Wow, I need to get connected to some fine art curators! Once in the club it seems the sky is the limit for amount of money you'll get for art.
ThomasSwitzerland: Ken Rockwell has just published snapshots on the D750 with the 20mm f/1.8.
To me this represents outstanding journalistic quality in time and precision. Why cannot the so much larger <dpreview> deliver?
I don't agree with the quote you posted from KR, but I too always shoot with large basic. Use RAW+basic just in case and that just in case comes in handy a lot.
That 13mm lens he mentioned that's on sale piqued my interest. That would go perfectly with this camera.
Jan Bohme: If we, on the other hand, instead discuss de lege ferenda - i.e. discuss the law as it should be, which is essentially a political discussion - I agree that one can apply a fairness argument for copyright to be awarded. The problem is that fairness points in two different directions. One may argue that it is unfair that the photographer can't get copyright just because the work of art is so unique. But one may equally well argue that it is unfair that an author of a work of art is excluded from copyright just because it isn't human. While it might be difficult to benefit the actual monkey who - supposedly - took the selfie, it wouldn't be altogether impossible to allocate the revenues of the photo to benefit monkeys of that species in general in that area, which would hopefully benefit also the actual author of the photograph.
However, I don't think that copyright law will be changed because of this. This situation is so rare that it isn't really reasonable to adapt legislation to it.
That's a good example, Jan Bohme, but in this case he felt it was his because it was taken with his camera and normally we felt that whatever pictures that are taken by us with our equipment was ours. Since the animal, in this case the monkey, couldn't actually claim it was his he felt that he held the copyright to the image. I felt this to be correct, but apparently, I was wrong. When I brought this case up with my wife she immediately said the image didn't belong to him. I didn't even tell her which way the copyright law decided.
I think in the case of photographers we try to protect what we felt was ours until our dying breath, but the general public sees it differently and the photographs belong to the person who presses a shutter button.
JDThomas: Ohhh! Let me be the first to complain about how expensive this camera is! Only dumb rich people can buy this camera!
It certainly does make a Leica look like a cheaply priced toy in comparison. $7,000 for the Leica compared to $49,560.40 for the Hasselblad.
Jogger: In 2000 years the 200mp images from this camera will seem like primitive cave drawings to us now.
2000 years? It's possible that in 20 years or less it'll feel that way. Just look at the cameras that shot 320x200, 640x480, 1024x768, then the 1 MP to 3 MP cameras. They're scoffed at now and we're talking about 20 years between the time they were big and today.
Langusta: Ridiculous. Not even worth discussion.What next - if I use self-timer the credit for photo goes to camera manufacturer?If I use leather gloves does the copyright belong to a cow (deceased) or farmer who owned the animal?
Actually they're saying if you pressed the button to activate the self timer then it's yours. If someone else presses it it's not yours unless that person says it is.
PhotoKhan: Wikipedia does not need this bad press.
Someone in charge should see the possible negative impact on an organisation that counts heavily on our collective goodwill and order the photo to be removed ASAP.
Unfortunately someone's ego is going to get involved and say "see, I told you I was right. It is public domain."
vFunct: The US Copyright office is going to delete this, since it's only a draft statement.
Photographs are never created by nature. The other examples that the Copyright office gives of natural works - elephants painting, driftwood shapes, rock grain formations - are all naturally contained works. They don't have any human involvement in its output.
Meanwhile, a photograph always relies on human involvement in its output - someone has to setup, process, and print/publish it.
It is not possible for nature to produce a photograph on its own.
In the video I watched on Engadget Mr. Slater is on camera saying he set it up specifically hoping he'd get that photograph. That means it was conceived by him so he should have the copyright.
I agree with Landscaper1. Wikipedia decided a photo was fit for public distribution and the photographer said "no." In this case Wikipedia has now become the judge on what is public domain and what isn't.
It was just reported that you better preorder one now because the prices are going up $300 September 1. Instead of the low price of $6995 it'll be a whopping $7295!
simpleshot: There are five Beatles in that picture, if you count the car.
The Beetle (car) was probably one of the reasons why they took that photo.
Loraine Arnold: I still have the album. Have nothing to play it on but I can't bring myself to get rid of my old Beatle albums.
You can always buy a usb turntable for less money than it would have cost to buy a 128GB CF card.
How did they get that photo without a digital camera that shoots 20 frames per second?
Now that IS funny.
AlexBakerPhotoz: I totally gave up on stock photography sales and any commercial photography and now only do Fine Art work, my true love anyway. I do maintain a website and enjoy having it as a portfolio but know full well that internet sales are a pipe dream. Steal my work at alexbakerphotoz.com
Stolen. Thank you. Ha, just kidding. Great work! Love the pictures. I'm really surprised how HUGE and high rez your photos are. I guess someone won't need to look too hard to get your high resolution pictures. ;-)
Thanks for sharing your images.
StevenMajor: It could only be the unrealistic expectation of the photographer when posting the image that would cause disappointment. Beware of what you seek.
dpreview commenters may not steal your images, but they do download them, modify it, then repost it to show you how you should have modified the picture. In a lot of cases, that's not okay unless they ask the photographer, which they don't. I was actually quite mad the first time that happened to me.
Steve Bingham: I had one of my low rez photos stolen from photo.net years ago - 0ver 100 times and counting. Best I can tell it has had over 2.5 million views that I KNOW of. To date I haven't made a nickel from the picture. It is what it is. I took it down. Even now it is on 64 other sites! No credit of course.
With the internet being world wide and the proliferation of smart phones, no image is safe. Copyright protection means nothing.
I basically gave up trying to be a police for my photos. One of my photos suddenly got a ton of views and I just figured it was school children using it for their projects.
I ended up making the photo 720x??? or smaller and only 72 dpi. I'm not sure if that's small enough to deter people though. Also, I put my copyright and "all rights reserved" IN the picture. I know it's ugly and takes away from the picture, but I want the people to know who made it and that I hold all rights.
Mingthein had a picture of his camera used on the manufacturer's website and advertising without his knowledge or permission. The company thought it was okay because they kept his byline that he puts on the outside of his picture. He settled the illegal use case.
fotokeena: I have been wishing for Hasselblad to make such a back that can integrate with the V system seamlessly for a long time, looks like they finally did it. Now owners can use their well built bodies and lenses, as well as prism finders, I am glad that they finally recognize there are still a lot of people hanging on to their old"golden standard" system, and it's value.
Great job Hasselblad, even thought I can't afford the price, how about making a barebones version for $5K to $6K? for the non-profit making photographers.
This particular CFV-50c is a little different than the previous because you use the PM/PME-90 now. I heard you couldn't do that previously. The back is tapered on the top to allow the use of the viewfinder. I think that was a good design choice.
dinoSnake: Congratulations to Hasselblad for finally making a product that their customers wanted a number of years ago.
If only other companies would actually listen to their customers. Eventually.
They made quite a few digital backs, the CFV-16, CFV-16 II, CFV-39, CFV-50 and now this one, CFV-50c. Not quite sure what part of your "customers wanted a number of years ago" you're talking about.