BobORama

BobORama

Lives in United States Allentown USA, Earth, United States
Works as a kernel application developer
Has a website at blog.trafficshaper.com
Joined on Jun 20, 2006
About me:

Find someone with a better plan, hit them over the head, steal their plan.

Comments

Total: 56, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

CharlesB58: Well, it's obvious some of the comments posted here are not only made by people who are not working music photographers, but not working photographers at all. The return a photographer gets of a given use of a photo is usually a fraction of what the record label saves with their unlimited use provisions. If you know the industry, you know that labels do all they can to screw their own artists out of money. The greed factor trickles down hill and is often disguised as Intellectual Property Rights.

I've dealt first hand with musicians who loudly protest the idea of of not receiving fair compensation for performances or distribution of recordings then tell me with a smile that they want to use my photos "for credit". I smile back and point out that I am every bit the professional they are. Sometimes we then agree on a usage fee. Other times they resort to using crappy smartphone photos taken by people who are thrilled to get their names on the artist's website.

Many times an artist would like to use my photos, but his/her contract requires approval by his/her label's publicity department. Dealing with those people, who are the ones who come up with the crappy photo contracts, is like undergoing dental work without anesthesia, unless you are already on their approved list.

So please, if you aren't an actual music photographer, consider that your comments don't have much weight in this discussion.

Thanks for what is a truly refreshing level of intellectual honesty!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 19:32 UTC
In reply to:

CharlesB58: Well, it's obvious some of the comments posted here are not only made by people who are not working music photographers, but not working photographers at all. The return a photographer gets of a given use of a photo is usually a fraction of what the record label saves with their unlimited use provisions. If you know the industry, you know that labels do all they can to screw their own artists out of money. The greed factor trickles down hill and is often disguised as Intellectual Property Rights.

I've dealt first hand with musicians who loudly protest the idea of of not receiving fair compensation for performances or distribution of recordings then tell me with a smile that they want to use my photos "for credit". I smile back and point out that I am every bit the professional they are. Sometimes we then agree on a usage fee. Other times they resort to using crappy smartphone photos taken by people who are thrilled to get their names on the artist's website.

Many times an artist would like to use my photos, but his/her contract requires approval by his/her label's publicity department. Dealing with those people, who are the ones who come up with the crappy photo contracts, is like undergoing dental work without anesthesia, unless you are already on their approved list.

So please, if you aren't an actual music photographer, consider that your comments don't have much weight in this discussion.

Perhaps you need your own forum to whine about the deficiencies of your chosen profession's revenue model. If you don't don't like an agreement, don't enter into it. Its that simple. The fact is that "photographers" are a dime a dozen - and so its a buyers market.

To try to convince the unwashed masses you are part of a special / protected class of creative artist who deserves something better - that's clearly not true. Otherwise you could name your terms.

If you are taking pictures for hire, then you are an employee. If you want to be an artist, I recommend being financial independent first. Then you won't have to soil yourself with being beholden to your patrons. Until then, either sign your life away or not.

But the moment you take a dime for your work, its transmutation to a product has begun, and instead of an artists you are a craftsman. And further down the road, a factory worker - liek the rest of us slobs.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 19:28 UTC

Slow news day?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 23:57 UTC as 22nd comment

Nice try, DPR, but it is a little late for an April Fools piece, guys!

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 12:12 UTC as 14th comment

If you put it on a Pentax, you would have 3+ stops of image stabilization. I have a 400mm lens from the 1950's and can get tack sharp shots hand held. That's why Pentax rocks!

Anway, with many pieces of similar glass in the secondary market already available, no need to save up for the Heliar. If you want to play with manual focus lenses, give it a try on whatever camera you have.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 12:06 UTC as 16th comment | 3 replies

If you look CAREFULLY at the R, G, and B ray path images provided, you see the problem immediately. While the lens is achromatic for in focus subjects, the OOF image areas are not. And they cannot be. "Show me the bokeh." I expect it to be an incredible melange of badness.

-- Bob

Direct link | Posted on Mar 13, 2015 at 00:23 UTC as 13th comment | 4 replies
On Opinion: The myth of the upgrade path article (1458 comments in total)

As a Pentax user, we have been ready for 50 years, given that the announced FF Pentax offering will use any lens that worked on any Pentax body going back 50 years.

The in-body share reduction technology means every lens I already have is image stabilized, and will provide a 2-3 stop advantage, and handles rotation around the optical axis, like shutter press blur - which OIS cannot.

There are already many decent older ( but not necessarily great ) full frame lenses for me to use. I have a couple of them. And some of the cheap lenses, by Samyang for example, which have very high image quality but lack OIS ( for your platform ) are magically image stabilized on the Pentax.

So yeah, I guess some platforms do not have an upgrade path. Weird, huh?

-- Bob

Direct link | Posted on Feb 22, 2015 at 19:47 UTC as 37th comment
On Under Water Selfie in the Underwater Photography challenge (1 comment in total)

Mission accomplished!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2015 at 03:43 UTC as 1st comment
On CP+ 2015: Canon shows 11-24mm in cross-section article (63 comments in total)

Who has the incredibly fun job of cutting lenses in half? Because that looks like a lot of fun.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2015 at 22:36 UTC as 11th comment
On Nikon D750 Review preview (1929 comments in total)

To summarize: "That can't be a problem, its a Nikon."

Direct link | Posted on Jan 23, 2015 at 01:26 UTC as 129th comment

"Raping the Internet has never been so easy!"

How is this any different from downloading the CC images and printing them? Not very different at all.

As for these images competing with "fine art" photographers - how? Not everything that is CC is something you'd want a poster print of. e.g.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Dog_feces.jpg

And to be honest, the difference between "artist" and the rest of us is time and money.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 23, 2014 at 03:06 UTC as 10th comment | 5 replies
On Light Field Cameras - Focusing on the Future article (140 comments in total)

The silly physical design of the camera betrays the struggle to differentiate it from "normal" cameras.

Consumers do not care HOW the camera arrives at "focus as a afterthought." The way the Lytro does it is unimportant to consumers. Most people use phone cameras, so they will not be a Lytro customers.

The market for such a camera is therefor "true believers" - which does not bode well.

Direct link | Posted on May 18, 2014 at 14:10 UTC as 21st comment | 3 replies
On Did Amazon just patent the seamless background setup? article (133 comments in total)

Congratulations, Amazon, on re-inventing the usage of the cyclorama.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2014 at 01:17 UTC as 24th comment
On Is it true? New service detects processed photos article (88 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mark Banas: It seems to accept, and trust, falsified EXIF info (via EXIFtool) with no problem, so my Pentax K-5 must actually be a 16MP Nikon D800? Not terribly sophisticated service...

If I stand where Ansel Adams stood, take the exact same shot, and do the same PP in the dark room, can I sell it as an Ansel Adams? Because that's the argument... Provenance matters, so by extension the EXIF matters.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 21:11 UTC
On Is it true? New service detects processed photos article (88 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marky boy: who cares.... really....we like what we like, regardless of how, what and where. We can tie ourselves up in knots about post processing, however, it is no different to darkroom skills of old......

The value to this goes beyond the trivial use of determining if the supermodels eyebrows were digitally waxed. It could easily establish forgeries, and settle ownership issues. Furthermore, a system could be constructed to create a certificate chain like verification mechanism that would establish derived works. So photo B is an edited version of photo A, but B's crypto gobbledygook is chained to A's.

PKI + EXIF

-- Bob

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 20:57 UTC
On Is it true? New service detects processed photos article (88 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marky boy: who cares.... really....we like what we like, regardless of how, what and where. We can tie ourselves up in knots about post processing, however, it is no different to darkroom skills of old......

Yes and no. Film and the camera it was shot in could be examined by an expert and one could conclusively determine if it was faked. But the negative would provide a level of repudiation against a modified print.

The digital negative has no non-repudiation mechanism. So its inherently NOT the same. Security logs on truely secure systems will have a non-repudiation mechanism, usually a cryptographic checksum.

In the context of a camera, the camera would use a private key to sign / encrypt the cryptographic checksum of the image data. ( The signatory agent could also be a wifi attached service, so some other mechanism. ) Then should someone need to validate the digital negative they need only decrypt the checksum value with the cameras public key. The checksum can be verified against the image data, and you have verified that this particular camera took that particular negative.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 20:47 UTC
On Is it true? New service detects processed photos article (88 comments in total)

I'd love to have access to the original test images. Its super easy to tell if an image has been edited - even expertly - as each layer of edits has its own signature.

Perhaps DPR should have a "Is It Fake?" challenge with 10 pictures, and see if we, as human beings, are better than the soul-less cloudy-cloud. We fill out a true / false form for each and whoever gets it right is put in a pool to win something.

EXIF data does not contain a non-repudiation mechanism and can be forged easily. Its a bad litmus test for both real and fake photos.

-- Bob

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2014 at 19:36 UTC as 13th comment
On Camera from NASA's moon missions sold at auction article (104 comments in total)

It wouldn't be the first time someone ( vastly ) overpaid for a Hasselblad....

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2014 at 23:38 UTC as 5th comment | 2 replies
On CP+ 2014: Things we found that had been cut in half article (107 comments in total)

I want to know HOW they cut them in half. I've done this on a small scale for metallurgical specimen preparation. Same thing just bigger?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2014 at 13:44 UTC as 33rd comment | 7 replies

I, for one, cannot wait till the Hasselblad Maserati's come out: Carbon fiber composite draped over a Kia Soul.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2014 at 03:17 UTC as 178th comment | 2 replies
Total: 56, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »