John Driggers: Okay, we've had the first two posts and the usual DPR negativity. Time for a positive, photography related comment.
This is a tremendous resource to view and study some great artwork (not all of may be great, but a lot is). Pop down 14-20 great portraits, put them into lightroom and compare them with your own work vis a vis lighting and composition. Ditto for landscapes and so forth. A lot of self-learning about images is possible here at no cost. Ditto inspiration.
Not everyone can make into the museum (I no longer live in the US, so I am in that group). What a great opportunity for an online, self designed tour.
So snipe shoot all you want at the announcement or the T&C. It's still a good thing.
I agree John, positive comments are welcome and needed.
Cynicism runs strong in society these days. It's been a theme ever since we came out of the 60's - the press and movies have pounded this attitude into our heads, and so we have a tendency to look for ill motives and wrong doing. And we certainly find it. But the price we pay is huge: we often miss the big picture - the real story of what's going on. So we rightly avoid the schemers and scammers, but then we end of questioning the motives of those who are working hard to do good.
It's hard to criticize negativity without being negative yourself. Especially if you use such a remark to elevate how positive your own comment is. It kinda takes the gas out of your own contribution. It's much like the classic comedy bit when the sarge asks for a volunteer from the lineup: you don't step up yourself, but everyone takes a step back. In this case you're trying to force everyone else back.
See how this works? I can't even write this comment without falling into the trap of being negative. But at least I didn't indict the entire DPR user community, just you! Oh, no! I'm falling farther down the hole, somebody stop me before I say anything else! ...
joe6pack: Which makes me wonder why many museums do not allow tripods.
Safety (because people could trip over the tripod legs) and probably also visual distraction (because a photographer might be "camping out" next to a tripod for 20 minutes or more). In a busy museum you might find more than one tripod in some rooms.
In I'd like to be able to use one, but I can see why they're oftentimes restricted.
visualvirtuoso: Not sure where the competitive advantage lies. LiveU, Streambox, Dejero all bond cell signals to deliver footage from the field: http://www.liveu.tv/
The main thing he's done is integrate multiple existing technologies for a streamlined workflow that's specific to his industry and company. It's designed to require minimal attention from the photographer during the process of capturing and transferring the images.
The two keys that stood out to me were:
1) They altered the workflow so that the photographer can simply speak the image tags while working, rather than typing them later
2) The cellular bonding technology (of AT&T plus Verizon) means there's a high likelihood the images will get transferred to the editors right away, automatically. Otherwise the photographer has to repeatedly stop and check whether the connection is still good.
It's unclear to me from the article whether there's a mechanism for the editors to remotely request full-res images, but they do receive every image in either thumbnail or publishable medium-res right away, as he shoots.
Rage Joe: I'm pretty sure this pathetic greediness has costed the Waltons already much much more than $2000. Hope they lose big time.
Which would explain why the Plaintiff (Walmart) won't confirm that they made this offer, while the defense has no trouble reporting this fact.
I was wondering why this was - it seemed strange when I first read that Walmart effectively denied having made this offer.
utomo99: Too expensive. And why no hdmi port? Why not using ssd for bigger storage?
What's wrong with using the Mini DisplayPort?
Maverick_: guys before bashing this, keep one thing in mind, the Surface is a very popular product. They do sell. And it's a neat but flawed concept.
I was in the market for an ultrabook, narrowed my choice to a 13.3" Sony Flip, but before buying it Sony sold that division and I decided to look further. Also 13.3 Flip screen is way too heavy to be used as tablet since the keyboard is still attached.
The Surface 2 Pro wasn't even in the running for me, because of the tiny screen size and weight.
So, I decided to look at tablets instead and just when I needed to finalize my purchase Samsung came out with the excellent Galaxy Note Pro 12.2. I got the LTE version on first day of release and have not regretted it.
Surface going to 12" is a good move, but a better move would be 13.3. Windows products don't work as well on small screens. But keep in mind, the thickness/weight of the Surface is its worst enemy.
The future will be phones and tablets and only 1% will use desktops.
Impulses, when I was in high school they fixed computer bugs with tweezers ...
TwoMetreBill: 8GB of RAM for serious image editing, NOT!
Also, don't forget that both MS and Apple have reduced the memory footprint in their current (x86) OSes, compared to previous versions.
Rage Joe: And then these stingy *astards offered $2000 for these unique pictures. I would enjoy it dearly if all the people visiting Wal¤Mart would get this information.
"The Walton Family Fortune according to The Forbes 400 Richest People in America
Christy Walton and family US$36.7 billionJim Walton US$34.7 billionAlice Walton US$34.3 billionS. Robson Walton US$34.2 billionAnn Walton Kroenke US$4.7 billionNancy Walton Laurie US$4.0 billion"
Total US$148.6 Billion
"The Walton Family is by far the richest family in the world"
Dollar figures of wealth say absolutely ZERO about a persons or entity's character, or whether they deserve "hero or villain" status. But it can certainly be a challenge for a wealthy person to maintain good character.
But regardless of whether or not the Walton family has good character, $10 for the full rights to a photo is exceedingly cheap. I doubt you could even purchase the rights to a school photo of your child for that price, let alone historic photos of the richest family in the world. If true, an offer of $2000 is patently absurd!
Walmart, its museum, and the family members need to either ignore the photos or pay for the usage rights.
DotCom Editor: This appears to be a poor job of headline writing. To claim that "Walmart sues" would seem to be completely untrue and inaccurate. In the story it says, "The Walton family complaint..." That's vastly different than Walmart. So, which is it?
Get your facts right before writing the headlines. You want a professional photographer to shoot your wedding; you should have a professional journalist doing the journalism.
On the contrary, according to multiple legal websites it was filed by "Crystal Lands, LLC; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. " as the Plaintiff.
Getting your facts right is important.
DStudio: It's plain and simple. The studio owns the rights to the photos unless there's a written agreement stating otherwise. It sounds like the Walton family has also been illegally reproducing copies of these photos for some time, and they should have to pay for that. Normally, casual reproduction would be let go by a studio (it's unclear how extensively they were republished), but since the Walton family has now made an issue of it they should be required to pay for this misuse as well.
The PPA's backing of the defendant is a near-certain indication she's right. The PPA has high integrity and a clear understanding of the law. It's interesting that the other case they cite in their article involves someone else (Oprah Winfrey) who's power has also gone to her head. It's too bad - I suspect that the Walton generation which founded Walmart would never have done this, but the current generation lacks such sensibility.
I already found the same article. Walmart doesn't even claim to have such a document - not in any article I read.
What I did read made me suspect the motive is to cover for having already misused these photos, which they don't own. They may have plans for more extensive use in the future, whether for museums, ads, or other promotions. Above all, they want the courts to ban Huff from any commercial use, thus making themselves the only potential "bidder." This flies straight in the face of the very reason for the law!
They're already backpedaling, with the Walmart spokesman's statement this afternoon that "some" of the photos belong to Walmart. Yet their suit still claims they should get ALL of them, the vast majority of which have clearly belonged to the studio all along.
I think they're trying to confuse the matter by claiming that a few of them were taken in for restoration. They're being deliberately ambiguous, trying to win in any way possible rather than addressing the truth.
MrTaikitso: 64GB of SSD in 2014 is pathetic. I'm using 1TB of SSD on my MB Pro 15", and will need more in a year. I had 256GB on my excellent MB Air 13", but filled it up in a year too before getting the MBP.
What are MS thinking? Where are people going to store all their images? (I keep all my content locally AND in the cloud, for peace of mind.)
They're thinking you know what a USB 3.0 port is for!
Biowizard: Brilliant! Am I the only one looking forward to "iPad Pro" - now about 99% more likely this year than before!
If it runs iOS it ain't gonna be the same - at all!
It'll have none of the photography apps that run on Windows or OS X. So no matter how powerful the processor is, if such an animal were to be released tomorrow it would take at least 2-3 years to get these publishers to create even just a few apps with similar power and capabilities.
Can you provide a reference to this article please?
The very idea sounds fishy, however:
1) This would have resolved the issue ages ago
2) Why would PPA stand behind the studio if a legitimate document like this existed? It would be a waste of their resources. Such a document would simply be in accordance with existing law, and there'd be no reason to file an amicus brief since there'd be no threat to the industry. PPA would simply leave the widow alone to face the consequences. On the contrary, they see some kind of manipulation occurring here.
The Walton family is clearly trying to circumvent the law, for some reason (it would be interesting to learn their actual motive).
Steve in GA: I suppose there have always been folks who saw themselves as victims of vicious economic brutality by those who are more successful. But, the odd thing is that I can’t recall ever hearing anyone express such views before internet blogs came along.
Yes, there have always been a few muckraking press reporters who would try to blame someone’s misfortune on, “the evil rich”. But for the most part, most people saw business success as something to aspire to and emulate, rather than as something to hate and tear down.
Now, internet blogs are filled with, “destroy the Waltons” and “kill the Koch brothers”. I hope comments like these in this blog are not coming from Americans, but I know many of them are.
What a sad country we have become.
Sorry Steve in GA, this attitude has been present in America since before Andrew Jackson and the founding of the Democratic Party, who's stated strategy was to manipulate the "uneducated" majority by "standing up for them." And to this day they claim the votes of the majority by calling them "women and minorities."
The only difference the internet's made is it allows people to publish their antipathy more easily. But these attitudes have been held and discussed by Americans since the founding of our country.
It's plain and simple. The studio owns the rights to the photos unless there's a written agreement stating otherwise. It sounds like the Walton family has also been illegally reproducing copies of these photos for some time, and they should have to pay for that. Normally, casual reproduction would be let go by a studio (it's unclear how extensively they were republished), but since the Walton family has now made an issue of it they should be required to pay for this misuse as well.
Small detail: He's a photographer, not a videographer!
Peter Galbavy: Erm, much as I dislike the Eye-Fi card for it's poor support and lack of stated confidentiality (for their mandatory upload-to-cloud-to-auto-share), once it's working it's good. I shoot, WiFi Direct to my tablet, select images and upload. If I wanted to I could also edit but I don't generally.
This is nothing more than a bit of ego-massaging PR. No innovation here. Move along.
You fail to realize this is a change in the workflow, which is a huge deal. So his photos get published quicker than yours every time.
There are ways to do this much more simply and more compact as long as you're willing to go with just one cellular network at a time and keep an eye on it. No backpack required - just your pockets, or a pocket of the backpack/camera bag you already use.
The truth is you should have all 4 cellular networks at your disposal when possible - there are places where only one network works that well, and it could be any of them.
This cellular bonding technology can be essential for video, but can be overkill in many photo applications. It still doesn't hurt - as long as his solution is compact enough for him it's great, but competitors could do almost as well on a shoestring (with zero software development or custom hardware) ...
Wow, #9 really stopped me in my tracks! And then the ones that follow it are interesting too.