Alec

Alec

Lives in United States New York City, NY, United States
Works as a Photographer / imaging artist
Has a website at http://karasevstudio.com/
Joined on Oct 24, 2000
About me:

* More architectural and recreational sports photography in the off-season (skiing and scuba);
* Roll out blog feature on the web site
* Put articles, more photos and video online
* Minolta archive!

Comments

Total: 107, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Benoz: My niece's husband is a cameraman employed by a television station.
Who holds the copyright to his work...the cameraman or the TV station?
We all know the answer to that!
The monkey took the shots with the photographer's camera already set to take those pictures.
IMO the photographer has the rights to the images.
The monkey wouldn't have the ability to just pick up a camera, switch it on, set it up and take selfies! :-)
Whether there is any benefit or not by requesting the image to be deleted is irrelevant.

"You'll find that most photoshoots are 'accidents' that result from thousands of trial shots." Right. The article suggests, the MONKEY has taken a lot of shots, one of which got famous. The photographer's own body of work doesn't come close. If you're walking on the street and Annie Leibowitz or somebody else whose work is capable of creating a million times the resonance of your own work, grabs a camera from your hands and takes a shot, the first of its kind for that particular situation, is it your copyright or theirs?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 14:51 UTC
In reply to:

Bart Hickman: This photo is the result of the photographer's work (creativity has nothing to do with copyright.) Besides the monkey was not purposefully creative. The photographer bought the appropriate gear. Travelled there. Found the monkeys. Set up the camera with the right lens. Post-processed the image. And if the monkey had broken the camera, the photographer would've paid for that too. The photographer created (through his own expense) the situation that lead to this image. This is the purpose of copyright--to encourage investment to stimulate commerce.

No photographer has 100% control of everything. The monkey gets no more credit for this shot than the sun and clouds get for lovely sunset shots. Never mind that copyright law only applies to humans.

In your WTC example, it's the terrorists that have spent the resources and created the entire situation - according to your logic should they own the copyright to the WTC shot?

Awesome example with the rock, though. Gave me a chuckle. I don't know what to say to that one. Good night.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 04:53 UTC
In reply to:

Benoz: My niece's husband is a cameraman employed by a television station.
Who holds the copyright to his work...the cameraman or the TV station?
We all know the answer to that!
The monkey took the shots with the photographer's camera already set to take those pictures.
IMO the photographer has the rights to the images.
The monkey wouldn't have the ability to just pick up a camera, switch it on, set it up and take selfies! :-)
Whether there is any benefit or not by requesting the image to be deleted is irrelevant.

Not to mention, a cameraman executes a series of shots as described and directed in detail. If the same cameraman grabbed the camera and on his own did something original and unexpected and never thought possible, that created a great resonance, beyond anything that TV station had had in its portfolio by a factor of a million, don't you think it's a little different? Would it matter which camera this was done with?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 04:46 UTC
In reply to:

Bart Hickman: This photo is the result of the photographer's work (creativity has nothing to do with copyright.) Besides the monkey was not purposefully creative. The photographer bought the appropriate gear. Travelled there. Found the monkeys. Set up the camera with the right lens. Post-processed the image. And if the monkey had broken the camera, the photographer would've paid for that too. The photographer created (through his own expense) the situation that lead to this image. This is the purpose of copyright--to encourage investment to stimulate commerce.

No photographer has 100% control of everything. The monkey gets no more credit for this shot than the sun and clouds get for lovely sunset shots. Never mind that copyright law only applies to humans.

If this monkey had chosen another photographer's camera, would we be discussing on here who Slater is or what he did? It is one thing if he were already known for setting up these sort of stunts in a deliberate manner. It's quite another if his other work doesn't measure up to the popularity of this one shot, taken by "someone" else.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 04:33 UTC
In reply to:

Ron A 19: The monkey may have pushed the shutter button, but without the photographer, we would never have seen this photo. AND the photo has most likely been modified by the photographer in post production, so this is very much his copyrighted work, and he is the originator of the image. Wikimedia is just trying to make headlines. The monkey didn't bring the equipment, download the picture, edit the picture, publish the picture, etc. It just played with a camera.

No, the relevant creative act is taking the photo. If this monkey had chosen another photographer's camera, would we be discussing who Slater is or what he did on here? It is one thing if he were famous for setting up these sort of stunts. It's quite another if his other work doesn't measure up to the popularity of this one shot, taken by someone else.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 04:30 UTC
In reply to:

Funduro: From Huffington Post article: He added that he believes Wikipedia editors, most of whom are volunteers, "have a communistic view of life."

"It's potentially being run by people with political agendas," Slater said of Wikipedia. "The people who are editing it could be a new Adolf Hitler or a new Stalin ... They're using whatever suits their agenda."

He urged people to stop using Wikipedia. "It's important to tell people that Wikipedia should be not used as a source of truth," he said.
____

I'm sort of speechless.

Says Slater, trying to hang on by the skin of his teeth to photos taken by a monkey. At a face value this reads like The Onion headline: "Photographer's claim to fame is a photo a monkey took with his camera"

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 02:12 UTC
In reply to:

GaryJP: The ape may have pressed the shutter. But there is more to taking a photograph than pressing the shutter. I doubt that the ape set the aperture, focal length or time, chose the lens, or took the camera to the location, or cropped the image. I am surprised more photographers don't seem to know this.

GaryJP: In regards to the photographer/producer's claims:

1) Do this photographer's other images from the shoot (or his entire body of work) measure up in public esteem to the photo the monkey has taken?

2) Had the photographer planned this shot (storyboard, coaching, or camera selection / setup intended for this, perhaps prior similar efforts)? Or did the monkey execute the shot in question it entirely on its own initiative?

3) If this monkey had grabbed ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPHER's camera and taken similar shots, would we likely be talking about those instead (making the photographer and his camera and its particular setting and the shoot logistics quite peripheral to the question of what actually made these photos famous), or the photographer can reasonably claim his other work is as famous or more famous, or he gets multiple monkeys to do selfies, planning them and executing them accordingly?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 02:08 UTC
In reply to:

Alec: The photographer's claim was that he'd paid for the photoshoot - so he acted in the role of the producer.

In determining which party actually lent the image its broad public appeal, it is clearly the monkey who both posed and operated the camera, not the photographer whose camera it was. The internet is full of "conventional" monkey images that are next to worthless. What made this image popular was the monkey's expression and the fact that it was a selfie.

Therefore in lieu of any model releases and camera operator releases signed by the monkey's legal council granting specific rights to the photographer, the monkey would own the copyright if there was a law allowing this. In lieu of such a law, the image is not copyrighted.

vFunct this is an excellent point as applied to Richard Avedon and other photographers who were more directors than camera operators.

If he'd coached or directed that monkey to take a selfie, or had a storyboard or an original idea, this would maybe hold some sway. Now consider:

1. Are any other images of this photographer on this shoot measuring up in esteem to the photos taken by the monkey in question?

2. If this monkey had grabbed ANOTHER random guy's camera, and taken these photos, would they be the ones receiving the acclaim? Making the question of "whichever photog with the camera" quite secondary to the popular image's value?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 01:29 UTC
In reply to:

Alec: The photographer's claim was that he'd paid for the photoshoot - so he acted in the role of the producer.

In determining which party actually lent the image its broad public appeal, it is clearly the monkey who both posed and operated the camera, not the photographer whose camera it was. The internet is full of "conventional" monkey images that are next to worthless. What made this image popular was the monkey's expression and the fact that it was a selfie.

Therefore in lieu of any model releases and camera operator releases signed by the monkey's legal council granting specific rights to the photographer, the monkey would own the copyright if there was a law allowing this. In lieu of such a law, the image is not copyrighted.

@ newellj probably not, but this is the internet :)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 01:23 UTC
In reply to:

cpkuntz: This monkey's selfie looks better than at least 90% of the selfies I've seen taken by human beings.

I think it is clear that this primate has been photographed many times before as well as has seen its share of people taking selfies next to it or with it. So its actions aren't really random.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 00:40 UTC

The photographer's claim was that he'd paid for the photoshoot - so he acted in the role of the producer.

In determining which party actually lent the image its broad public appeal, it is clearly the monkey who both posed and operated the camera, not the photographer whose camera it was. The internet is full of "conventional" monkey images that are next to worthless. What made this image popular was the monkey's expression and the fact that it was a selfie.

Therefore in lieu of any model releases and camera operator releases signed by the monkey's legal council granting specific rights to the photographer, the monkey would own the copyright if there was a law allowing this. In lieu of such a law, the image is not copyrighted.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 00:37 UTC as 319th comment | 4 replies
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1484 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alec: I currently have a D800, and for tethered shooting using HDMI out to an external 24" monitor for manual focusing, I currently have to use an EyeFi card, because D800 won't simultaneously enable USB tether and HDMI output.

Is D810 able to do the latter?

Also on the video front, is it scaled from all pixels on the sensor or produced using line-skipping?

Galbertson on a D800 you can, if you capture pix on a memory card as opposed to directly in a computer.

Since D800 can write video to the memory card AND HDMI out, I was thinking it might also be able to do USB3 tethering and HDMI out concurrently as well, that D800 can't. So, anyone?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2014 at 02:31 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1484 comments in total)

I currently have a D800, and for tethered shooting using HDMI out to an external 24" monitor for manual focusing, I currently have to use an EyeFi card, because D800 won't simultaneously enable USB tether and HDMI output.

Is D810 able to do the latter?

Also on the video front, is it scaled from all pixels on the sensor or produced using line-skipping?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2014 at 01:21 UTC as 121st comment | 3 replies
On Beyond the ordinary: Tim Dodd's Everyday Astronaut article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

backayonder: mirror mirror on the wall who is the sexiest astronaut of them all

... Which is disqualifying how, exactly, if one talks about looks even outside of the point that Yuri's the genuine article? Nations arbitrarily chose different terms for the same profession - surely we're not disqualifying anyone based on nationality?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2014 at 03:49 UTC
On Beyond the ordinary: Tim Dodd's Everyday Astronaut article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

backayonder: mirror mirror on the wall who is the sexiest astronaut of them all

Seriously, is there even a contest?
http://www.wallpaperspictures.net/image/yuri-gagarin-wallpaper-for-2560x1920-876-26.jpg

Direct link | Posted on Jul 14, 2014 at 05:50 UTC
On Beyond the ordinary: Tim Dodd's Everyday Astronaut article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul Farace: The last image transcends the ordinary and becomes a political statement of Obama's NASA... our nation left to play on a toy shuttle...

Esp considering the only actual hardware involved is a Russian scaphander.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2014 at 17:07 UTC
In reply to:

Babka08: This is a brilliant yet so obvious concept. Mimic the human eye. Folks, it's in R&D. Don't get yer knickers in a knot about which camera they're building for precious you. Like any technology, they'll launch something that they "can" at that moment, which will have limitations. And it starts expensive. And then it improves and gains wider usage, and costs come down, and its quality goes up.

The bottom line here is, it's a very innovative development with immense potential.

The curved light sensing surface allowing a flatter in-focus area from a simpler lens, I think, is fair to say mimics nature. Digital sensors just like eye retinas, do not build an image - they both need interpretation/processing.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2014 at 18:06 UTC
In reply to:

Cheng Bao: If any manufacture want to risk for develop whole new lens system from ground zero, yes, it can be done with interchangeable lens camera system.

Just like mirrorless system, manufacture need to invest a lot to build new lenses. Old lenses can work on mirrorless system or curved sensor system, but with comprise - for mirrorless system, you have to sacrifice AF performance greatly or use bulky and expensive adapter like sony LA-EA2 and LA-EA4.
For curved sensor, the compromise is same: you have to sacrifice corner qualiity or use bulky expensive adapter which makes flat focus field curved again.

or we need to wait for more technology advancement. Like on sensor PDAF to work with legacy SLR lenses for fast-AF (like E-M1) or in curved sensor case, a flexible curvature sensor, which I don't expect to see in near future.

Without performance/cost figure of some lens-sensor combination, we cannot judge if it is worth to make new cameras base on that, let alone new interchangeable lens one

As main-sensor-integrated phase-detection AF matures, focusing speed can be had without the bulky AF adapters. Additionally as manual focusing peeking aids become more and more ergonomic, it will be feasible to manually focus with such ease that AF motor function will lose the criticality it had once earned.

A curved depth of field isn't really a loss of quality in the corners - it is simply focused a little closer or farther than center. Unless one photographs newspapers, it's not a big deal.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 17:52 UTC
In reply to:

Babka08: This is a brilliant yet so obvious concept. Mimic the human eye. Folks, it's in R&D. Don't get yer knickers in a knot about which camera they're building for precious you. Like any technology, they'll launch something that they "can" at that moment, which will have limitations. And it starts expensive. And then it improves and gains wider usage, and costs come down, and its quality goes up.

The bottom line here is, it's a very innovative development with immense potential.

Not so new. Minox cameras have had curved film gates, to maximize sharpness from compact lenses. Flat DOF was more important for these cameras than most, as they were often used as spy instruments to copy documents.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 17:46 UTC
In reply to:

KW Phua: This is very helpful for thin camera with big sensor, but only for fix lens camera. So we can predict the path Sony has chosen.

I imagine, a well-chosen average curve can serve no worse for interchangeable lens cameras than the present flat surface that current interchangeable lenses all have to target. A slight curve mismatch is not the end of the world - so the corners of the frame are focused a few % farther or closer than the center. For 3D subjects, so what?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 14:05 UTC
Total: 107, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »