every show, and inspiring a number of ambitious fan-sourced video projects within the NIN community. Some of those projects are starting to surface now, and we couldn’t be happier with the way the fans have organized themselves and created some truly impressive work.”

Further, Sheridan told CNET News, even the proliferation of pictures of the band’s shows taken by fans hasn’t hurt its commercial interests.

“Despite the fact that our fans take thousands and thousands of their own photos at each NIN show with whatever camera they’d like, we still sell prints of live photos taken by me through a Web site called frcphotos.com,” said Sheridan. “This is presumably the type of thing that other acts would be trying to ‘protect’ by limiting photography at shows, but we’ve found that fans are still eager to purchase reasonably-priced professional prints, often taken at angles or distances that only someone working for the band would have access to.”

Some artists are clearly concerned about fans’ rights to take pictures, and go so far as to issue reminders when there are restrictions. For example, the indie rock due, Tegan and Sara, have sent tweets saying things like, “Hollywood Bowl restricts cameras that are deemed professional. This usually means cameras with a removable lens. So keep that in mind!!!” And, of course, other rock stars are not at all behind the notion of fans taking pictures. Among those are said to be Prince, Kanye West, Bjork, and others. At shows by those artists, security is known to assiduously stop people from taking pictures of any kind, even with camera phones, though one wonders just how effective such policies can be.

Less anti-camera attitudes
But clearly, anti-camera attitudes are becoming less and less prevalent these days.

“It’s something that artists have come to realize they have no control over,” said Abe Baruck, a manager who works with big-name acts like Journey, Clint Black, and Peter Wolf. It’s “more a realization that this is just the way people enjoy entertainment. They want to capture something for their own nostalgia (and it) just doesn’t go anywhere other than for their own use.”

That thinking is likely what is behind the restrictions on specific kinds of camera equipment at some shows, like U2’s, and on professionals. Even though millions of amateur photographers now own digital SLRs, there is still a mindset in the entertainment industry that anyone toting one at a concert is a professional and therefore should be limited in where and how they shoot.

That’s why some bands, like U2, make a point of allowing fans to take pictures, so long as they stick to lower-end equipment. “Since 2001, U2 has openly allowed fans to bring cameras to their shows,” reads the FAQ on the site U2tours.com. “Your camera, however, must be a point-and-shoot camera; DSLRs are not allowed.”

“It’s just a very simple calling card saying, ‘I’m a professional media person,’” Philip Blaine, a producer with Coachella promoter Goldenvoice, said of photographers with digital SLRs, “‘and I know how to utilize this media in a professional manner.’”

And while it’s generally bands that are setting camera policies, some venues have also asserted control over what fans can and can’t bring.

One example is the Hollywood Bowl, in Los Angeles. As evidenced by the tweet from Tegan and Sara, that venue imposes restrictions around certain kinds of equipment. A Hollywood Bowl spokeswoman said that that venue won’t let ticket-holders bring in professional-grade equipment.

Professional sports seem to largely work the same way. According to NFL spokesperson Brian McCarthy, football fans are allowed to bring in any kind of still camera–though lenses are restricted to less than six inches long, for security reasons–they want. That policy is standard across the entire NFL, McCarthy added, and prohibits fans from bringing in any kind of camcorder.

The same basic policy applies to other sports, too. According to Nick Ohayre, a spokesperson for the NBA’s Golden State Warriors, fans are free to carry and use cameras at basketball games, so long as they don’t use flash and don’t bring large, professional equipment.

But over time, as the technology improves, it may become more common and force sports leagues and entertainers to pay more attention to what’s happening with imagery taken by the thousands of small devices fans bring with them to events, especially as the quality of pictures from those devices is often good enough for professional publication and licensing.

Some even think that band representatives need to do a better job of keeping up with what’s possible in technology.

“I don’t think they’re aware of some of (what’s possible) with new devices,” said Carey of the National Press Photographers Association. “I don’t think they’ve figured out the nuances of what point-and-shoots can do with photos and video.”

But the increasing permissive attitude toward letting fans shoot whatever photos they please may simply come down to the realities of what it would take to do a serious search of every one of the thousands of people who go through an event’s gates.

In the old days, said New York freelancer Lia Bulaong, if she wanted to sneak a camera into a show, she would hide its battery in her bra and then convince security she had brought her powerless camera into the show in order not to risk it being stolen from her car.

But in the last two or three years, she said, such subterfuge is pointless.

“No-camera policies just became extra ridiculous because pretty much everyone has a camera in their phone,” Bulaong said. “Venues can’t turn away camera phones and will never the capacity to check them in like they do coats and bags.”

Plus, she pointed out, more and more, the bands want to incorporate the fans’ phones into their shows.

“The one thing you will see at every concert now, regardless of the artist, is the moment when everyone has their camera phone out and the venue is awash in tiny lit up screens.”

Copyright ©1995-2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

Ford Motor Co. (F) and Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) are teaming up to market the auto maker’s redesigned Taurus sedan.

Ford and Microsoft first teamed up a few years ago to launch the Sync telematics system, which enables drivers to hook Bluetooth entertainment and communications devices into the car. Now, Ford is using a technology from Microsoft–known as tags–in its print advertising materials in order to give potential car buyers a more interactive introduction to the car.

Looking very much like a bar code found on most consumer products, the black and white tags are integrated into the design of an ad and can be photographed by anyone carrying a camera-equipped smart phone, such as Apple Inc.’s (AAPL) iPhone, or Research In Motion Ltd.’s (RIMM) Blackberry. Once the image has been downloaded, it then links a consumer to a company-designed website.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

The new iPod nano is a tour de force, the Swiss Army Knife of mobile entertainment. I’m sure there’s some obscure gadget from Japan that packs more features per cubic millimeter, but I’ve never heard of it, and chances are neither have you.

This one’s a major consumer product, just in time for stimulating the economy this holiday season. Speaking as a technophile, I want one of the new nanos for the same reason I want a Dremel with 300 different bits: just because.

Read the rest of this post at the original site

A 12-year-old was expelled from school after having his cell phone confiscated and searched by authorities. What did they find? Pictures of him dancing. Now, the ACLU has taken up the case, arguing that even students are protected from unreasonable search and seizure.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

The bill of materials for the Apple (AAPL) iPhone 3GS is comparable to model it replaced, according to market research firm iSuppli, which conducted a detailed tear-down of the new version of the phone.

According to iSuppli, the cost of materials for the 16 GB version of the iPhone is $172.46, plus another $6.50 in manufacturing costs, for a total production cost of $178.96. The firm notes that this is comparable to its estimate last year that the 8 GB iPhone 3G had a production cost of $174.33. (Note that both models are priced at $199.)

As you likely know already, the key hardware differentiators in the new model are video capture, an upgrade in the camera to 3 MP from 2 MP, and a built in digital compass.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Apple (AAPL) introduced its latest iPhone, the 3GS yesterday. The new phone will be priced at $199 for 16 GB and $299 for 32 GB (with a new, two year AT&T contract), and its most visible new feature is that its new, 3.0-megapixel camera can focus and take video, a first for the iPhone.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

In the heyday of rock music, no stadium gig was complete without a slow number that prompted the crowd to hold aloft their cigarette lighters to create hundreds of flickering points of light. Now the same effect is created by hundreds of people holding up their mobile phones as the audience takes photo after photo to prove they were there.

This is most likely to occur in the U.K. as the British use their mobile phone as a camera more than anyone else. They are also among the world’s fastest adopters of social-networking sites such as Facebook and Bebo, posting the subsequent photos or at least updating their status to relate how great the gig was, as a way of keeping in touch with an ever-expanding and ephemeral collection of “friends.”

Read the rest of this post

Apple’s new iPhone may well be a revolutionary product in some ways. But after testing one of the devices that went on sale late last month, I’m steering clear, at least for now, of the most shamelessly overhyped consumer product since Windows 95.

For all its admirable features–the large screen, gorgeous industrial design and advanced user interface in particular–the iPhone feels like a beta product. It’s still early in development and suffers from deal-breaker drawbacks.

The worst is the overall control-freakery from Apple, the manufacturer, and its telecom partner, AT&T. You want choice? Not a chance.

Consumer Reports notes that AT&T is one of the least-favored U.S. mobile carriers, for network quality and customer satisfaction. Worse, the company’s low-speed digital network is inadequate for a device that boasts of being Internet-native, and the Wi-Fi capabilities don’t make up for that lapse. (And never mind AT&T’s recent decision to become Hollywood’s accomplice in tracking customers’ Internet activities, not to mention its Big-Brotherish coziness with government snoops.)

I’m a frequent traveler outside the U.S., and this phone doesn’t cut it for serious international use. If I want to make GSM calls, I’m stuck with AT&T’s roaming rates; with my current phone I can swap SIM cards to use another carrier’s cheaper local service if I don’t like the international roaming rates from T-Mobile, my current carrier.

Apple can’t fix AT&T. But the device itself, however alluring, needs upgrades. For example, on the international roaming front, the iPhone provides no access to other carriers’ 3G networks, which means the phone won’t work at all in places like Korea, where my 3G-equipped GSM phone works fine.

The onscreen keyboard isn’t bad if you’re “typing” in landscape mode in the Web browser, because the keypad in that mode is sufficiently large to help you avoid errors. But if you’re trying to create an SMS or email message in the phone’s portrait mode–it doesn’t adjust to the sideways view with those applications–be prepared for some frustration. I wasted lots of time backspacing over mistakes and retyping things, and the “predictive-text” feature didn’t predict my words with much accuracy.

The camera is adequate for some purposes, and that’s the best you can say about it. There’s no zoom, and no video recording mode.

An especially cheesy “feature” is a headphone jack that requires an adapter for many popular headsets (or some surgery on your current headphone plug). There’s no excuse for this.

Then there’s the nonremovable battery, which Apple says is designed for at least 400 charge cycles and an unspecified number of charges at up to 80% of battery capacity afterward. That will steer people–perhaps this is the idea–toward new phones. Meanwhile, Apple has found another way to make money on this design choice: It’ll sell a new battery for about $80 and keep your phone for a few days in the process.

Despite running a version of the OS X operating system, the iPhone is locked down in its software capabilities, which means that third-party software developers–and therefore customers–are mostly out of luck if they want the kind of applications that have made other smart phones so versatile. Apple’s claim that there’s enough flexibility in the Web browser for third-party development is beyond ludicrous; it’s downright insulting.

More lockdown: The iPhone is unusable in any capacity until it’s activated with the phone company. Want to use it just for Wi-Fi-based Web browsing, plus video and audio and note-taking? Forget it.

Still more: I can use my current phone as a modem with a PC or Mac, something I do on occasion when out of range of a broadband or wireless network. The iPhone doesn’t allow this. Why not? (To be fair, some phones are locked this way.)

No doubt, some of the iPhone’s current drawbacks will be resolved with software upgrades. Some problems can’t and won’t be fixed, at least not in the U.S. version, where AT&T will be the exclusive carrier for the next few years.

All that said, I do love the way the thing looks and feels–and in many respects, the way it works. If other phone-makers don’t adopt the iPhone’s best features (I assume they will), I’ll definitely consider getting one at some point.

But I’ll consider it only when Apple starts selling it in Europe or Asia with 3G capabilities; when I can install a SIM chip from the GSM/3G carrier of my choice; when the software is significantly upgraded; and when third parties can give me the features I want, as opposed to solely the ones Apple thinks are good for me.

That sounds like iPhone 2.0, at the earliest. For now, the initial product doesn’t come close to living up to the hype.