If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Just a question
In article , Ken Hart
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. correct. 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. irrelevant. 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. correct. 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. correct Whether or not an animal can hold a copyright is not material. yes it is. if another person pressed the shutter, they would hold the copyright since *they* are the one who took the photo. animals can't hold copyrights, so even though the animal took the photo, it can't hold a copyright. it's very simple, but peta wanted to waste everyone's time and money for some publicity. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Just a question
On 09/14/2018 08:42 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 21:31:17 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:57:22 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote: On 13 Sep 2018 06:32:29 GMT, Sandman wrote: But the topic here was specifically about saving time in editing. Not post- processing, but editing. That depends on what you feel the topic is. That was not the topic of the original post. It may be the topic of what was added in responses to the original post. Saving time is a consideration in employing the new PS features, but the consideration I was asking about is more along the lines of "You don't need to hone your skills in doing this because it can now be done automatically." Tony, whether you realise it or not, you are making a game of post processing. Your objective is to ovecome the obstacles to produce an acceptable image. That places you in a different category from those whose only ambition is to produce an acceptable image. I agree. Sometimes I will take a photograph and edit it with changes PS for no other reason than to practice and develop my skills. 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. As for the ethics: In broadcasting, there is a Federal Communications Commission rule regarding recorded programs. If time is of special significance, or if an affirmative attempt is made to indicate that a program is live when it is actually recorded, then it must be announced as recorded. How this relates to your retouched photo: If you indicate in some way that this is the actual scene, then you should reveal that it is photoshopped. ("Yes, Your Honor, he was sitting just like that drumming on a joint compound bucket...") But if it is one of many un-captioned photos in your St Augustine trip photo album, then I don't have an ethical problem. I do have a problem with the base-curb on the left. The sidewalk surface has softened a bit in focus but the curb is tack sharp. I'd like to see the upper-curb softened a bit as it goes to the left also. Other than that, IMHO, your unethical edits have created a better photograph. -- Ken Hart |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Just a question
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 05:19:59 -0400, Neil
wrote: 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". Whereas your requires one to ignore the portion of this *single sentence* before the word "especially". -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Just a question
In article , Neil wrote:
Sandman: And, when was the last time you met someone that preferred analog film to digital? Frequently Professional photographers that make their living from taking photos? I don't know, I just find that very hard to believe, unless you know this one eccentric artsy guy and you meet him frequently Sandman: Not someone that occasionally shoots with analog film, someone that prefers it? We may move in different kind of circles, but it's been a great while since I saw a wedding photographer come to the reception with a Nikon F4 Wedding photographers, news photographers, and photographers working for ad agencies have specific job requirements that make automation a big plus. These people are the professional photographers you talked about though. And they make out the vast majority of professional photographers... It doesn't negate the value of the skills in question. For them it does, mostly. Neil: Again, you're referring to scenes where generic lighting is all that is needed, and I'm referring to making decisions about the subtleties of a difficult scene. Sandman: Which means you are referring to skills that: 1. Very fe people have 2. Very very few instances require Rendering the applicability and availability of the skill a very very small margin in the grand scheme of things. It *still* doesn't negate the value of having those skills. Isn't the value of a skill in direct relation to how much you get to apply it? Why value a skill you never get to use? -- Sandman |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Just a question
In article , Tony Cooper wrote:
Eric Stevens: --- snip --- 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. 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. They are the photographer of the photographs they take, but they are not photographers. But where do you draw the line, though? Is it with intent, when a middle school kid uses his camera phone and put in a bit more effort in the end result? Obviously the smartphone camera isn't the issue here, since iPhone photos have been on the cover of many magazines, including Time. And the line can't be firmly at "professional photographer" since then that distinction needn't be done. -- Sandman |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Just a question
On 9/15/2018 7:12 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 05:19:59 -0400, Neil wrote: 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". Whereas your requires one to ignore the portion of this *single sentence* before the word "especially". All my statement -- it is not an "interpretation" -- requires is that one understand the role of a predicate in a sentence. If that is insufficient, then understanding that the format of English language dictionaries presents alternative definitions in a hierarchical list, not as subject and predicate in a single sentence. -- best regards, Neil |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Just a question
On 9/16/2018 2:20 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , Neil wrote: Sandman: And, when was the last time you met someone that preferred analog film to digital? Frequently Professional photographers that make their living from taking photos? I don't know, I just find that very hard to believe, unless you know this one eccentric artsy guy and you meet him frequently I'm not sure why you snipped the context that explains where I would frequently come across a number of professional photographers that make their living shooting film in order to support your notion. Perhaps your need to do that underscores my point... hmm. Sandman: Not someone that occasionally shoots with analog film, someone that prefers it? We may move in different kind of circles, but it's been a great while since I saw a wedding photographer come to the reception with a Nikon F4 Wedding photographers, news photographers, and photographers working for ad agencies have specific job requirements that make automation a big plus. These people are the professional photographers you talked about though. And they make out the vast majority of professional photographers... It doesn't negate the value of the skills in question. For them it does, mostly. It doesn't for the good photographers. Neil: Again, you're referring to scenes where generic lighting is all that is needed, and I'm referring to making decisions about the subtleties of a difficult scene. Sandman: Which means you are referring to skills that: 1. Very fe people have 2. Very very few instances require Rendering the applicability and availability of the skill a very very small margin in the grand scheme of things. It *still* doesn't negate the value of having those skills. Isn't the value of a skill in direct relation to how much you get to apply it? Why value a skill you never get to use? I always use the skills that I've acquired over the decades. The main thing that technology does is help me understand when it's better to use those skills, and I find that pretty valuable, both in terms of finance and satisfaction. -- best regards, Neil |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Just a question
In article , Neil wrote:
Sandman: And, when was the last time you met someone that preferred analog film to digital? Neil: Frequently Sandman: Professional photographers that make their living from taking photos? I don't know, I just find that very hard to believe, unless you know this one eccentric artsy guy and you meet him frequently I'm not sure why you snipped the context that explains where I would frequently come across a number of professional photographers that make their living shooting film in order to support your notion. How did I support my notion, pray tell? I snipped you talking about art shows, which said nothing about the amount of professional photographers that make their living shooting only film. Neil: Wedding photographers, news photographers, and photographers working for ad agencies have specific job requirements that make automation a big plus. Sandman: These people are the professional photographers you talked about though. And they make out the vast majority of professional photographers... Neil: It doesn't negate the value of the skills in question. Sandman: For them it does, mostly. It doesn't for the good photographers. For the it does, mostly. Neil: Again, you're referring to scenes where generic lighting is all that is needed, and I'm referring to making decisions about the subtleties of a difficult scene. Sandman: Which means you are referring to skills that: 1. Very fe people have 2. Very very few instances require Rendering the applicability and availability of the skill a very very small margin in the grand scheme of things. Neil: It *still* doesn't negate the value of having those skills. Sandman: Isn't the value of a skill in direct relation to how much you get to apply it? Why value a skill you never get to use? I always use the skills that I've acquired over the decades. While I find that hard to believe, this really wasn't about you, was it? -- Sandman |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Just a question
On 16 Sep 2018 06:24:42 GMT, Sandman wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper wrote: Eric Stevens: --- snip --- 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. 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. They are the photographer of the photographs they take, but they are not photographers. But where do you draw the line, though? Is it with intent, when a middle school kid uses his camera phone and put in a bit more effort in the end result? Obviously the smartphone camera isn't the issue here, since iPhone photos have been on the cover of many magazines, including Time. And the line can't be firmly at "professional photographer" since then that distinction needn't be done. I'm not sure there's a need for a distinct line. I would only describe a person as a "photographer" when that person is one who routinely takes photographs for fun or profit that are not "photographs of the moment". In other words, the person who routinely takes photographs of his/her food or friends in social situations is taking "photographs of the moment". They are responding to and capturing what is in front of them at the time but did not have any intent to find a photographable subject. I'm quite willing to say that the person who takes a photograph of the moment is the photographer of that photograph, but not that the person is a photographer. The person who routinely goes out with a photograph-capable device - camera or phone - looking for something to photograph is a photographer. I don't take a hard line on this, though. If someone wants to say "My wife's the photographer of the family" because the wife is the one who knows how to operate the phone's camera function, I'm not going to correct that person. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Just a question
On 9/16/2018 10:37 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , Neil wrote: Sandman: And, when was the last time you met someone that preferred analog film to digital? Neil: Frequently Sandman: Professional photographers that make their living from taking photos? I don't know, I just find that very hard to believe, unless you know this one eccentric artsy guy and you meet him frequently I'm not sure why you snipped the context that explains where I would frequently come across a number of professional photographers that make their living shooting film in order to support your notion. How did I support my notion, pray tell? I snipped you talking about art shows, which said nothing about the amount of professional photographers that make their living shooting only film. Those art shows and the museums are where I see the photographers that primarily shoot film ("only" is your construct, not mine). Since there are a number of shows per year, as well as a number of photographic shows in the museums per year, the number of photographers who shoot film far exceed the "...one eccentric artsy guy..." that comprises the notion you are trying to support. Is that really beyond your comprehension to the extent that you required this explanation (which you'll probably snip to present some other bogus point of view)? Sandman: Isn't the value of a skill in direct relation to how much you get to apply it? Why value a skill you never get to use? I always use the skills that I've acquired over the decades. While I find that hard to believe, this really wasn't about you, was it? That depends on what you meant by "...how much *you* get to apply it" in your above statement. I typically regard the term "you" in that context as a reference to me, which would make your comment really about me. -- best regards, Neil |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | Rôgêr | Digital Photography | 0 | April 21st 05 03:32 PM |