Just a question

Neil:
We can disagree about their being "photographers", since as I see it
that term applies to people whose primary occupation is taking photos
and you feel otherwise.

Eric Stevens:
So it's not sufficient to use a camera and take photographs. One must
be paid enough to make a living before you can be called a
photographer?

I'm sorry, I don't buy. Taking photographs makes a person a
photographer. Making a living by taking photograpohs makes a person a
professional photographer.

Neil is being a bit rigid. A word may have many meanings. Photographer:
a person (any person) who makes photographs. Photographer: a person who
earns a living by making and selling photographs.

"Are you a photographer?" "Yes, it's my hobby. I use ______ and
smartphones."

"Are you a photographer?" "Yes, I freelance for the NYT and others. I
use ______ and smartphones."

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I think that's why I have such an aversion to photographs with
obviously replaced sky and faked bokeh-like or out-of-focus,
background.

if it's obvious, then it's a ****ty job.

They are created scenes, not photographs of scenes.

all photographs are created scenes.

The
photograph was just the starting point.

nope. the subject is the starting point.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

We can disagree about their being "photographers", since as I see it
that term applies to people whose primary occupation is taking photos
and you feel otherwise.

So it's not sufficient to use a camera and take photographs. One must
be paid enough to make a living before you can be called a
photographer?

I'm sorry, I don't buy. Taking photographs makes a person a
photographer.

That's a bit too inclusive for me. That would mean that damned near
every middle school and high school kid is a photographer because they
take photographs with their phone cameras.

that's exactly what it means. just because it's a phone camera doesn't
change anything.

many of them take much better photos than their teachers and parents
ever did and are enjoying it a whole lot more too.

and these days, a lot of them have their own youtube channel, making
them *videographers*.

They are the photographer
of the photographs they take,

obviously they're the photographer of their own photographs.

but they are not photographers.

yes they are.

We do use terms restrictively. Jotting down your shopping list does
not make you a writer even though you are writing. Drawing a
smiley-face on a greeting card doesn't make you an artist. Putting
the ball through the windmill doesn't make you a golfer.

bad analogies all around.

every middle school and high school kid who writes a story for creative
writing class is a writer. every middle school and high school kid who
draws or paints in art class is a artist. every middle school and high
school kid who builds a robot in maker class is a software/hardware
developer.

Tony Cooper:
I took this photo just off St George Street in St Augustine FL just a
few weeks ago. I saw the busker, turned and shot, and then noticed in
processing the image that he's sitting just where a curb-like thing on
the wall ends, and that there's a second person in the image. I
didn't notice either when I shot the photo.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...2018-08-30.jpg

The image bothered me. It looks like I edited the image and removed
the curb-like part. The above is cropped but nothing more.

So, just for practice, I "restored" the curb-like extension that never
existed and removed the other person:

https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...8-08-30-PS.jpg

I still see some places that I'd tweak a bit more.

Just for the record, this was for my own amusement. To me, it's
unethical to add/change this much to a photograph and not make it very
clear that the result is Photoshopped. You can clone out a bit of
trash, and make a few minor deletions of things like electric lines,
but you shouldn't make major changes like this and not reveal that you
have created a scene and not just photographed a scene.

I think that's why I have such an aversion to photographs with
obviously replaced sky and faked bokeh-like or out-of-focus,
background. They are created scenes, not photographs of scenes. The
photograph was just the starting point.

Back to that old argument. I think it depends on what one is going to
do with the photo. I feel no obligation to describe any editing I might
have done to a photograph I post on Flickr. It is what I say it is.
Click a like or don't, comment that it's great or horrible.

Having said that, as Lightroom has become more capable I edit fewer
photographs in Photoshop.

I have rarely, if ever, edited a photo to the extent that you did that
one. But I see nothing wrong with your editing of that photo‹except
that I would have modified the cloned portion of the ledge to remove
the repeated elements.

I might have taken a moment to show the guy how to hold drumsticks, but
probably not; I doubt he cares or would appreciate the lesson.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 9/14/2018 9:27 PM, Davoud wrote:
Neil:
We can disagree about their being "photographers", since as I see it
that term applies to people whose primary occupation is taking photos
and you feel otherwise.

Eric Stevens:
So it's not sufficient to use a camera and take photographs. One must
be paid enough to make a living before you can be called a
photographer?

I'm sorry, I don't buy. Taking photographs makes a person a
photographer. Making a living by taking photograpohs makes a person a
professional photographer.

Neil is being a bit rigid. A word may have many meanings. Photographer:
a person (any person) who makes photographs. Photographer: a person who
earns a living by making and selling photographs.

"Are you a photographer?" "Yes, it's my hobby. I use ______ and
smartphones."

"Are you a photographer?" "Yes, I freelance for the NYT and others. I
use ______ and smartphones."

And then we had the macaque selfie copyright phenomenon. :-(
Whe photographer owns copy rights .. and .. who/what-ever
pushed the button/triggered the image capture event is deemed
'the photographer' .
The case may have been settled but I'm not sure the law on this
has been settled.
[ Um, just sayin' ]
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--

In article , Ron C
wrote:

And then we had the macaque selfie copyright phenomenon. :-(
Whe photographer owns copy rights .. and .. who/what-ever
pushed the button/triggered the image capture event is deemed
'the photographer' .

so who owns the copyright for photos where nobody pushed the
button/triggered the image capture event, as would be the case with a
self-timer or an intervalometer?

The case may have been settled but I'm not sure the law on this
has been settled.

the law is clear. animals can't hold copyrights.

On 9/14/2018 9:27 PM, Davoud wrote:
Neil:
We can disagree about their being "photographers", since as I see it
that term applies to people whose primary occupation is taking photos
and you feel otherwise.

Eric Stevens:
So it's not sufficient to use a camera and take photographs. One must
be paid enough to make a living before you can be called a
photographer?

I'm sorry, I don't buy. Taking photographs makes a person a
photographer. Making a living by taking photograpohs makes a person a
professional photographer.

Neil is being a bit rigid. A word may have many meanings. Photographer:
a person (any person) who makes photographs. Photographer: a person who
earns a living by making and selling photographs.

You see it as rigidity, I see it as a definition:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/photographer?s=t

There is only one sentence in this definition, and the word "especially"
has a particular meaning, as well. So, while I understand the looser
interpretations, I don't agree with them because in most cases it won't
require any skills that are typically attributed to "photographers".

--
best regards,

Neil

On 9/14/2018 8:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:20:42 -0400, Neil
wrote:

--- snip ---
We can disagree about their being "photographers", since as I see it
that term applies to people whose primary occupation is taking photos
and you feel otherwise.

So it's not sufficient to use a camera and take photographs. One must
be paid enough to make a living before you can be called a
photographer?

I'm sorry, I don't buy. Taking photographs makes a person a
photographer. Making a living by taking photograpohs makes a person a
professional photographer.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/photographer?s=t

Your interpretation requires one to discard the portion of this *single
sentence* after the word "especially".

--
best regards,

Neil

In article , Neil
wrote:

We can disagree about their being "photographers", since as I see it
that term applies to people whose primary occupation is taking photos
and you feel otherwise.

So it's not sufficient to use a camera and take photographs. One must
be paid enough to make a living before you can be called a
photographer?

I'm sorry, I don't buy. Taking photographs makes a person a
photographer. Making a living by taking photograpohs makes a person a
professional photographer.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/photographer?s=t

Your interpretation requires one to discard the portion of this *single
sentence* after the word "especially".

it doesn't.

On 09/14/2018 10:07 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ron C
wrote:

And then we had the macaque selfie copyright phenomenon. :-(
Whe photographer owns copy rights .. and .. who/what-ever
pushed the button/triggered the image capture event is deemed
'the photographer' .

so who owns the copyright for photos where nobody pushed the
button/triggered the image capture event, as would be the case with a
self-timer or an intervalometer?


The person who started the self-timer's "count-down" is the person who
pushed the button. The image capture was simply delayed.
Just as when I press the shutter button on my mechanical SLR, the image
is not captured instantaneously; there is a very slight delay as each
gear, cog, and lever in the mechanism does it's thing.
Nonetheless, I am the person who initiated the image capture, so once
the image is fixed in a permanent and tangible form, I am the copyright
owner.

In the case of the monkey pictures, the photographer created a situation
where an image capture (or several images) was likely to occur. He set
up the camera so that the lighting and focus would be conducive to that
image capture (most likely by setting the camera to an auto function).
And he likely owns (or is responsible for) the camera gear. So the human
is the photographer and the copyright owner. Whether or not an animal
can hold a copyright is not material.

--
Ken Hart