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'?

Well I read it in the same way that I presented it - "This is the way it is...", I also recognise what LBWR mentions in the previous post in that when sporting clubs address the undoubted paranoia that exists in SOME people about photographing their children (christ knows how they manage to get through each day without having a nervous breakdown) then sensible solutions can be found - they do have to be addressed though and its just one part of the bull-droppings that amateur sporting clubs have to put up with in their administration, I've been to committee meetings at our local RU club where heads of years have spent two or three hours discussing issues that have arisen in the last month, its like running a decent sized business when you have two or three hundred participating members.

Having no parental responsibility perhaps my naiveness is glaringly apparent with regard to the modern day child protection circus and the hysteria that ensues.
Perhaps my innocence is a good thing, maybe we should ask the children.

The really daft thing is, especially with junior and mini rugby teams, is that the ultra-paranoid parnets who are terrified of having their kiddies photographed, then happily hand them over to an 18 stone ex-prop forward with a face like a bowl of mashed potato for a full contact sport (well not for the minis, but they do get carried away sometimes) when at least one of them will report back to mater with a bloody nose every weekend, they already insist on headgear and gumshields, shouldn't be too long now before tag gets played all the way up to 18 year old

I have.

To accompany every set of match photos I produce a collage of all the images deemed worthy of "publication" (usually around 40 out of 600 or so). Here's an example:



That's my grandson on the right of the central picture having just scored.

Every week the team discuss the question of "who's in the middle picture this week" and bragging rights ensue.

To echo Jerry Chicken in a previous post, the boys love to see themselves in action.

It's also perhaps worth pointing out that, as you can see from the collage, I try to give equal coverage to both teams. I think that this is appreciated by the opposition and word gets around.

Where have I said any of this was the way I think? These are facts regarding how rugby clubs - and I have experience of a few - deal with the issues/potential issues caused by people photographing children while playing the game on club premises.
McF has explained things the way I see them at our club and it's the way I see other local clubs. I, as I've said, try not to get involved with any of the arguments, at the moment it doesn't effect the kids (my son's included) enjoyment of the sport and that's all I care about. I have a safeguarding course to attend this weekend and I'm sure the subject will come up again. whatever they tell me I'll take on board and do what the club asks me to.

The context here is very limited - it's just about taking photographs. Most of the work of safeguarding is around making sure the game is safe to play physically, that all activities are supervised correctly and training is applicable to the age of the children. There is also a substantial bullying section, kids can bully each other and they can be bullied (on purpose or unintentionaly) by coaches and other adults. There is no paranoia, but as McF points out, clubs are run almost like business's these days and reputation is very important. I know clubs who have bad reputations that have hung around them like a noose.

When I was taking junior/youth rugby league photos the club I was with applied for a CRB check for me from the RFL. Not a problem and the opposition team can then be told our photographer has been CRB checked by the RFL.

Some from this weekend:

[url=http://s840.photobucket.com/user/David_Lyons/media/Blackbird900cm_zps2b28a712.jpg.html[/url

[url=http://s840.photobucket.com/user/David_Lyons/media/ShabbyRobin900cm_zpsfb12b895.jpg.html[/url

[url=http://s840.photobucket.com/user/David_Lyons/media/HouseSparrow10900cm_zps5be62acc.jpg.html[/url

[url=http://s840.photobucket.com/user/David_Lyons/media/HouseSparrow8900cm_zps7f8f9cf0.jpg.html[/url

[url=http://s840.photobucket.com/user/David_Lyons/media/Robinfeeding900cm_zpsc0ac8746.jpg.html[/url

The first robin is an absolutely superb shot. I can easily envisage that winning prizes in certain niche circumstances.

The second robin is under-exposed. The bright background has caused the camera's meter to "think" that the subject is better lit than it actually is.

Before the fact: spot metering or fill flash would have helped.

After the fact: rudimentary masking of the bird followed by brightness adjustment might help.

First Robin is, apparently, entering it's post=breeding moult.

My camera gernerally overexposes (Pentax) and so the second Robin was amended via the sotware to "auto exposure". I think it looks better having the face / bill more correctly exposed. As you say though, the rest of the body becomes underexposed (high contrast as it was taken in yesterday's very strong midday sun (90+ degrees where we live).