JimW-203

JimW-203

Lives in United States Tarpon Springs, FL, United States
Works as a Retired
Joined on Jun 4, 2011
About me:

I have been doing photography since the early 50s while in school and later traveling the world in a variety of positions in the government and private industry. Moved from Boston to Florida in 1988; first, St. Petersburg then Orlando, and now, Tarpon Springs.

Comments

Total: 213, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Street Walls and Public Places challenge (2 comments in total)

Will a storefront window serving the same purpose be acceptable?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2015 at 20:14 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply
On valediction in the Photo with a song challenge (2 comments in total)

One question: How did you get 173mm out of a 200mm prime lens?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2015 at 06:46 UTC as 1st comment
On A trick of the eye challenge (6 comments in total)

I echo VittoDigital's question: after all, how is one to rotate or flip an image without doing it in software?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 03:43 UTC as 1st comment
On Circles converging in the Geometric challenge (3 comments in total)

Thanks for the kind comments. Much of the interior walls and ceilings of the Tampa, Florida Museum of Fine Arts is covered by this perforated metal material; this particular section is in an outdoor terrace sculpture area upstairs and overlooking the Hillsborough River.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2015 at 15:20 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

photogeek: So it's basically an f/5.6 lens, then? Kthxbye.

Richard
"Eh? Where did *that* come from!?"

It comes, I think, from the expectation anyone has for a lens, regardless of format or cost: it should function and be useful at all apertures available to it. That is not to say it must be equally competent at all apertures, just useful given the user's full knowledge of its limitations.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2015 at 06:04 UTC
On Morning Hawks in the Coffee Shops challenge (14 comments in total)

An extraordinarily rich homage to Edward Hopper's "Night Hawks;" truly worthy of the first place finish. An attempt to explore the full range of feelings of the original that succeeds on all levels - congratulations.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2015 at 05:23 UTC as 10th comment
On knitting needles and yarn in the Tools challenge (1 comment in total)

Outstanding image - sorry I missed the voting phase; I certainly would have voted it at least a 4-4.5.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2015 at 19:17 UTC as 1st comment
On Photo with a song challenge (2 comments in total)

Given how receptive users have been to this challenge; would you consider extending the limit to allow a few more?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2015 at 06:12 UTC as 1st comment

Would anyone buy a used camera with the SN rubbed off? I don't think so. I also don't think any insurance company would cover one in the case of a theft. I can see the police report now; "the stolen camera has the following distinguishing characteristic: serial number is rubbed off and is missing or illegible." If the camera has no serial number, it must be mine.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2015 at 20:47 UTC as 51st comment | 1 reply

The potential for negative impact of 'on location' filming of commercial motion pictures, TV, advertising and even news footage could be enormous. If, hypothetically, one were to film a sequence including a drive through Paris - would the producers need to gain approval, frame-by-frame, of the entire sequence prior to filming? Would the holder of the copy right of a single building, structure, statue, etc. have essential veto power over the sequence? In essence, would each holder of copy right included be able to hold hostage filming activity in a city like Paris, filled with iconic structures, unless they approve of each frame containing an image of the structure they have copy rights to? This could hold up production forever. Would this include scouting footage, stock footage, or even scenes that are never intended for use in the final cut but are deemed commercially used because they supported the production process? My concern: what happens when lawyers get involved?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 20:47 UTC as 132nd comment
On Fujifilm X100T Review preview (670 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pirate Photog: How much bigger would the camera have to be if Fuji put a FF sensor inside with an f1.8 or 1.4 lens? And how much more would it cost to produce?

Richard Butler:
I have apparently been laboring under a misunderstanding for some time now - I always thought the area of the circle had to double to achieve a one stop increase, not the diameter. Thus, the diameter would have to increase by about 50%, not 100%.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2015 at 18:27 UTC
In reply to:

C.A.S.: I don't care what the management company rep said... the contract is crystal clear... “…FEI shall have perpetual, worldwide rights to use…” Perpetual means FOREVER.

If the picture was of you, would you allow unfettered use of it for any purpose in any publication or in any environment the photographer chose? How about your image being used as a poster or billboard depicting something you found distasteful or repugnant but fell short of being libelous? Where is your recourse and your share in the proceeds from the use of your image? No, I think the prudent thing to do is restrict its use up front and not wait to litigate after the damage has been done.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 21:57 UTC
In reply to:

C.A.S.: I don't care what the management company rep said... the contract is crystal clear... “…FEI shall have perpetual, worldwide rights to use…” Perpetual means FOREVER.

True, perpetual does mean forever; however, I see no equivalent perpetual injunction preventing your using them as well. You are merely agreeing to ask for their approval as to how and where you will use the artist's likeness in future. A reasonable agreement, I think - after all would you even have an opportunity to profit if the picture did not portray someone the market cares about. Rarely are the scales in balance and the subject's and photographer's name equally desirable and valuable, e.g. Yousuf Karsh and Winston Churchill.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 21:27 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Um except the photographer in question has already pointed out a problem with the Swift response.

Swift's people say that the photographer keeps the copyright to the image. And that's true, but no one was claiming that Swift gets the copyrights to the images shot.

It's that Swift can use the images if she wants, and the photographer can't even if he/she still owns the copyright.

Swift would be in a better position if she'd not made that misrepresentation.

(And Swift's tour would be better served employing the photographers as well salaried staff paid in advance, even if something interrupts the tour, with the written agreement that these photographers assign the copyrights to Swift, but the photographers receive credit and an agreed up residual any and everytime one of their images is used.)

Taylor Swift and Co. can be pigs too, and lie about it, not really a surprise.

I can understand the concern on both sides:
The value of the photograph is principally derived from "who is photographed" rarely from "who photographed whom." Just as the case of autographs, who signed it is the critical factor in most cases, not who got it signed. The photographer is trading control of the image for access to the image and the opportunity to profit from that access in future. If you want to maintain total control of your work, simply don't shoot in environments that restrict access and commercial rights - and there are many - many public buildings, museums, concert venues a all types, theaters, et al ad infinitum. If I am granted access I have an ethical and moral obligation to not harm the subject of my pictures by portraying them unfairly or publishing in an disreputable medium.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 21:10 UTC
In reply to:

OBI656: I will not elaborate on this subject since it will be a longer story. Therefore make it strait simple, this photographer who ever it is, is a cheep idiot.

I don't understand how you derived a belief that the photographer sounds like a baby chicken - or did you mean cheap? Is one of the other four languages chicken?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 20:24 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Um except the photographer in question has already pointed out a problem with the Swift response.

Swift's people say that the photographer keeps the copyright to the image. And that's true, but no one was claiming that Swift gets the copyrights to the images shot.

It's that Swift can use the images if she wants, and the photographer can't even if he/she still owns the copyright.

Swift would be in a better position if she'd not made that misrepresentation.

(And Swift's tour would be better served employing the photographers as well salaried staff paid in advance, even if something interrupts the tour, with the written agreement that these photographers assign the copyrights to Swift, but the photographers receive credit and an agreed up residual any and everytime one of their images is used.)

Taylor Swift and Co. can be pigs too, and lie about it, not really a surprise.

As I understand the rationale:
1) The photographer retains rights to the photograph
2) Even though it is the photographer's photograph, it is Taylor Swift's image - the concern is where and how that image is used. If they deem the proposed use to be less than flattering or harmful to Taylor Swift's commercial or personal reputation or depiction they can block its use. For example, she may not want a candid photo of her picking her nose to end up on the front page of National Enquirer, thus she needs protection and/or recourse to remedy the situation.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 20:20 UTC
In reply to:

Johannes Zander: Who is Taylor Swift?

Just another inflated canary?

Not a canary, more like the 900 pound gorilla in pop music.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 20:09 UTC
In reply to:

Waterengineer: What a self-serving article - trying to justify his position and decision.

Waterengineer:

What was your first clue that it was not a review of the camera but rather his rationale for his decision? Oh! The first word in the title, maybe? We all do it when ticking off the reason for any choice we make: car, house, college, mate, job - pick one.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 20:32 UTC
On peek-a-boo challenge (2 comments in total)

Hypothetically, if one were to submit a photo in which the subject (a person) was seen to be peeking around/through something in order to look at something that cannot be seen in the frame, would that be acceptable?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2015 at 04:29 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply
On Airman Walter Huges in the Airman portrait challenge (4 comments in total)

The comment was to correct the gentleman's name: Walter Hughes, not Huges - I am not the submitter, merely one who made the comment in order to give true credit to his service.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 15, 2015 at 22:17 UTC as 2nd comment
Total: 213, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »