Reading mode: Light Dark

*** CTF Challenge 77 – Triangles and diagonals ***

Go to last post
Thanks for the link, I'll browse through the site and maybe I'll get lucky and find that photo.
Gayle said:
http://www.photographaustralia.com.au/

His books are the first ones I reach for when I'm looking for
direction or inspiration. I don;t copy him.....I am trying to find
my own "style", but I do like his work very much.

Gayle
Techo said:
That was a very good and fun read. Rod, Thanks for taking your time
to type all that down. Might either you or Gayle have a link handy
to the blurred bird photograph you mention.

Thanks again :-)
Click to expand...
--
'We don't make a photograph with just a camera. We bring to the act
of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen,
the music we have heard and the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams



http://www.shot2shot.com
Click to expand...
 
....here is the photo. I took a quick snap of a page in the book with my little camera.

I won't leave this here for long as I'm more than likely breaching copyright by posting it.



Cheers,

Gayle

--

'We don't make a photograph with just a camera. We bring to the act of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen, the music we have heard and the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams



http://www.shot2shot.com
 
I renamed the file cos I accidentally posted it somewhere else.


Gayle159626 said:
--
'We don't make a photograph with just a camera. We bring to the act
of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen,
the music we have heard and the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams



http://www.shot2shot.com
Click to expand...
--

'We don't make a photograph with just a camera. We bring to the act of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen, the music we have heard and the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams



http://www.shot2shot.com
 
...really appreciate it. It is indeed a very lovely photo, glad he came around to see it.
Gayle said:

Gayle159626 said:
--
'We don't make a photograph with just a camera. We bring to the act
of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen,
the music we have heard and the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams



http://www.shot2shot.com
Click to expand...
--
'We don't make a photograph with just a camera. We bring to the act
of photography all the books we have read, the movies we have seen,
the music we have heard and the people we have loved.' Ansel Adams



http://www.shot2shot.com
Click to expand...
 
way to go techo! i am keeping you in mind for anytime I need some good sleuthing.

sorry about your problem nugar but it is a beautiful shot.
melissa
 
Gayle said:
I won't leave this here for long as I'm more than likely breaching
copyright by posting it.
Click to expand...
Advertising his book like that he should be paying you royalties:-) Leave it up as his lawyers can only ask you to take it down, they can't sue you only if you refuse to take it down. Steve wouldn't give a poo anyhow Gayle, you're safe.
Regards Rod
 
Hi Rod,

Yes, the poster also has an acrylic cover that gives some reflections in my photo, but upon close inspection it is the same picture.

I compared it from less than a foot away and with a printed 8x10 image I have.
rodbam said:
Humberto I downloaded your poster images & your low res shot to see
if I could spot a difference. What really muddies the water is the
poster has superimposed another image in with the bridge shot. Your
shot being low res meant I couldn't blow it up enough to compare
properly. Everything looks exactly the same apart from where the
superimposed shot interferes with the comparison. But the one area
that looks a little different is the car light trails your's has no
star light effect & the large poster seems to have a star light
effect along the car light trails. You would need to blow up your
high res version to see if yours has a starlight effect when blown
up large.
Regards Rod
Click to expand...
--
Nugar
http://nugar.com/
 
I already have a lawyer working on this.

It is a popular landmark, true. But you need to remember that lenses have a diapraghm with a certain number of pieces that give a particular star pattern to the ligths.

That image was taken with a G3. I very much doubt that another photographer, purposely taking images for stock, stood in the exact same spot, with a G3 and has the exact same patterns.

It is the same image. I'm 100%, I just needed to verify where did I upload it since I couldn't remember. It turns out there are two places where it is in a low res version. Low res being 800x600. Who would have thought that a low res version could be blown up to a 2feet bridge?

I have already written to my stock agencies to inquire whether they have sold it and not reported the sale to me. It could happen.
PhotoNUT said:
If you post a larger image, then put a professional looking
watermark in it.

Maybe a consult with a company that specializing in stock
photography could advise you better or a copyright lawyer could
help.

I’m not an expert in this area, just adding my 2 cents.

PS
I wonder how you prove that someone stole your photo? Like Rod
said, if the photo was of a popular landmark, it could be hard to
prove that the photo was indeed yours. Again, I am not an expert
here, just my 2 cents worth..
rodbam said:
But surely they can't use a low res shot off the internet. I know
nothing of the fractals program you talk of, could that turn a low
res shot into a printable image of that size? What is the procedure
from your agencies. Do they just sell the image & send the money at
some point, or do they ask you if they can sell it? From what you
say your lawyer will have no problems proving it's yours so all
will end well without you being hesitant posting on the internet.
Regards Rod
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Nugar
http://nugar.com/
 
Oh, it is not with those images. It is looking at the poster.
PhotoNUT said:
Good luck on your quest

: )
Nugar said:
I have uploaded two images of the sign, so anyone who so wishes can
compare. I will delete them on Sunday.

Be warned: the images are about 600kb each.

http://www.saludbucal.net/gg/img/

Pay attention to the lights' star pattern and orientation. The
other details are easier to see in the sign itself.

Best regards,

Humberto
Nugar said:
Hi all,

I need your collective help and memory. I need to remember if I
have used this image for any challenge:

http://nugar.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=7&pos=0

I think I did, but I can't remember where.

The thing is I found about an unauthorized use here in Panama. The
city is using it for a touristic campaign and it is shown in a lot
of bus stops.

I have already talked with my lawyer and she's taking the needed
steps, but I'm curious as to where did they got the image. One
place might have been PBase, or maybe they just bought it and the
agencies haven't yet reported it to me.

Thanks in advance,

--
Nugar
http://nugar.com/
Click to expand...
--
Nugar
http://nugar.com/
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Nugar
http://nugar.com/
 
I'll uprez it later today, what area? the car area?

The tell-tale to me is the star pattern. The problem with the poster photo I took is the reflection of the street.
rodbam said:
Nutcase have a look at the car headlight trails in Humberto's shot
& the poster, the poster seems to have starlight’s on the car
lights trails & Humberto's doesn’t. Humberto will have to blow up
his high res one to see if there is any starburst on his at higher
magnification.
Regards Rod
Click to expand...
--
Nugar
http://nugar.com/
 
On the lower right of the image, I don't know if it can be noticed on the photo, there's a column and in forn of the column some leafless branches. They match.
Techo said:
rodbam said:
Nutcase have a look at the car headlight trails in Humberto's shot
& the poster, the poster seems to have starlight’s on the car
lights trails & Humberto's doesn’t. Humberto will have to blow up
his high res one to see if there is any starburst on his at higher
magnification.
Regards Rod
Click to expand...
Doing a 1:1 blowup, both seem to have starlights on the car's light
trails, Nugar's photo and the printed poster. I'm not sure if Nugar
remembers this but, was there even a slight wind on that day?
because then you can also check if the branches align. Yes you
could ask them to send you(your lawyer) a copy of the original
photo they used, but then who knows what they could be up to.
Click to expand...
--
Nugar
http://nugar.com/
 
Genuine Fractals.

Besides, the initial image doesn't have too much detail. Keep in mind that those posters are not printed at 300dpi, but much much lower.
PhotoNUT said:
rodbam said:
Nutcase have a look at the car headlight trails in Humberto's shot
& the poster, the poster seems to have starlight’s on the car
lights trails & Humberto's doesn’t. Humberto will have to blow up
his high res one to see if there is any starburst on his at higher
magnification.
Regards Rod
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Nugar
http://nugar.com/
 
Ok guys (and gals),

I have uploaded three new pictures for comparison. The pictures are at the same location:

http://saludbucal.net/gg/img

The pictures are:

001.jpg this is the unauthorized original image
002.jpg another picture that I took at the same "session"
003.jpg the poster with curves added
Feel free to download them to open all in PS.

My points:

1. 001.jpg and 002.jpg, shot by the same photographer with minutes of difference are clearly different. Look for the star patterns, which are almost like fingerprints

2. Bear in mind that there is an acrylic screen in front of the poster 003.jpg that has some reflections of the street behind me at the time I took it.

3. The poster may have been skewed a little, since they don't exactly match or it may be a paralax (sp?) difference due to how I took

Opinions?

--
Nugar
http://nugar.com/
 
...not only that she has been accepted into the program, but that she is pursuing a field that is close to your heart and your wife's. I'll bet the three of you have some wonderful discussions (and disagreements!) about photography. Isn't that a marvelous feeling?

Mary Anne
 
Nugar said:
Alamy or MyLoupe have not told me that they made that sale. So I
have to assume the image has been used without authorization. I
don't know where they got is, or if genuine fractals can actually
blow an 800x600 images to 2 feet high.

Now, today I took an 8x10" print I had of that image and compared
it with the sign, which is at eye level.

It is the same photo, down to the star's points, the shadows, etc.
In fact, I will upload a photo of that photo for you to see, but
will take it down soon, since I don't know what are the
implications.

I very much doubt another photographer stood in the same spot, has
the same car lights, the same, six-pointed stars oriented n the
same direction, the same reflections in the water, the same shadow
of a tree... I'm 100% percent sure it is the same photo.
rodbam said:
Nugar said:
I think the same, so I'm curious where did they get it. The sign
itself is about 2mts tall and the image is about 2' tall, so I
don't know whether they would be able to use a comp from Alamy or
Myloupe.
Click to expand...
I would be surprised if you could tell if it was your shot from a
low res 150k image taken from the internet & blown up to 2foot
enlargement. Why do you say they would not be able to use your shot
from Alamy or Myloupe? I would assume you send them High resolution
shots ready for selling. Is the place where you took this shot a
common viewpoint for picys of the bridge? As I've seen almost
identical shots from different photographers of popular landmarks.
Regards Rod
Click to expand...
--
Nugar
http://nugar.com/
Click to expand...
--
Please visit my gallery at http://pbase.com/lonnit

and offer your comments. Tell me what you like and what you don't, and why. I welcome all opinions. :) Then vote for your favorites!

 
Nugar,

Look at the star burst from the lights, they don't match (the rotation of the burst).

I used my photo explorer program I switched back and forth quickly the photos and I can’t match up the star burst, beams out are not at the same angles.

Try to Overlay the image in Photoshop. IMO, these are two different photos.

Another thing I still** can’t see that tiny photo enlarged that big and still look good.

If you are concerned about theft of your photos, design a SIMPLE PROFESSIONAL watermark and insert it into the photo. I would make it just enough visible that the photo could not be used in publication, yet not so bold that it wrecks the photo. Remember, I’m not an expert in these field, its up to you.
Nugar said:
Ok guys (and gals),

I have uploaded three new pictures for comparison. The pictures are
at the same location:

My points:

1. 001.jpg and 002.jpg, shot by the same photographer with minutes
of difference are clearly different. Look for the star patterns,
which are almost like fingerprints

2. Bear in mind that there is an acrylic screen in front of the
poster 003.jpg that has some reflections of the street behind me at
the time I took it.

3. The poster may have been skewed a little, since they don't
exactly match or it may be a paralax (sp?) difference due to how I
took

Opinions?

--
Nugar
http://nugar.com/
Click to expand...
 
Yes, I'm still waiting for the answer from both.
lonnit said:
Nugar said:
Alamy or MyLoupe have not told me that they made that sale. So I
have to assume the image has been used without authorization. I
don't know where they got is, or if genuine fractals can actually
blow an 800x600 images to 2 feet high.

Now, today I took an 8x10" print I had of that image and compared
it with the sign, which is at eye level.

It is the same photo, down to the star's points, the shadows, etc.
In fact, I will upload a photo of that photo for you to see, but
will take it down soon, since I don't know what are the
implications.

I very much doubt another photographer stood in the same spot, has
the same car lights, the same, six-pointed stars oriented n the
same direction, the same reflections in the water, the same shadow
of a tree... I'm 100% percent sure it is the same photo.
rodbam said:
Nugar said:
I think the same, so I'm curious where did they get it. The sign
itself is about 2mts tall and the image is about 2' tall, so I
don't know whether they would be able to use a comp from Alamy or
Myloupe.
Click to expand...
I would be surprised if you could tell if it was your shot from a
low res 150k image taken from the internet & blown up to 2foot
enlargement. Why do you say they would not be able to use your shot
from Alamy or Myloupe? I would assume you send them High resolution
shots ready for selling. Is the place where you took this shot a
common viewpoint for picys of the bridge? As I've seen almost
identical shots from different photographers of popular landmarks.
Regards Rod
Click to expand...
--
Nugar
http://nugar.com/
Click to expand...
--
Please visit my gallery at http://pbase.com/lonnit
and offer your comments. Tell me what you like and what you don't,
and why. I welcome all opinions. :) Then vote for your favorites!

Click to expand...
--
Nugar
http://nugar.com/
 
talking about?

I just noticed you had 2 shots of the same bridge?

Which one are we comparing here?
 
Hi PhotoNUT, which are you comparing?

Please re-read my post. 001 and 003 are the ones that are the same. 002 is the one that is not the same.

On 001 and 003 the rotation of the starbursts is identical and the quantity of rays on each light source is the same. It shouldn't be the same unless the other photographer used a G3 to take his/her photo too.

002 is a third photo that I took and it can clearly be seen that even same photographer, same place, same time the bursts are not the same.

As I already noted,003 is a photo of the photo and with an acrylic cover over it, so it reflects extra light and I may have not placed my camera exactly parallel to the poster.
PhotoNUT said:
Look at the star burst from the lights, they don't match (the
rotation of the burst).

I used my photo explorer program I switched back and forth quickly
the photos and I can’t match up the star burst, beams out are not
at the same angles.

Try to Overlay the image in Photoshop. IMO, these are two
different photos.

Another thing I still** can’t see that tiny photo enlarged that
big and still look good.

If you are concerned about theft of your photos, design a SIMPLE
PROFESSIONAL watermark and insert it into the photo. I would make
it just enough visible that the photo could not be used in
publication, yet not so bold that it wrecks the photo. Remember,
I’m not an expert in these field, its up to you.
Nugar said:
Ok guys (and gals),

I have uploaded three new pictures for comparison. The pictures are
at the same location:

My points:

1. 001.jpg and 002.jpg, shot by the same photographer with minutes
of difference are clearly different. Look for the star patterns,
which are almost like fingerprints

2. Bear in mind that there is an acrylic screen in front of the
poster 003.jpg that has some reflections of the street behind me at
the time I took it.

3. The poster may have been skewed a little, since they don't
exactly match or it may be a paralax (sp?) difference due to how I
took

Opinions?

--
Nugar
http://nugar.com/
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Nugar
http://nugar.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top