AllanW: If they EVER add localised HSL I'll be in heaven!
I agree with this one. Something that Adobe should consider!
While regrettable, this is seems to be a logical consequence of the absolute ubiquity of the camera in the 21st century. Couple this with the apparent 'right' everyone seems to believe they have to 'monetise' everything they do on Facebook and YouTube. It was inevitable that people who make work in 'public' places (the buildings, the public art, people's faces, etc) would start to push back.
Pro-photographers have long had to get permission to use places in a city, so that's nothing new.
But it's not really the city councils, governments, architects and planners who are responsible for the rules, even though they are the ones introducing them. If you want to blame anyone, blame the people who feel that it is their right to make money off anything that moves. They are killing it for the rest of us.
Sign the petition. It's not much, but it's all we've got.
Klaus Weber: Seeing the content of such books, I always wonder regarding the model releases from the people shown. I am about to publish my own book about Belgrade, and for some photos I am not sure if I should dare to publish them.
I guess you did not ask for an release of the persons you made photos of, e.g. photo 4 here? You just take the risk?
As far as I know personality rights are still only for commercial use.
I believe that in most cases/jurisdictions a model release is only needed if the image is to be used for 'commercial purposes'. This does NOT mean that you can't sell the image as an art print--that should be ok, as would publication in a photographic book. If you were intending to sell some of the images to Belgrade City Council to be used as publicity shots, or to Coke for an advertisement, THEN you would need a model release.
Naveed Akhtar: These are all great photos Rodger, perfectly exposed and composed!Also inspiring is the fact, that they are taken from a relatively small sensor camera. I always believe for good photography it needs (ordered in preference):1. Good eye/ hands2. Camera body 3. Lens/ Sensor combination4. Post processingYour 1,2 and 4 are so good that the overall impact balances out slightly weaker 3, quite easily.
Hi SamuelThanks for clearing that up.
In fact if the dates on the images are correct, there are only three images (1, 4 & 5) that could have been taken with the Fuji, because the photographer says he started using the camera in 2012. So what's the story here? The photographer (whose work is great, by the way) isn't really claiming anything except that he now uses the Fuji. So could DPRs writers/editors explain THEIR claim that the book was made with this particular camera? ("...the baby X-series offered everything he needed for a self-published book of photography") when it is plain that the book is no such thing?
Stuart001: I can't believe people are so negative about something that no one is forcing them to use. Does anyone still use 3Mp cameras? Dial up internet? A mobile phone powered by a 6volt, wet-cell battery? Watch VHS movies?
Subscription-based, downloadable software is inevitable. Why? Because we now have the means to quickly transfer large amounts of data over the Internet. We don't need to put it on CDs or DVDs any more. And the subscription model is actually cheaper than the old method of buying PS 4,5 or 6 and Lightroom, unless you are happy updating just once a decade and using outdated software.
Some of the new things in PS CC are terrific. Access to camera raw as a filter within Photoshop by itself saves me hours per week, and more than pays for the annual subscription. This is true even if you are not a pro, unless you value your own time at zero.
Don't like it? Don't buy it. Or invent something better. (And I don't work for Adobe, and I'm not a hip young tech head-I'm almost 60.)
Howaboutraw: The point is the same. The 3mp camera was once the industry standard. It no longer is. Times move on, and the delivery of content--software as well as media content such as tv shows and movies--is changing, just as camera technology has changed and continues to change. Early digital cameras were replaced by those with better sensors etc and we moved forward. No one now wants a 3mp camera. In the near future few people will want disks. Many don't need them now.
In 1977 I was a civil design draftsman in a government agency (water supply). I was seconded to a position working with other agencies to digitise cadastral and construction information. I worked with sewerage and drainage agencies, gas and electricity suppliers, telecommunication companies--anyone who had services buried underground. We used large tape-based mainframes in climate-controlled and dust free rooms. The single trial project took over a year. I have been involved with computers in some way since.
Howaboutraw: Your last couple of replies demonstrate that you have completely missed the point I was trying to make. There is a cycle of change that you seem not to understand.
Improvements in hardware lead to improvements in software that lead to improvements in hardware... and TIMES CHANGE. When Photoshop was bought on disk, the company kept upgrading as new technologies meant that they could do new things. Now they can upgrade more cheaply, and customers can access the upgrades more quickly. Putting software on DVD is no longer necessary as we have fast internet speeds.
You childishly say "You don't appear to know much about PhotoShop, computers, internet connections or digital cameras". How do you know WHAT I know? (I began working with computers in 1977) And you say earlier "My laptop is likely faster than your computer." Maybe. Maybe not. But so what? It's as stupid as a photographer saying, "I know more about photography than you because I own a Leica."
Howaboutraw: My point about 3mp cameras and dial up is that some people are extremely conservative and reluctant to change, especially when they feel they have a 'right 'to something simply because they have been using it for a while. Software used to be supplied on disk because it was the only way to do so. Now it's not. It really is as simple as that.
razadaz: Reading through the replies here I cannot believe how many people support Adobe and want to give it more money, extolling the virtues of endless rental payments. Do these people go shopping for the highest price they can pay for their groceries, sell their houses so they can rent them instead, or argue that their job is paying them too much? It is common sense for software users to look for cheaper alternatives and help keep the price down, rather than support a company that has already made a vast fortune out of its customers. Adobe is not a charity, is does not need your financial support.
A cheaper alternative is fine. The problem is finding something that does all that Photoshop does, as efficiently and as well. Unfortunately there is nothing. There are programs that do some things but not others, and nothing that is the complete package. If you find something that works for you, then fine. But don't assume that just because I use Photoshop that I am somehow deluded.
I can't believe people are so negative about something that no one is forcing them to use. Does anyone still use 3Mp cameras? Dial up internet? A mobile phone powered by a 6volt, wet-cell battery? Watch VHS movies?
TyphoonTW: 'I do not touch my dance work with Photoshop. Never!'. Dxo Optics + Paintshop Pro confirmed? Anyway nice shots!
...or a studio assistant does it for him.
Stuart001: Is it just me, or is this perhaps the single most stupid, simple-minded, muddle-headed, narcissistic idea ever invented?
Ah, CaneI feel quite sorry for you if you think that not liking a dumb idea means one is 'old'. 'Age' is not a determinant of maturity. One can be immature at any age, a fact clearly demonstrated by your apparent excitement over what is a rather sorry piece of completely useless technology.
You're going to be fun to look at with your shirt off when your first pack of 'Picattoos' arrives.
Is it just me, or is this perhaps the single most stupid, simple-minded, muddle-headed, narcissistic idea ever invented?
Thomas Kachadurian: The question isn't do people buy magazines. The question is do advertisers buy space. The answer is less and less every day. If I sell a canon camera why should I buy an ad in SI when I know I can buy an ad on DPR and get directly to my customers.
A good point Thomas, but it is possible to have an add-on program on a browser (such as AdBlock+) which stops ads from being displayed. I don't see ads on most sites that I visit.
Prixnobeldefoot: Some of the pictures are interesting.However, I find it sad that none of those have a "natural" look.I know Photography is a visual art, but I feel that nowadays people tend to value more visual effects than content, you have to make it appealing to the most people possible. It has to pop out...
Like #3, let's give them a sunset, some flowers, add some contrast and saturation and done. It's well executed but it's s been done a million times. I find it rather cliché.
I like #1 and #7 because they're intriguing in a way.
As an another academic, I agree with you Mr Craw!. 'Art' is not just something that is pleasant; nor it necessarily something that is provocative or controversial. It needs more. It needs to be based in ideas and in the communication of those ideas. To this end it IS often challenging and difficult because that is what it is supposed to be. It is not art BECAUSE it is controversial but being so does not negate its value as 'art'. I would like to know if the photographer who 'had a wee' on his film was Andres Serrano and his 'Pis$ Chr$t'? If so I suggest ThatCamFan has a good read about what Serrano was trying to do with his work, but unfortunately it takes far longer to try and understand it than it does to simply dismiss it. I have seen some great photos of flowers and bugs that COULD be art, but not that many. Most of them are simply decorative photos of flowers and bugs. (And it's not a photography thing - most paintings aren't art either.)
response to Thatcamfan: You may know what you like, but you seem to know little about art. Art has been 'controversial' since the Renaissance. I'm not suggesting that these image are necessarily art, but to suggest that ' the controversial is just a bullcrap word d*cks use' is the kind of bullcrap argument that d*cks who know nothing about art use.
dylanbarnhart: What really matters in a picture is the content. Seeing the face expression of someone you know doing something crazy is more interesting than looking at another pixel-perfect postcard-wannabee landscape.
What really matters in a picture is the content. Seeing a pixel-perfect postcard landscape is more interesting than looking atthe crazy facial expression of a someone-wannabee you-know-what doing nothing.
RStyga: How is the winning shot "wildlife"??
But why is a pigeon in a city less wild than a pigeon in a forest? Or pigeon in a field?