chiumeister: Just watermark everything you post on Instagram and other sites.
Watermarking is like branding your beautiful wife's face so other men won't look at her.
whyamihere: I'm thoroughly enjoying the public freakout now that the legal language that has represented this service (and others) is being phrased in terms that normal people can understand.
Since it's part of my job to read the complete ToS for many apps and services, none of this is surprising at all to me.
One of these days, you'll all learn to read the agreements instead of hastily clicking the 'I Agree' or 'Ok' button. In this case, any service that offers to relocate your data for ease of access reserves the right to use, change, or delete your data. It's still yours, but you don't have as much control over what happens to it once that data hits their servers without their consent. That's how it works, and that's how it has always worked.
Most individuals do not understand copyrights and usage agreement. They don't realize that photographers can grant all kinds of usage agreements from very specifically defined restrictive single use agreements to unlimited agreements that allow the client to publish anywhere with no time limitation.
Even the unlimited usage agreement does not normally grant the client the right to sell or relicense the image to a third party.
The typical ToS agreement goes above and beyond what is required by the service to publish and archive the content. They claim the right to relicense the content but to what end? Why else would they need that right other than to acquire free access to content that they can relicense for profit?
Anyone who has ever had to write a usage contract should be able to understand the terms in ToS contracts..if they would only take the time to read them.
Peter K Burian: It amazes me that a company like this would have the nerve to try this. Granted, 95% of the photos are snapshots but that is not the point.
Good point. The quality of the images does not alter the matter of ownership and copyright. If we allow this to slide, then we are opening the door to more aggregious rights grabs.
Still, I might say that I have seen some very good...and marketable, content posted on other sites that are subject to the same terms.
When pressed for an explaination, many of the services claim they need the right to publish the image in order to achieve the normal operation of the site.
I've been on four sides of the image usage relationship: photo lab printer, copy technician, photo buyer for a publication and as the photographer and copyright holder of the image.
As a printer and copy tech. all I needed was proof of permission to reproduce the image. I did not want to be party to unauthorized reproduction.
As a photo buyer, usage agreements clearly defined how the images would be used, number of imprints and for how long. Payment was made accordingly.
facebook and friends do not need unlimited usage in order to post the content in the manner the user intended. All that is needed is proof the user has permission to use and publish the content. The do not need unlimited usage rights to protect themselves from liability.They just want free access to content they can sell for profit.
frankmv: Never opened an account with Instagram...and now I never will. Further, I've deleted the app from my iPhone. I'll take a much harder look at Flickr and other similar social media (read "sharing") sites. I may just swear off them all...
@ Franka T L...You might want to take another look at filckr's ToS. Saying they do not claim owneship of the copyright is not the same thing as not claiming unrestricted usage of the image.
Many sites make that claim, but effectively claim all the rights that a copyright provides, except exclusivity.
There is another term for what they claim: "unlimited usage" Unlimited usage does not transfer the copyright to the buyer , it just allows them to use it in any way, for as long as they want, including reselling the image.
But even with unlimited usage, the photographer still retains the right to license or sell the image to other parties. The photographer still retains ownership, but allows the other party to relicense or use the image in a manner outside of what is required for the operation of the site.
What these ToS agreements are claiming is unlimited usage, but not ownership of the copyright. But for all intents and purposes, they own the image.
xlynx9: Most online services have similar clauses. They're just to allow for screenshots of the site/app to be used in promotional material, magazines etc.
I make a portion of my photography income by selling the usage rights of my images to be used in promotional material, magazines, etc.
I would be happy if facebook used one of my images in their promotions, as long as they pay the appropriate usage fee for the type and circulation size. Facebook is a business and they should pay for any images they use for the promotion of their business like any other busienss would.
As with anything, each individuals experience is different. No harm in trying.
GabrielZ: Only costs 22 grand, I'll buy a dozen...ha ha. But seriously why go for this when you can get a D800/D800e with virtually the same resolution, add to it a Zeiss prime and you've got a system with the same image quality for a fraction of the price. Still...a nice camera none the less.
@ Canon Pro...with a high speed sync capable speedlight, you can use flash up to 1/4000, no ND filters required. An old school friend suggested that NDs would work just as well but I'd have to have three of them tyo fit the difffferent lens sizes.
With high speed sync,one can switch from flash to ambient at the flick of a switch without having to fumble around with filters.
No need for a $21000 dollar camera to accomplish that.
obeythebeagle: Don't take my Kodachrome, or HDR, or B&W, away. It's all fun. HDR is Ansel Adam's brain on LSD.
I formulated my own developer for Tech Pan. It was difficult to mix but gave far better results than the Kodak Technidol developer. So I can always make my own. But the only Tech Pan I can find is 8 year old stock that been stored at room temp.
I hope that whomever buys Kodaks patents will recognize the qualities of Tech Pan for fine arts photography and start making it.
If that doesn't happen I'll proabably never soot another role or sheet of film. And when Canon gets off its behind and gives us the rumored 46MPX camera, even tech pan will be surpassed.
CaseyComo: Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer the look of a single exposure. If the sky is too bright, expose for the shadows and use a grad ND filter.
@gasdive:I'm with you on that. I don't like the graduated filter look, they can only used in certain circumstances and you're stuck with whatever you get when you take the shot. I cringe when I watch CSI Miami which overuses an orange grad filter. Makes it look like Miami's got a bad smog problem!
HDR offers more control and flexibility.One can make the image scream "HDR" or one can apply just enough of the effect to balance the tonal values and make the image pop a little more than a straight shot.
There are lots of filter effects that were ok when that was all we had but look dated today.
dark goob: Just think, if you had an external HDMI monitor you wouldn't have to bend to the ground. Or a camera with a rotating screen.
Why doesn't Canon put a damn rotating screen on the Mark III? I would buy one if it had it.
In certain conditions an iPad is the right tool but in the field I want something smaller, easier to handle that doesn't take up too much space;like the Samsung Note.
But I'd rather have a dedicated device that has physical buttons and dials that mirror the cameras. I don't like the touchscreen shutter releases. The camera controller apps I've looked have certain functions that are not part of the camera system like intervalometer and expanded HDR exposure braketing.Touch screen focus select would be nice.
But there are compatibility issues with apps and phones. My brand new phone would have to be upgraded and rooted for the app to work. That is too complicated and risky.
A dedicated device would not require its own internal operating system, would run off the camera battery, would not have to be replaced when I changed phones and would probabaly be more rugged and materproof than an iPad or smart phone.
I much rather have a dedicated piece of camera hardware.
elefteriadis alexandros: HDR? just use film..
I actually agree with your assessment of the sample images above. They are not great examples of the true potential of realistic renderings of HDR imageing.
May I add that its a little bit unfair to judge my abilities based upon someone elses images!!! My work does not look anything like the above samples. I don't shoot to display online, I shoot to print. My philosophy is that the photograph is not complete until it has been consigned to paper. Much of my work is black and white, which was not addressed here. So please don't disparage my work based upon someone elses work.
Francis Sawyer: These aren't HDR. They're LDR. Step one is educating the public about the misused terminology that pervades this fad.
If you see something in a JPEG online, you know it's not HDR. HDR requires a file format that can store it, like EXR. It also can't be viewed on any normal computer monitor.
People often confuse High Dynamic Range Capture and tonemapping.
It is tonemapping that creates the oversaturated and oversharpened images., not the dynamic range of the original scene.
Tonemapping can be applied to single LDR images as well. If the dynamic range of the original scene was within the range of the camera sensor, then the working image file can have as much shadow and highlight information as a high dynamic range scene captured with multiple exposures and rendered as an "HDR" image.
A high dynamic range scene captured via the multi shoot HDR method, can be rendered as a rather conventional looking image. It will simply reveal more highlight and shadow detail than a single shot image would.
SDPharm is correct. HDR refers to the method of capture, not the final loutcome.
Tonemapping is just the methods employed to render the HDR image to the desired result.
The "HDR look" isn't the result of HDR and should be refered to as the "tonemapped look"
They took my Tech Pan film away years ago. Now I need a 46MPX camera to be happy!
You can still have the look of a single exposure with HDRI. With HDR capture, we can record more information than we really need, how much of it you use is up to you. Its better to have more information to work with than to be struggling to tame a highlight or open a shadow that has no detail.
The average person now spends hours a day staring at brightly lit TV screens, computer monitors and smart phones. Thats what their eyes are atuned to. Neon colors are even big in fashion.
Many artists think in order to be seen they have to be as bright and garish as everyone else. They may be correct, but that doesn't make them right.
The question is: Who is YOUR target audience? Is it the viewer who appreciates subtleties, or is the the viewer who wants to be dazzled? Its like pop music VS classical. The masses are drawn to the overprocessed HDR images like moths to a candle.
There really is no right or wrong, it is merely a matter of taste.
Why doesn't Canon and all the other DSLR makers, make their own proprietory external monitors?
I can use a cell phone app to connect my smart phone to my DSLR and contro, the camera from the cell phone.Put the camera on a pole with a tripod head and one does not even have to bend over to get close to the ground.
But those apps all have their limitations.
Canon makes cameras with touch screens that allow the user to change seting on the screen. All they need to do is make a larger touch screen that can beconnected to the camera with a cable..or maybe even WiFi.
If the app writers can create an app for this, I'm sure that it is within the technological capability of Canon or Nikon to create an off the camera controller. They could do better than the cell phone apps by replicating all the buttons and dials of the camera on the remote monitor!!
Wouldn't that be cool?
Wye Photography: After reading this I am still not a 'fan' of HDR. The images on the first page look 'overcooked', the first two images on the second page, I admit, do look nice. The last image on page 2 looks like it has been done with one of those water colour apps on an iPad. A waste of an EOS 5D MkIII.
I don't think this article convinces me that HDR, and I quote, "emulate(s) the world we see with our own eyes". My world certainly doesn't look anything like these images. In dynamic range perhaps, in colour NO!
Then again, this article is for those ALREADY into HDR.
It is nothing new for photgraphers to overcook special techniques. I remember when I was was a teenager I learned how to use use color filters with black and white film....or how to solarize a print or how to sandwhich my negatives with Kodalith masks. I went crazy creating wachy over the top special effects. I made alot of crazy surrealistic prints but in the end, after I learned how to control the techniques to use them as a means of controling the quality of more conventional looking images.
Whenever a new technique is introduced, people will have a tendancy to overdo it to create unusual looking images, but in time, they outgro it. Eventually the overcooked images are regarded as cheap amateur manipulations. Skill practioners will learn to restrain themselves and apply just the right amount of the effect.
Unfortunately, many amateurs are using simple one size fits all HDR processors on point and shoot cameras and cell phones. They don't know any better, they think its cool.
TakePictures: Read the light, be patient, and you don't need HDR.
Take, this served photographers well for decades and many great photographs were made during that time. But throughout the history of photography, photographers have struggled with the inherent limitations of film. That gave rise to the Zone System and artificial lighting.
The aesthetics of what defines a great image were determined by the limitations of film. Photographers had to work with what they had. Ansels Adams stock in trade was his ability to create prints that had beautifully rich and detailed shadows and highights that made his prints "pop" in a way that others did not.
Many scenes are within the dynamic range of film and required no special technique to render them.
And when using artificial light the photographer is simply using the manipulation of light to bring the dynamic range of the scene within the range of the film or sensor.
HDRI is not a requirement, it is merely an option. HDRI simply captures the full DR, but the image does not have to use it all.
I used the Zone System in large format black and white for many years and used every technique I knew of to try to sqeeze more range out of the film without turning it to mush. I mastered the craft of b&w printing so I could render all the details in the negative...without turning the image to mush.
To a more limited degree I applied Zone methods to color.
Multi exposure HDR imaging blows Zone System B&W out of the water in its ability to capture the full dynamic range of an scene (...without turning it to mush.) Even more so when compared to color film.
Long before digital, I used the 3 exposure technique with 4x5 B&W. With 3 enlargers, carefull allignment, alot of burning & dodging and darkroom trickery, I could , after a few hours, have a handfull of really gorgeous prints. Thus I was able to bring the full DR of a high contrast scene to the print.
That still doesn't compare to what can be done with digital HDRI.
Shooting architecture on 4x5 film, I was often faced with the challenge of balancing dark shadows with bright lights and windows, utilizing split exposures, artificial lighting, reflectors, scrims, gobos, diffusers and filters..all in an effort to capture in camera a relatively 'normal' looking image.
Digital photography was a godsend because I could bracket my shots and composite the various componants in Photoshop to create a "normal" image.
So right from the getgo, I saw HDR imaging as a means of bringing out shadow details and taming blown out highlights to create a "normal" image. It's really just one more technique for quality control, as are artificial lighting and Zone System.
One could just as easily create wild and wacky surrealistic images in Photoshop and with film. While it is fun to experiment, it's HDRIs ability to render highlight and shadow detail that I find most useful. I use just enough to make my images pop without looking obviously tonemapped.