-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
E-3: New AA-filter, or what happened? (Cameralabs)
- Thread starter Gentle Giant
- Start date
Miss Sophie
Leading Member
And what part of that is not about photography? Unless of course you think I'm discussing mental health issues.
Soph.
Soph.
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
Not often we agree, are you well? 
By the way, if you glance at my site, you MIGHT (or might not) like some of my recent stuff - I've been doing more conventional (and less popular) work recently, while trying to learn my way around the D3 (with which I am still making beginner's unforced errors).
I'd also appreciate your opinion, if you ever have time, on whether any of this stuff is marketable, and how, now I've gone off the idea of stock. I'm expecting the answer "No"
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
By the way, if you glance at my site, you MIGHT (or might not) like some of my recent stuff - I've been doing more conventional (and less popular) work recently, while trying to learn my way around the D3 (with which I am still making beginner's unforced errors).
I'd also appreciate your opinion, if you ever have time, on whether any of this stuff is marketable, and how, now I've gone off the idea of stock. I'm expecting the answer "No"
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
Miss Sophie
Leading Member
But you're right I'll have to on principle dismiss it all as garbage, of course... ;-)
Might take a little while though. My offspring are behaving much too much like their mother today.
Soph.
Might take a little while though. My offspring are behaving much too much like their mother today.
Soph.
Miss Sophie
Leading Member
Right... Since you asked to be publicly crucified...: ;-)
I looked at your site for about ten minutes. That's about ten times longer than your average editor would be bothered to look, if you could get her or him to look in the first place.
I'll make some wild generalisations first. That's the nature of the photo industry, so get used to it if you aren't already. Those who will get insulted on your behalf should stop reading now.
You obviously have considerable photographic skills. I would say (and yes, for those about to howl with derision, these are my opinions, NOT facts...) you have real talent for conveying texture, and to a certain degree light. Your dead fish close-up for instance is very good, and would work well in a essay about things to do with killing of fish. I could easily sell that if I had ten more equally good shots on the subject. The question is, do you have the required ten more that make up a photo essay? Would you know which shots are needed to make a usable essay?
I'm afraid that was the good news. The bad news is you don't always seem to care or know much about composition. Your site has a number of pictures that could have been quite, if not really, good. But you've gone and neutered them by balancing them to perfection. Which I suppose could be seen as a personal style. But not in combination with tilted horizons and UWA distortion and distracting PP.
Now you're obviously not going to stop taking pictures just because I say some of them are less than brilliant. But I would suggest going back to school when it comes to composition. Sure, some photographers are naturals when it comes to composition. And some are naturals when it comes to light, timing, whatever. Very few are naturals at all aspects of photography, and even those rare creatures have to learn and practice. I'd say you have enough potential that you might want to invest in learning more. Not that I should care, but you're killing a lot of your pictures through marginal errors, and that's a real shame. Put your ego on hold for a week and sign up for the most demanding workshop you can find. Never mind if it's about your kind of photography. The basics are basic for everyone.
OK, more condescending nastiness to upset whoever has nothing better to worry about (and why are they still reading this?):
You want to know about marketing. So: What's with the Flickr thing? It's ugly and amateurish and annoying (my opinion, not fact). Why is there no http://www.louisdobson.com?
Here's how it goes in real life:
You're the eager shooter, I'm the everything-but-eager editor.
Ring..
Sophie: "Yes?"
Louis: "Hello, my name is Louis Dobson. I'm a photographer. Have you got a minute?"
Sophie: "Not really. What can I do for you?" (Talking to someone else in the background and typing on a computer).
Louis: "Well, I heard you were looking for images of dead fish. In fact I just this minute sent you an email with a link to my website. There are lots of dead fishy images on there. My contact details are on there too. Send me an email or call me if there's anything you need."
(At this point you need to babble on madly to somehow get me to open your email and click on the link to the dead fish.)
Sophie (Sees a Flickr site and concludes Louis Whatshisname is not serious): "OK, thanks. We'll get back to you." (And pigs might fly.)
OR:
Sophie (Sees a simple, fast and impressive personal website with ONLY good, relevant pictures): "OK, thanks. We'll get back to you. Where are you based?"
Louis: (And don't blow this one): "In Louisville, but I travel a lot. Is it OK if I send email you some more dead fish?"
Sophie: "No. We hired a guy from VII to do an in-depth story on dead fish for six months. At 800 bucks plus expenses per day. So get lost, loser."
Phone: "Click".
Which is how it goes. For most photographers most of the time. Wanna try anyway? Get better at it and keep trying. There is no substitute for putting yourself and your stuff out there. Yourself. Agencies are only useful and helpful if you have something they want. Again, to get an agency deal, referring to a Flickr site is marketing suicide.
I'd say (and yes, it's still just my f*cking opinion, not fact) try what a lot of my friends are doing: Combine a good personal website with sales through either Photoshelter or Digital Railroad. Yes, it's a lot of work, and no one will leave "Wow, great shot!" comments there, but they might just leave their credit card number in stead..
Either way, get you behind into gear and buy the domain name http://www.louisdobson.com before I do, and make you bid for it....
Soph.
I looked at your site for about ten minutes. That's about ten times longer than your average editor would be bothered to look, if you could get her or him to look in the first place.
I'll make some wild generalisations first. That's the nature of the photo industry, so get used to it if you aren't already. Those who will get insulted on your behalf should stop reading now.
You obviously have considerable photographic skills. I would say (and yes, for those about to howl with derision, these are my opinions, NOT facts...) you have real talent for conveying texture, and to a certain degree light. Your dead fish close-up for instance is very good, and would work well in a essay about things to do with killing of fish. I could easily sell that if I had ten more equally good shots on the subject. The question is, do you have the required ten more that make up a photo essay? Would you know which shots are needed to make a usable essay?
I'm afraid that was the good news. The bad news is you don't always seem to care or know much about composition. Your site has a number of pictures that could have been quite, if not really, good. But you've gone and neutered them by balancing them to perfection. Which I suppose could be seen as a personal style. But not in combination with tilted horizons and UWA distortion and distracting PP.
Now you're obviously not going to stop taking pictures just because I say some of them are less than brilliant. But I would suggest going back to school when it comes to composition. Sure, some photographers are naturals when it comes to composition. And some are naturals when it comes to light, timing, whatever. Very few are naturals at all aspects of photography, and even those rare creatures have to learn and practice. I'd say you have enough potential that you might want to invest in learning more. Not that I should care, but you're killing a lot of your pictures through marginal errors, and that's a real shame. Put your ego on hold for a week and sign up for the most demanding workshop you can find. Never mind if it's about your kind of photography. The basics are basic for everyone.
OK, more condescending nastiness to upset whoever has nothing better to worry about (and why are they still reading this?):
You want to know about marketing. So: What's with the Flickr thing? It's ugly and amateurish and annoying (my opinion, not fact). Why is there no http://www.louisdobson.com?
Here's how it goes in real life:
You're the eager shooter, I'm the everything-but-eager editor.
Ring..
Sophie: "Yes?"
Louis: "Hello, my name is Louis Dobson. I'm a photographer. Have you got a minute?"
Sophie: "Not really. What can I do for you?" (Talking to someone else in the background and typing on a computer).
Louis: "Well, I heard you were looking for images of dead fish. In fact I just this minute sent you an email with a link to my website. There are lots of dead fishy images on there. My contact details are on there too. Send me an email or call me if there's anything you need."
(At this point you need to babble on madly to somehow get me to open your email and click on the link to the dead fish.)
Sophie (Sees a Flickr site and concludes Louis Whatshisname is not serious): "OK, thanks. We'll get back to you." (And pigs might fly.)
OR:
Sophie (Sees a simple, fast and impressive personal website with ONLY good, relevant pictures): "OK, thanks. We'll get back to you. Where are you based?"
Louis: (And don't blow this one): "In Louisville, but I travel a lot. Is it OK if I send email you some more dead fish?"
Sophie: "No. We hired a guy from VII to do an in-depth story on dead fish for six months. At 800 bucks plus expenses per day. So get lost, loser."
Phone: "Click".
Which is how it goes. For most photographers most of the time. Wanna try anyway? Get better at it and keep trying. There is no substitute for putting yourself and your stuff out there. Yourself. Agencies are only useful and helpful if you have something they want. Again, to get an agency deal, referring to a Flickr site is marketing suicide.
I'd say (and yes, it's still just my f*cking opinion, not fact) try what a lot of my friends are doing: Combine a good personal website with sales through either Photoshelter or Digital Railroad. Yes, it's a lot of work, and no one will leave "Wow, great shot!" comments there, but they might just leave their credit card number in stead..
Either way, get you behind into gear and buy the domain name http://www.louisdobson.com before I do, and make you bid for it....
Soph.
Not often we agree, are you well?
By the way, if you glance at my site, you MIGHT (or might not) like
some of my recent stuff - I've been doing more conventional (and less
popular) work recently, while trying to learn my way around the D3
(with which I am still making beginner's unforced errors).
I'd also appreciate your opinion, if you ever have time, on whether
any of this stuff is marketable, and how, now I've gone off the idea
of stock. I'm expecting the answer "No"
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
A lot of effort is not tempting: I have a low effort way of making a good living that leaves me loads of time of to take pictures, so the only answer I wanted was "Wow, yes you could sell loads of those, just phone John Doe on 555-xxxx."
I didn't EXPECT that answer, but hey, there's no harm in asking
I like the balanced composition by the way, it is, as you say, a style - no reason anyone else has to like it though! I used to do a lot of rule of thirds type stuff, but I don't really like it - I prefer wild UWA distortion to a central point.
I'm not expecting to sell stuff off Flickr, if I started selling on the net I'd put something together on one of the sites I already own for work - but Flickr is quite an amusing way of getting feedback (although I suspect the shots you like least do best there, and the ones you prefer, like the fish, die an instant death, so feedback on Flickr requires filtering rather than swallowing whole, because a lurid shot with any number of technical faults will always do much better than a technically perfect, thoughtful, saleable shot that fails to jump off a thumbnail).
So, I'll happily carry on as now then. I do like to check occasionally, because world+dog buy this stuff as prints and bang on about how I'm a genius and should be making a fortune etc, and a reality check occasionally from someone who actually has to sell stuff is handy for reassuring me I'm not being a schmuck for not bothering to push stuff. I mean, can you imagine how annoying it would be if people made money out of you AFTER you're dead?
Again, thanks for the reassurance - no talent being wasted
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
I didn't EXPECT that answer, but hey, there's no harm in asking
I like the balanced composition by the way, it is, as you say, a style - no reason anyone else has to like it though! I used to do a lot of rule of thirds type stuff, but I don't really like it - I prefer wild UWA distortion to a central point.
I'm not expecting to sell stuff off Flickr, if I started selling on the net I'd put something together on one of the sites I already own for work - but Flickr is quite an amusing way of getting feedback (although I suspect the shots you like least do best there, and the ones you prefer, like the fish, die an instant death, so feedback on Flickr requires filtering rather than swallowing whole, because a lurid shot with any number of technical faults will always do much better than a technically perfect, thoughtful, saleable shot that fails to jump off a thumbnail).
So, I'll happily carry on as now then. I do like to check occasionally, because world+dog buy this stuff as prints and bang on about how I'm a genius and should be making a fortune etc, and a reality check occasionally from someone who actually has to sell stuff is handy for reassuring me I'm not being a schmuck for not bothering to push stuff. I mean, can you imagine how annoying it would be if people made money out of you AFTER you're dead?
Again, thanks for the reassurance - no talent being wasted
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
Olyinaz
Veteran Member
Miss Sophie wrote (to Tim):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=27957355
Oh that's rich!
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=27957355
Thanks for the laugh!
Olyinaz
Veteran Member
Miss Sophie wrote (to Tim):
So, hypothetically of course, if I were to say to someone, "When you're blathering on about photography with your lunatic opinions I find your logic infantile," it would be okey dokey because, after all, it's all about photography? And here I thought that this kind of vitriol laced with ad hominem attacks would be extremely rude! This is a revelation!
Doug Brown
Senior Member
Most AD's and Photo editors aren't nearly as rude as our forum photo dominatrix It's the universal rule of networking. You never know when the nooby you've reduced to tears with a blistering critique winds up being the 'it' photographer everyone wants to work with down the road.
Besides, who needs vendettas being hatched behind your back when you can blow them off with a few generalized compliments, promises to call when something comes up, and out the office they go with a smile on their faces.
As for making a living at photography. Why?
The profession is in retreat on every front and photojournalism is soon to be an exclusively video occupation. Salaries are stagnant, fees are falling ... you'd have to be nuts to want to make a living from it in these times.
You have the best of both worlds right now.
Doug B
It's the universal rule of networking. You never know when the nooby you've reduced to tears with a blistering critique winds up being the 'it' photographer everyone wants to work with down the road.Besides, who needs vendettas being hatched behind your back when you can blow them off with a few generalized compliments, promises to call when something comes up, and out the office they go with a smile on their faces.
As for making a living at photography. Why?
The profession is in retreat on every front and photojournalism is soon to be an exclusively video occupation. Salaries are stagnant, fees are falling ... you'd have to be nuts to want to make a living from it in these times.
You have the best of both worlds right now.
Doug B
Miss Sophie
Leading Member
Doug.
Sadly, you're absolutely right, of course. The industry is not in great shape, and it's hard to see how it could improve. I often meet young, eager and very talented photographers who would do anything to get a foot in the door, not for fame and fortune, but because they love photography. I honestly don't know what to tell them. "Don't quit your day job" is just so brutal, and as you say, some will indeed "make it". The majority won't, but apart from natural selection and market laws, it's not that their work isn't needed. Amidst the massive flow of cheap images from the Wal-Mart type agencies there is less and less genuinely original high quality work.
In that sense, it's a shame that people like Louis won't give it a shot.
Soph.
Sadly, you're absolutely right, of course. The industry is not in great shape, and it's hard to see how it could improve. I often meet young, eager and very talented photographers who would do anything to get a foot in the door, not for fame and fortune, but because they love photography. I honestly don't know what to tell them. "Don't quit your day job" is just so brutal, and as you say, some will indeed "make it". The majority won't, but apart from natural selection and market laws, it's not that their work isn't needed. Amidst the massive flow of cheap images from the Wal-Mart type agencies there is less and less genuinely original high quality work.
In that sense, it's a shame that people like Louis won't give it a shot.
Soph.
Most AD's and Photo editors aren't nearly as rude as our forum photo
dominatrix
when the nooby you've reduced to tears with a blistering critique
winds up being the 'it' photographer everyone wants to work with down
the road.
Besides, who needs vendettas being hatched behind your back when you
can blow them off with a few generalized compliments, promises to
call when something comes up, and out the office they go with a smile
on their faces.
As for making a living at photography. Why?
The profession is in retreat on every front and photojournalism is
soon to be an exclusively video occupation. Salaries are stagnant,
fees are falling ... you'd have to be nuts to want to make a living
from it in these times.
You have the best of both worlds right now.
Doug B
Miss Sophie
Leading Member
What gave you the idea that I claim or pretend to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs? That's for me to know and you to never find out. And what is it with the name-calling, anyway? Are you unable to have an argument without calling me a hypocrite, ordering me to shut up or put up, and so on? Why not just write what bothers you? I can read. I don't recall asking for your loving care and support, so feel free to have a go, but who really cares if you think I'm a hypocrite?
If you were to say the below to me I wouldn't be particularly bothered, no. Again: when I say "lunatic pixel peepers" it's about the lunacy of pixel-peeping as a phenomenon, not a psychiatric evaluation of the people who engage in it. Sure, I'm being rude to a phenomenon, but in am attempt to put it in perspective. As opposed to your simply calling me names, which if anything only gives added perspective on you and your debating skills.
Soph.
If you were to say the below to me I wouldn't be particularly bothered, no. Again: when I say "lunatic pixel peepers" it's about the lunacy of pixel-peeping as a phenomenon, not a psychiatric evaluation of the people who engage in it. Sure, I'm being rude to a phenomenon, but in am attempt to put it in perspective. As opposed to your simply calling me names, which if anything only gives added perspective on you and your debating skills.
Soph.
Miss Sophie
Leading Member
Thanks, I'm glad you linked to that one. I stand firmly on my opinion that much of the format debate is being conducted in an infantile manner, as exemplified by the post I quoted.
I'm also glad that you are going to such trouble to read my old posts. Good to know that someone cares!
Soph.
I'm also glad that you are going to such trouble to read my old posts. Good to know that someone cares!
Soph.
Miss Sophie
Leading Member
Louis,
Stop fishing for more compliments on your dead fish or otherwise... ;-) You know perfectly well I would have said "don't quit your day job because you have no talent", if that's how I felt. As for effort, I really don't see how setting up a website and a Photoshelter type site to AUTOMATICALLY sell your images to the adoring masses who consider you a genius is all that much trouble. Ideally, a google search for "Louis the genius Dobson" should give a top hit that is just a few clicks away from a "Buy Now" button next to a perfectly balanced, wildly distorted picture with a slightly slanted horizon....
Soph.
Stop fishing for more compliments on your dead fish or otherwise... ;-) You know perfectly well I would have said "don't quit your day job because you have no talent", if that's how I felt. As for effort, I really don't see how setting up a website and a Photoshelter type site to AUTOMATICALLY sell your images to the adoring masses who consider you a genius is all that much trouble. Ideally, a google search for "Louis the genius Dobson" should give a top hit that is just a few clicks away from a "Buy Now" button next to a perfectly balanced, wildly distorted picture with a slightly slanted horizon....
Soph.
So, I'll happily carry on as now then. I do like to check
occasionally, because world+dog buy this stuff as prints and bang on
about how I'm a genius and should be making a fortune etc, and a
reality check occasionally from someone who actually has to sell
stuff is handy for reassuring me I'm not being a schmuck for not
bothering to push stuff. I mean, can you imagine how annoying it
would be if people made money out of you AFTER you're dead?
Again, thanks for the reassurance - no talent being wasted
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
Miss Sophie
Leading Member
Doug,
Forgot to thank you for the compliment. How did you guess that always dress in black leather and have a whip handy when at the computer?
Soph.
Forgot to thank you for the compliment. How did you guess that always dress in black leather and have a whip handy when at the computer?
Soph.
Most AD's and Photo editors aren't nearly as rude as our forum photo
dominatrix
Doug B
Doug Brown
Senior Member
He, he, he ... just a wild guess. Well that, and the fact that most of your written commments should be accompanied by a sound file of a leather paddle smacking someone on the buttocks
Off topic: Did you know that Toronto hosts the world's largest photography festival every year from May 1-30?
Could be good exposure for the artists you rep. Magnum photo agency is heavily involved this year with a multi-media retrospective exhibit, workshops for youths, and porfolio reviews.
You should consider it. Deadline for submissions is in Jan. The festival is called CONTACT. Web site here: http://www.contactphoto.com
Lots of interesting, challenging art photography with a smattering of commercial/editorial, at more than 50 galleries throughout the city.
Doug B
Miss Sophie
Leading Member
On your knees, slave...
Yes, I know of the Contact festival. Wish I could attend, but being less than mobile these days it would be too much hassle. Maybe next time. Have been lucky enough to go to the Mois de la Photo in Paris a few times, and of course Visa in Perpignan. Such events are important in an industry that's increasingly becoming virtual.
Soph.
Yes, I know of the Contact festival. Wish I could attend, but being less than mobile these days it would be too much hassle. Maybe next time. Have been lucky enough to go to the Mois de la Photo in Paris a few times, and of course Visa in Perpignan. Such events are important in an industry that's increasingly becoming virtual.
Soph.
LucaPCP
Leading Member
I must say, Sophie, that I find your posts very entertaining to read -- clear-minded and opinionated!
I am glad it is very clear to me that my purpose, in photography, is to amuse MYSELF.
In a sense, photography is a much harder job than many others.
Take a plumber. Well, I know (more or less) how to be a plumber for simple jobs, but even for those, I will often call a plumber, just out of laziness, or so that I can do other things with my time. So, I would pay a plumber even for jobs I know how to do.
Take a painter. Well, I don't know how to paint, and I have no illusion I know. So if I want a painting, I have to buy one, and this is the same for 98% of people.
Take photography. Everybody thinks that their pictures are pretty, because (1) they are pictures of something they care for, and (2) everybody has an inflated opinion of themselves. So to sell a photograph to a private person, you have to be 500% as good as that person, and then, sell it for a "reasonable" price -- and generally speaking, I cannot believe how cheap fine art photographs are, for the above reason. Save rare exceptions, this leaves agency and magazines as places where to sell. But aside from important covers, etc, does the quality of photography contribute greatly to sales? And if not, why pay much? Yes, there is still advertising...
And you can see how much in trouble photographers are by how uptight they are with copyright. It always strikes me. I spend hours writing software, and I release most of what is worth anything (which is not much) as open source. Hundreds of hours of work, released. Why? Well, it complex, but it has to do with it getting used, the fact that I have a day job anyway, and the fact that I gain more by getting reputation than by trying to charge pennies.
Instead, take most amateur photographers. No matter how careless their work, even if it took them scarcely a second to take that photo, they slap a copyright on it and don't license it. Wow, they must have a really elevated opinion of their talents. And the crazy thing is, a lot of those people then find it normal to edit the photograps on software that is based on open source (yes, even the basis of Mac OS X is BSD). As a matter of fact, I rarely found a community more defensive about copyright than photographers, with watermarks, copyrights, small samples only, etc. Wait, no, there is also RIAA/MPAA.
I am glad it is not my work!
--
Luca
I am glad it is very clear to me that my purpose, in photography, is to amuse MYSELF.
In a sense, photography is a much harder job than many others.
Take a plumber. Well, I know (more or less) how to be a plumber for simple jobs, but even for those, I will often call a plumber, just out of laziness, or so that I can do other things with my time. So, I would pay a plumber even for jobs I know how to do.
Take a painter. Well, I don't know how to paint, and I have no illusion I know. So if I want a painting, I have to buy one, and this is the same for 98% of people.
Take photography. Everybody thinks that their pictures are pretty, because (1) they are pictures of something they care for, and (2) everybody has an inflated opinion of themselves. So to sell a photograph to a private person, you have to be 500% as good as that person, and then, sell it for a "reasonable" price -- and generally speaking, I cannot believe how cheap fine art photographs are, for the above reason. Save rare exceptions, this leaves agency and magazines as places where to sell. But aside from important covers, etc, does the quality of photography contribute greatly to sales? And if not, why pay much? Yes, there is still advertising...
And you can see how much in trouble photographers are by how uptight they are with copyright. It always strikes me. I spend hours writing software, and I release most of what is worth anything (which is not much) as open source. Hundreds of hours of work, released. Why? Well, it complex, but it has to do with it getting used, the fact that I have a day job anyway, and the fact that I gain more by getting reputation than by trying to charge pennies.
Instead, take most amateur photographers. No matter how careless their work, even if it took them scarcely a second to take that photo, they slap a copyright on it and don't license it. Wow, they must have a really elevated opinion of their talents. And the crazy thing is, a lot of those people then find it normal to edit the photograps on software that is based on open source (yes, even the basis of Mac OS X is BSD). As a matter of fact, I rarely found a community more defensive about copyright than photographers, with watermarks, copyrights, small samples only, etc. Wait, no, there is also RIAA/MPAA.
I am glad it is not my work!
--
Luca
Melvinphoto
Forum Enthusiast
Hi Luca,
Thanks for your comment, very interesting to read your comparison between copyrights and protection on software and photographs!
I added some basic copy-protection on my website. I just want to keep control by whom and where they are published. I did put an enormous effort in time and (sometimes) money to make these photographs. In some cases I travelled to the other end of the world to shoot them. In many cases they are more than a photograph to me. I put my hearth in them too.
As long as I am in control where my photographs are published and how (environment and context of the publication), l'll be fine. The copyright issue is more a matter of control (qualtity) than not sharing them for free.
In business it is normal when you pay for what you use. I charge money for my photographs in many cases. You are right with your standpoint on 'reputation'. That is why I gave my photofiles to an organisation for a photo exposition. I am proud that my photographs can be seen by a huge audience later this year and for this I gave my photofiles for free. But I still want them to be exposed in a correct way (quality prints, environment and context of the exposition etc). That is why I will never 'release' my photofiles for free on the internet.
I understand your point of view, hopefully you will understand mine too...
--
If you see someone without a smile, give him yours...
Melvin (climbing/ photography/ nature)
http://www.melvinredeker.com (portfolio)
http://www.vertical-vision.net (picture book preview)
Thanks for your comment, very interesting to read your comparison between copyrights and protection on software and photographs!
I added some basic copy-protection on my website. I just want to keep control by whom and where they are published. I did put an enormous effort in time and (sometimes) money to make these photographs. In some cases I travelled to the other end of the world to shoot them. In many cases they are more than a photograph to me. I put my hearth in them too.
As long as I am in control where my photographs are published and how (environment and context of the publication), l'll be fine. The copyright issue is more a matter of control (qualtity) than not sharing them for free.
In business it is normal when you pay for what you use. I charge money for my photographs in many cases. You are right with your standpoint on 'reputation'. That is why I gave my photofiles to an organisation for a photo exposition. I am proud that my photographs can be seen by a huge audience later this year and for this I gave my photofiles for free. But I still want them to be exposed in a correct way (quality prints, environment and context of the exposition etc). That is why I will never 'release' my photofiles for free on the internet.
I understand your point of view, hopefully you will understand mine too...
--
If you see someone without a smile, give him yours...
Melvin (climbing/ photography/ nature)
http://www.melvinredeker.com (portfolio)
http://www.vertical-vision.net (picture book preview)
LucaPCP
Leading Member
Dear Melvin,
I completely understand people like you, for which photography is part of their job, wanting to control the way their photos are used. This is similar to people in software companies using licensing, and secrecy, to protect their code (yes, there are companies based on open source, but they still have "secret" expertise on how the code best works).
What I find surprising is that even the amateurs who take a happy snapshot restrict its use, often. It is as if the default for software written on a whim is to share, while the default for photos taken on a whim is to restrict. You go to the software hobbyist web page, and typically you can download their latest hack for free, typically with GPL or BSD-type license. Not so for the average snapshot in an amateur gallery.
--
Luca
I completely understand people like you, for which photography is part of their job, wanting to control the way their photos are used. This is similar to people in software companies using licensing, and secrecy, to protect their code (yes, there are companies based on open source, but they still have "secret" expertise on how the code best works).
What I find surprising is that even the amateurs who take a happy snapshot restrict its use, often. It is as if the default for software written on a whim is to share, while the default for photos taken on a whim is to restrict. You go to the software hobbyist web page, and typically you can download their latest hack for free, typically with GPL or BSD-type license. Not so for the average snapshot in an amateur gallery.
--
Luca
Miss Sophie
Leading Member
Ooh, I 'm soo tempted to write something.... Something about the blurring line between amateur happy snaps and people who would be insulted to work at mcdonalds proudly selling 4.95 dollar royalty free stock photographs and visual pollution and the death of the photo industry and the lack of opportunities for talent and an number of other things. But I won't. Or maybe I will. And who cares, really? This is a gear forum, remember? Pictures are of no consequence here. Just pixels.
Soph.
Soph.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum