Hugo808: I always thought that my trusty polariser is the one filter they'd never be able to emulate but here we are.
You can't stop progress.....
Well, no you didn't. You said, "the only reason to use a circular polarizer is if you use an SLR camera."
If you use a camera and its TTL metering system is not optical, or you are manually focusing, then a linear polarizer will work fine.
If you use any kind of camera with optical TTL metering or autofocus then you must use a circular polarizer rather than a linear polarizer if you want either system to function.
Merely saying that you use circular polarizers with SLR cameras is inaccurate at best and misleading at worst.
"The only reason to use a circular polarizer is if you use an SLR camera."
Not correct. Circular polarizing filters were developed for use with autofocus systems and in-camera meters. Linear polarizers were used for decades on SLR cameras.
techjedi: Hopefully this will reduce the price of traditional coated lenses.
Techjedi I, you said "lenses" in your original post. I think that is what the respondent replied about.
Peiasdf: Look more like painting to me. The subjects looks like artwork of the time instead of real scenery or person.
In that time exposures were typically made until an image appeared on the plate, so you would expect that look. It took several years past Niepce's first photos until the latent image phenomenon was discovered.
maxnimo: I'd love to see a camera just like this, but with a 2 inch sensor.
A million dollars for a 1,200mm lens? Wow, I thought Canon was expensive but that is ... Wow.
Scotts Photographs: The reason jpeg alternatives have such a rough time, IMHO, is that the majority of casual camera buyers (even those who buy DSLRs) and smartphone owners understand and like jpeg. They're happy with it... it does the job well enough. You can chatter at them all day long about lossless compression and bit depth and they just don't care. They can't tell the difference between a jpeg and another file format, just as most people can't tell the difference between 100/200/300 dpi prints. So, kudos to the programmer for developing something superior, but good luck getting it adopted as a replacement to the very popular, non-threatening, familiar jpeg, which is part of a whole universe of devices and software dedicated to it.
Sorry to pick a nit, but I doubt whether even 1% of casual users know what JPG is, much less understand or like it. They just know that when they hit the button, out pops a picture. They neither know nor care beyond that.
They only use it because it is ubiquitous, not due to preference.
"The iPhone will probably be available separately."
Sir Nick of High Point: Most all color negative film has a red mask layer, so isn't it already color shifted in a way? If I tried scanning these negatives, how would I know how to properly adjust the color curves for the mask layer?
The orange layer is there to facilitate more accurate color, not to shift away from accuracy.
If I remember correctly, scanner software has algorithms to account for the layer so you end up with a digital scan without the red shift.
This Thursday and Friday October 11-12 ... 2018?
This Thursday is the 9th, not the 11th.
vFunct: The person responsible for the creation owns the copyright. Photography equipment "operators", like this monkey, do not own copyrights.
If that were the case, then the assistants of high-end photographers would own the copyright to the photos, instead of the photographers, who normally act as directors. Most high-end photographers have assistants hold the camera and operate them and take the actual shot, instead of of the photographer themselves.
This is also why the NFL owns the copyright to their work, instead of the cameraman.
The big mistake people make is assuming photography is the art of operating cameras. It actually involves much more than that, including planning, production, styling, lighting, post-processing, etc..
It's very amateurish to consider photography as only taking pictures.
Just read up and vFunct, you're right about employee/employer relationship in regards to copyright. My apologies.
neil holmes: Spy meets and befriends simple person, spy gets said person to push the button for photo of forbidden military base......who gets charged???
Paparazzi outside celebrities place ......gets passing kid to climb tree and push shutter for pic in breach of law....who gets charged??
How is legal liability relevant to this discussion?
JackM: Right, so when I carefully setup every parameter on my camera (an expensive one which I was only able to purchase by selling photos) and then hand it to someone to take a pic of me and my family, I had nothing to do with it?
Well ... you had everything to do with the metering and possibly the focus. You still don't automatically own the copyright just because the camera belongs to you.
neil holmes: Well the Monkey took the camera without permission....charge him!
The photographer owns the camera, the card....the monkey could be regarded as the employee.
In any event the photos exist only because the photographer was responsible for ALL but pushing the button.
The Photographer owns the copyright in my opinion.
samfan: I think the law makes sense. The author is the one who presses the shutter button or otherwise sets up taking of the final image as a clear intention (self-timer, drone etc.). If you lend your camera to someone and they take the pictures, they are the author. This is clear enough.
As for the "If you drop your camera and it takes a picture by itself, nobody is the author", that's a bit tricky but I think it makes sense too. If you don't actually press the shutter button (or equivalent), then why would you want to claim ownership? Also in this case, it's clear the photographer did not set up this scenario.
You don't need to make money of everything and claim copyright on everything. Just suck it up and let the world have some fun with "your" image dang it.
vFunct, you are confusing things. In the absence of a contract the assistant who fired the shutter could absolutely prevail in a copyright suit. The law does not assign copyright by employment status.
To say that one "gives" copyright implicitly by lending gear is also incorrect. Copyright is EXPLICITLY the creator's unless a contract explicitly assigns the creator's rights to a different entity.
The NFL owns the copyright to those photos from whom they have required a copyright waiver. Example: they do not own the copyright to photographs taken by AP (whomever else) photographers - AP does PROVIDED they required their photographers to sign waivers. If the NFL wanted to require the AP to release copyright they could attempt to do so by requiring a similar waiver. However they do not own the copyright by virtue of the fact that the photographer was standing on the field when taking photos.
Osscat: I always thought that photographic copyright was held by the owner of the emulsion used - in film photography - would not the sensor and storage device be the equivalent of film?
Wrong. That is a contractual issue, not related to the film or the sensor. A newspaper will probably force any photographer to sign a waiver of copyright for anything done while employed by and at work for the company. Given that, whether a news shot is taken with the paper's gear or the photographer's, the copyright belongs to the paper.
If you loan your camera to someone and they take a photo, they own the copyright. Not you - unless you force them to sign a similar waiver.
paul simon king: well i that case that kinda rules out self timer pics too then, or pics actualted by passing animals triggering a infra red etc?
Of course it's his flaming pic, it wouldnt have been taken if he hadnt set it all up and posted it
No, not at all. In both scenarios you describe the photographer took an intentional action to create the photographs.
The self-timer merely delayed the shutter firing. In many lower-end cameras even today there is a noticeable lag between depressing the shutter button and the shutter firing. The intent remained the same - to take a photograph.
If an infrared trigger fires the shutter it only did so because the photographer turned it on. Again, intentional action caused the photo to be taken.
In this case, the monkey took the camera away from the photographer and the photographer no longer had any control over the subject, framing or timing of any photographs made. Therefore he cannot claim ownership of any of the photos.
Dan Desjardins: Perhaps its too late, but instead he could copyright it as a work of art rather than as the photographer. I just wonder if it could be argued that he set up the sequence of events for this to occur as an artistic expression and thus would be entitled to copyright?
But did he set up the sequence of events? From the description here it sounds as though the monkey took it from him - not that he handed it to the monkey to see what might happen.
Kipplemaster: Depends on the laws of the relevant jurisdiction, which is a point often ignored! In my view this comes down to title. Who has best title to this photograph? Wikimedia Commons, the camera owner, or the monkey? I would say the monkey has best title, then the camera owner, then Wikimedia Commons. Assuming the monkey isn't putting forward a case, the camera owner should win.
Why? That's the "possession is 99% of the law" defense. Just because the photographer's camera was used to create the photo, why should he be able to claim ownership of photos created while it was not in his possession or under his control?
Richard Schumer: "Do you think Mr. Slater's takedown requests are justified?"
That's actually three questions -- one as to law, one of facts, and one of "fairness."
The law is on Wikipedia's side, clearly. The facts are the photographer owns the camera and distributed the photos, something the animal could not do on its own.
Fairness, like beauty, however, "is in the eye of the beholder."
Interesting. I was going to say "no" but then I got to thinking about public domain things.
I play classical violin. Most of the music I play is in the public domain - Beethoven died a LONG time ago. However, the sheet music created by the publisher has edited the piece - added bowings and other interpretations - and now has a copyright on that edition of the piece. I suppose you could argue that edits to a public-domain photograph that make it substantially different from the original could be copyrightable. However, how do you define "substiantially different?" A crop, or even adjusting color should not qualify, in my opinion.