inevitable crafts studio
Lives in
vienna, Austria
Works as a
3d
Has a website at
http://inevitablecraftslab.wordpress.com
Joined on
Jun 24, 2011
About me:
iam building an analog drummachine right now http://inevitablecraftslab.wordpress.com |
Comments
 |  |  |  |
| Al Fateh Grand Mosque by mallen1976 from Your City - B&W Night Picture | Fascia walkie talkie building London by ian herridge from Abstract Architecture | Beakable by Hobbyfotograaf from Breakable | St Paul's - DT NYC by mollymcd from Modern - Old-Fashioned |
Beginner's GuidesGetting Started
In-depth testingLatest Camera Reviews
Beyond the studio testsFeature Articles and Videos
real world performanceField Test Videos
see how we seeSample Galleries
In-depth ReviewFujifilm X100F
Show CoverageHits and Misses from CP+ 2017
Throwback ThursdayClassic Cameras from Days Past
What's that Noise?Shedding some light on the sources of noise
2464FeatureWhat is equivalence?
ThePhilips: This is not the first time something like this gets implemented.
But all the solutions have the same problem: latencies.
Wacoms are somewhat faster, but also have noticeable lag between the time the stroke/point is made and it is actually drawn.
come on so now you dont even use one ?^^
jaygeephoto: Would have been much better with some really dirty dishes in there - some flying food chunks and all.
its not even slomo ^^
mcshan: If Canon made a dishwasher it would be better.
ask sony. samsung and panasonic :)
whats the reason for that ? ^^ its not even edited or anything ..
ThePhilips: This is not the first time something like this gets implemented.
But all the solutions have the same problem: latencies.
Wacoms are somewhat faster, but also have noticeable lag between the time the stroke/point is made and it is actually drawn.
come on, wacoms are absolutely realtime
maybe its a software lag, but even 10 years ago my wacom was super precise and had no noticable lag
abortabort: I don't believe it is theft. He is not 'stealing' an image, he is using an image that is FREELY available to him and then manipulating it for his own personal use. What the photographer is selling in these cases is prints.
It is like having 'samples' at the grocery store and if someone 'tries' one and then doesn't buy the product, are they stealing? What if instead of tasting the meat sample, they take it home and put it in a sandwich that they enjoy and sates them, are they stealing because they don't feel the need to buy more of the product beyond the 'free sample', even though they have modified it to get further enjoy it.
What if they took the sample and cropped it rather then removed the watermark - is that less outrageous?
Next question, someone BUYS a high resolution copy of the image and then crops it themselves before putting on facebook, is that theft? If not, than doing the same thing to a 'free sample' is also not stealing.
i dont know, for me just because it might look like an easy job, i mean who cares its his job right ?
not everyone can be staff photographer at national geographic ^^
iam no photographer at all so thats no personal thing, i just think if someone has to manipulate sample image with photoshop to get a watermark out, he/she just cant tell me they dont know or feel that this is not right.
if you find reasons to excuse that, it might work.
but in reality, i am european so i have no idea when those college photos are been taken, but lets say its a week or even a month of a year, believe me if this guy is a photographer 365 days a year, this is like a tiny bonus once a year for him, why steal that ?
same with jailbreaked ipads, there is a guy somewhere on the planet and uses all his knowledge to program an ipad synth for example, and the charge 79cents for that, and still there are people stealing that.
those people NEVER tried to start a business themeself or had a brilliant idea ^^
zigi_S: I don't know what the majority of "photographers" on this site think. But I don't think a photographer has the right to publish a photo from an individual on the internet, without prior explicit permit. When a photo is on the internet, it can't be deleted. The right to a persons privacy ABSOLUTELY TRUMPS any copyright. Did the graduates permit the photographer to publish pictures of them on the internet? I don't think so. So the problem with the watermark is negligible in contrast to a serious trespass in a person's privacy.
photo journalism and news is different from people shooting random people and posting them on the net.
i totally agree with ziggy s, this is not the same as taking some shots and publishing them opin time magazine where they get edited after at least some sort of journalistic ethic rules, or if someone takes photos of people and have them at home.
the key word of his posting is the internet.
the internet has its own laws and rules, its like a parallel universe, that NEVER forgets, and that makes stuff like photographing people and posting them on the net a different story.
if you bought a camera to take shots of other people, ok, why not, but stop posting them, thats just offensive.
absentaneous: a theft is something that causes someone real damages not fictional ones.
if I take your car then in order for you to have a car you'll have to get another car. that will cost you money.
if from your website I copy a photo you took of your car and use it on my website it won't cost you a penny because the photo of the car will still remain on your website. all you might lose is fictional income that is based on the presumption that I would buy that photo if I couldn't just copy it for free.
of course it's still morally wrong but it's not a theft but more like improper use.
it is simply based on the question if its your right as the one that had the idea, to say, people if you want to use it you gotta pay for that.
if you use it anyways its theft
theft is not defined by stealing objects ^^
otherwise if i go into a companies office and copy blueprints and put them back in the tray its not theft either.
i think you just dont understand that theft is not and was never about physical objects only and the fact that the other one has to miss a physical object to define thievery.
you write a song play it by the open window, i walk by, hear the song produce it, sell it, become a millionaire.
did i steal the idea from you or not ?
i think with stuff like thievery you got to have principles otherwise things get to complex.
absentaneous: a theft is something that causes someone real damages not fictional ones.
if I take your car then in order for you to have a car you'll have to get another car. that will cost you money.
if from your website I copy a photo you took of your car and use it on my website it won't cost you a penny because the photo of the car will still remain on your website. all you might lose is fictional income that is based on the presumption that I would buy that photo if I couldn't just copy it for free.
of course it's still morally wrong but it's not a theft but more like improper use.
@absentanious
no its the same, if its about an electronic copy, owning it means having the right to manipulate and use it.
you dont only sell the paper where its printed on, but mainly the information thats printed on.
if you go to the videostore and tape a video they have, you dont take the video out of the store either.
still its not allowed
vFunct: If you're a photographer, and rely on watermarks to protect your business, then you have a terrible business model and you shouldn't be in the photography business.
Real photographers don't use watermarks, and protect their works via the usual legal rights.
A real photographer would get the event organizer to pay for the usage rights for all the images of the event, instead of having to chase the pennies of each individual attendee.
so its ok to steal his creative work, just because his businessmodel sucks ?
absentaneous: a theft is something that causes someone real damages not fictional ones.
if I take your car then in order for you to have a car you'll have to get another car. that will cost you money.
if from your website I copy a photo you took of your car and use it on my website it won't cost you a penny because the photo of the car will still remain on your website. all you might lose is fictional income that is based on the presumption that I would buy that photo if I couldn't just copy it for free.
of course it's still morally wrong but it's not a theft but more like improper use.
ok so if you go into a store, and just take some things and leave without paying, its not theft because you wouldnt bought them if you had to pay for them anyway ?
come on ^^
abortabort: I don't believe it is theft. He is not 'stealing' an image, he is using an image that is FREELY available to him and then manipulating it for his own personal use. What the photographer is selling in these cases is prints.
It is like having 'samples' at the grocery store and if someone 'tries' one and then doesn't buy the product, are they stealing? What if instead of tasting the meat sample, they take it home and put it in a sandwich that they enjoy and sates them, are they stealing because they don't feel the need to buy more of the product beyond the 'free sample', even though they have modified it to get further enjoy it.
What if they took the sample and cropped it rather then removed the watermark - is that less outrageous?
Next question, someone BUYS a high resolution copy of the image and then crops it themselves before putting on facebook, is that theft? If not, than doing the same thing to a 'free sample' is also not stealing.
no, its like going to the frocery store, which is already next to two or three big malls, and then going in, asking for samples, dont eat them, put it in your pocket, and then at home mixing them and cook a meal for free
cropping instead of removing is the same because remove stays remove, if you crop it or stamp it doesnt matter
the last one is ok, because you bought what he was offering/selling and that includes, that its yours. if you are the copyright holder depends on the law of the country youre based.
the difference in doing that with a free sample, is that the free sample is not given to you to do that. the sample is given to you to make it easier for you to decide whether you buy it or not. the watermark should ensure that you do not try to betray the photographer who is still the owner of the picture.
if you dont understand that, its either a problem of empathy in general, or youre missing a few lections in life like getting betrayed by others for example
mrc4nl: there id no substitute creating high ref pictures from low res files. t hink thats the best way of stopping commercial use of your picture
if a picture needs to be sold, i would not post the full size version but a 800 times x00 version.
which, once your watermark is removed, is ideal for a perfect fb timeline header
i think people photoshopping out watermarks on preview pics dont really care of image quality
locke_fc: Sorry, not a fan of having to click 17 times to read an article.
me too, also on a mobile its a joke, i will go to google picture search, searching for fuji now. at least i just can scroll down hehe
Retzius: What the Nikon 1 should have been...
i looked it up its called black magic pocket cinema ;)
Retzius: What the Nikon 1 should have been...
no the nikon 1 should be a 16mm 4k videocamera that outputs motion dng
Peter CS: Another enthusiast camera by Sony that lacks weathersealing for serious landscape and outdoor photography. The A7 had weathersealing!
Message to Sony - get your lens quality production in line and weatherseal your advanced mirrorless cameras,-besides your FX sensor cameras!
the mistake is where you name sony and serious in one sentence
Fredy Ross: I have a canon dslr and you are wrong pew pew
its there already, its called hotshoe