|
RangerScum posted:No I definitely would not because they are not legal entities. Despite what you use humans for, they are still a person and not a tool. I'm pretty sure I have read people claiming that if you take a picture with someone elses camera, then the copyright belongs to you. I'm just trying to see where the lines are, if there are any. My comment was a little flippant but ultimately who has more to do with the picture you're describing - you or the "human tripod"? I think the best place to look for information is how sports shooters treat their assistants. They set up and direct the shots, but the assistant takes the picture, and the main photographer still gets the credit. The same is true for wedding photographers. The 2nd shooter turns over their RAWs to the main, who processes them all and delivers them to the client as one package. I would imagine those are also defined in contracts too.
|
#
?
May 17, 2010 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I would imagine those are also defined in contracts too. I agree that those are probably all predetermined copyrights.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2010 23:27
|
|
|
Ultimately it's a bit of a grey area and there's arguments either way. I guess the safest way to go is to get your friend to sign a contract! Just to throw another example into the ring for the sake of debate. A world famous photographer has a new concept - he goes around a city and gets 20 random strangers to take a picture of him using predetermined presets on the camera. He gets a gallery show and publishes a book. Who owns the pictures?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2010 23:50
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Ultimately it's a bit of a grey area and there's arguments either way. I guess the safest way to go is to get your friend to sign a contract! There's got to be some kind of precedent based on how much effort you put into making the image. If someone paints a beautiful portrait, and I come along and pick up his brush and make a stroke in the bottom corner, I shouldn't get the copyright (or even a part of it) for the finished product. Similarly, if you spend a long time setting up the scene and choosing the subject and working out all the camera settings, and someone walks by and presses the button, it should still be your art. And how does any of this work with cameras that set things automatically? Does part of the credit go to Canon EOS 50D #12271248, because it chose the exposure and focal point?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 01:33
|
|
|
NVM
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 08:38
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Ultimately it's a bit of a grey area and there's arguments either way. I guess the safest way to go is to get your friend to sign a contract! I thought that the default definition was that, in the absence of a contract, it was whoever pressed the shutter release. But I admit that I may be confused and thinking about fruit machines in casinos.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 09:03
|
|
|
spog posted:I thought that the default definition was that, in the absence of a contract, it was whoever pressed the shutter release. I haven't really looked into it behind this sort of grey area discussion we're having. You might be right but whoever wrote that definitely wasn't a photographer. I looked it up for the UK at least UK copyright law posted:The general rule about first ownership of copyright is that the author is the first owner. If you It seems to support the "author" over just someone performing the physical act of pressing the shutter as you can argue that contribution isn't as distinct as planning the shot, directing the human tripod, setting the settings and processing the work later. Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 09:47 on May 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 09:38
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:It seems to support the "author" over just someone performing the physical act of pressing the shutter as you can argue that contribution isn't as distinct as planning the shot, directing the human tripod, setting the settings and processing the work later. RangerScum posted:No I definitely would not because they are not legal entities. Despite what you use humans for, they are still a person and not a tool. I'm pretty sure I have read people claiming that if you take a picture with someone elses camera, then the copyright belongs to you. I'm just trying to see where the lines are, if there are any. The quote from Paragon8 also describes the US state of affairs. The "author" is the creative force, not the mechanical force.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 15:05
|
|
|
Openbook: Searchable public status Thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3305372 Content for this thread specifically: 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 21:39
|
|
|
"equipment is not the most important thing" *post of a photo of me and my giant camera* and that was a pretty good episode of house, the dof seemed to have made a few scenes more intense
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 02:39
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:"equipment is not the most important thing" And with the perfect angle and lighting to highlight the EOS 5D MARK II on the strap, too! I replaced the strap on my 5D2 with the old strap from my 300D that just says EOS because I didn't feel like walking around with a "2500 BUCKS RIGHT HERE" sign on my neck. To each their own, I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 02:57
|
|
|
orange lime posted:And with the perfect angle and lighting to highlight the EOS 5D MARK II on the strap, too! My Mark III has my Rebel's strap on it (...because it didn't come with one, mostly)
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 03:50
|
|
|
My D3s has a D3s strap. Mostly because I needed a strap and I was like "hey, strap". Then suddenly, five months later, I'm an egotist.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 08:45
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:"equipment is not the most important thing" Are you kidding me? I'd hire that guy based on the name alone. 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 09:03
|
|
|
orange lime posted:And with the perfect angle and lighting to highlight the EOS 5D MARK II on the strap, too! Every bit of white painted text, logos, and graphics on my camera is gaffered over, and I picked out the white embroidery from the strap so it says nothing. I'm too cheap to buy a new strap when the stock one works, and I want the whole thing to look as cheap as possible.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 10:59
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Every bit of white painted text, logos, and graphics on my camera is gaffered over, and I picked out the white embroidery from the strap so it says nothing. I'm too cheap to buy a new strap when the stock one works, and I want the whole thing to look as cheap as possible. I blinged out my strap with swarovski crystals so it looks like the strap alone is worth a few thousand dollars. It makes me look more professional because it means I'm rich.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 13:29
|
|
|
I went to my daughters soccer photo shoot (shes 4). The team there doing the photos was 4 girls using large Nikons. The positioned the shot angle so the sun was to the side, casting shadows on half of their faces. Is this normal? They were using flashes on camera, with brackets, but they were about 30' back.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 13:42
|
|
|
ease posted:I went to my daughters soccer photo shoot (shes 4). The team there doing the photos was 4 girls using large Nikons. The positioned the shot angle so the sun was to the side, casting shadows on half of their faces. Is this normal? They were using flashes on camera, with brackets, but they were about 30' back. That's what the big kids sports pic companies do. Use the sun as a side/rear hair light, use flash to fill shadows. Don't know why they were 30' away though.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 14:31
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I blinged out my strap with swarovski crystals so it looks like the strap alone is worth a few thousand dollars. It makes me look more professional because it means I'm rich. Once I have a real address I'm going to pick up one of those custom goofy straps so that I look like a more interesting person. 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 15:07
|
|
|
At 10 meters in the sun you're going to be flashing awfully hard to fill.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 16:23
|
|
|
dakana posted:My Mark III has my Rebel's strap on it (...because it didn't come with one, mostly) My Leica has a Canon strap because I didn't want to take the original out of the red-velvet-lined case. 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 16:42
|
|
|
My Leica is still in it's original underground vault in a secret location in Germany. Simply having paid for one makes me a better photographer.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 17:05
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:My Leica is still in it's original underground vault in a secret location in Germany. Simply having paid for one makes me a better photographer. Nah, ownership doesn't even have to enter into the equation. The mere fact that you can afford a Leica implies that you are inherently a better photographer than the plebes, just like how you're better at everything else.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 18:09
|
|
|
So what's the big deal with Leicas anyway?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 18:15
|
|
|
tuyop posted:So what's the big deal with Leicas anyway? Good glass. And I mean good. I can see detail in my grain focuser that just isn't there on even the best Nikon glass. The problem is that they have a cult following as well, so not only do you pay for the extra performance, you pay to join the club. And if that wasn't bad enough, they're apparently the only company ever that can discontinue a product and drive prices UP. The R SLRs were discontinued last year and now all the R glass has more than doubled in price. At this rate I'm never going to be able to afford the 90mmf2 that I lust after. 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 18:22
|
|
|
tuyop posted:So what's the big deal with Leicas anyway? In the 50s they were the main professional camera. Then the Nikon F came out and all the pros switched to SLR and haven't looked back. Leica never realized this, and has continued to pretend that they are the only company making professional quality cameras today. They keep their prices high, and that, plus the fact that a number of famous photographers used them, plus the usual "lens feel" masturbation, has turned them into a fetish object.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
Leica makes probably the best rangefinders out there that also have some of the best glass made for them. They have been marketed very intelligently and have become very much a cool designer brand that also holds a reputation for quality which unfortunately means that they are also relatively expensive. As a function of human society some people talk about Leica cameras like there is no alternative and other people complain, for some reason, that the cameras exist and that people actually like them.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 18:31
|
|
|
^^^^ Although they're not as well known for it, their SLR glass is pretty much the same quality, with the difference being that rangefinder glass mounts closer to the film plane for improved sharpness.orange lime posted:In the 50s they were the main professional camera. Then the Nikon F came out and all the pros switched to SLR and haven't looked back. Leica never realized this, and has continued to pretend that they are the only company making professional quality cameras today. They keep their prices high, and that, plus the fact that a number of famous photographers used them, plus the usual "lens feel" masturbation, has turned them into a fetish object. This is all true, but they do really make the best 35mm glass. Sharpness, contrast, color correction, you name it, they pretty much take them all hands down, with the added bonus that most of their lenses can be shot wide open with no penalty. So while it's true that just about everyone out there makes faster, more robust systems, Leica wins in the actual image quality category every time. I really didn't believe in the degree of the difference myself until I had to do my last couple of shoots with my Nikon. As nice as they both are, the 50mm1.4 and 85mm1.4 Nikons don't make negatives as nice as my Summicron 50 or even my Vario-Elmar 35-70.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 18:34
|
|
|
I guess Annie's working on paying the bills somehow. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCaZhHADPQg
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 18:44
|
|
|
orange lime posted:plus the usual "lens feel" masturbation I don't think I could masturbate with one of the lenses, but they are pretty drat solid and well built. I've taken a couple of pictures with a friend's Leica M8, and while I was expecting it to be light and kind of iphone-ish feeling, it was every single ounce a finely crafted German instrument.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 19:35
|
|
|
I was very kindly given a Leica IIIf as a gift by the grandmother of my (then) girlfriend, along with a couple of lenses. Otherwise I don't think I'd have been inclined to own one. I enjoy using it, but mostly for the almost novelty value when compared to my SLRs. When I shoot with it I'm always aware of the fact that over the years it's seen much more than I ever will. For a strap I use a football (boot) lace, which has the bonus of annoying certain types of people. As for camera straps generally, my other cameras all have exactly the same type - a black neoprene strap with no logo or branding, bought from Jessops in the UK.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 20:10
|
|
|
I suppose you could get an older M39 Leica lens and put it on a Russian rangefinder. But then again you might get lynched for putting your godly Barnackian creation on a $10 camera.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 20:15
|
|
|
Leica screwmount lenses aren't nearly the optical quality of the M-Bayonet lenses. Chances are any decent SLR glass will outperform those by a good margin. Those are mostly valued by collectors, not by people looking for high performance.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 20:30
|
|
|
You mean, the 'Leica glow' is just...bullshit? Oh no.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 20:32
|
|
|
I lost a huge amount of "respect" when leica puts out rebranded Panasonic point and shoots and charges and charges a surcharge for the leica logo.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 20:34
|
|
|
oncearoundaltair posted:You mean, the 'Leica glow' is just...bullshit? Oh no. I've never heard of this "Leica Glow". In fact, what I appreciate most about my Leica glass is the fact that it gives me the sharpest, most neutral negative to start with. I'll add the bullshit in the darkroom.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 20:34
|
|
|
Going to gaffer tape Leica glass to a Holga and parade it around. In your face hipsters! Deal w/it 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 20:43
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:That's what the big kids sports pic companies do. Use the sun as a side/rear hair light, use flash to fill shadows. Don't know why they were 30' away though. This is because they suck, as most of these companies do. It's 10% photography and 90% logistics and business sense for them. When I did it, I used a shoot-through umbrella and an AB800 for the main light and had them positioned so the sun just hit their backs. That way, there's no squinting, and also, it's not goddamn bare flash.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 20:44
|
|
|
oncearoundaltair posted:You mean, the 'Leica glow' is just...bullshit? Oh no. Any time someone mentions "glow", they're probably referring to spherical aberration, which was a common problem with older lenses. As you'd expect, hand- or computer-ground aspherical elements will correct for spherical aberration. I have a Takumar 35/2 that, wide open, has a fairly ridiculous amount of spherical aberration, and it really does look like everything is just slightly glowy. Lenses that predate anti-flare coatings will exacerbate the effect. So yeah, I'm sure that Leica lenses do glow, but so does anything from before 1970 to some extent.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Interesting explanation about the 'glow'. Thanks. As I said, I like using my Leica because it's kind of quaint and charming. Then again, depending on my mood it's awkward and a pain. I just find it faintly ridiculous when BS is applied to things. But it's not limited to photography equipment - the number of times I've heard such as "a good weight for a Telecaster is under seven pounds" or similar...
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 20:55
|
|