|
http://digitalcomicmuseum.com/index.php?cid=659 Terrible camera related comics from the 40s that are completely awesome as kitsch. http://digitalcomicmuseum.com/preview/index.php?did=8249&page=23 The quotes in this one are amazing.
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
Big Floppy posted:Cross posting from coupons, Lightroom 3 is $150 with free shipping. Oh my god why did I choose to check this thread now instead of yesterday wwwwhhhyyyyy 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
Zikan posted:Oh my god why did I choose to check this thread now instead of yesterday wwwwhhhyyyyy You know you want it. Lightroom is worth every penny.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2011 21:39
|
|
|
Just saw this this guy pop up on one of my news feeds: http://carenalpertfineart.com/ He shoots food with a microscope, pretty cool stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
Hah that's funny I just met her a few months ago (she shares a studio in SF with a guy I work with) and had no idea she was doing that. Awesome. Her commercial work is really good too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 02:58
|
|
|
Prathm posted:That owns. Nikon micro 60mm f2.8 AF-D (the older one)
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 03:21
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Hah that's funny I just met her a few months ago (she shares a studio in SF with a guy I work with) and had no idea she was doing that. Awesome. Her commercial work is really good too. I guess I should have read the "Caren" part before jumping to the gallery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 07:37
|
|
|
Holy poo poo the comments on this article - http://www.jmg-galleries.com/blog/2007/08/15/why-i-hate-hdr-photo-technology-porn/ ...
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 12:57
|
|
|
The microscope stuff is awesome, and it's interesting to see how she still manages to have a photographer's eye with one and not just take random close-up pictures.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 13:36
|
|
|
Six photographers test their rights in the City of London: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJH9F7Hcluo There a few great moments in this video.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 14:18
|
|
|
psylent posted:Six photographers test their rights in the City of London: Very interesting, thanks for sharing. Good to see that plod were using their brains there
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 14:55
|
|
|
spog posted:Very interesting, thanks for sharing. Awesome watch. I almost fist pumped when the cops were supporting the photographers! I also really liked that one building manager who offered to let them have access to the building as long as it wasn't commercial photography. That really through the photographers for a loop. Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jul 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 17:50
|
|
|
Is that the case though? If it's for commercial work you need permission?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
scottch posted:Is that the case though? If it's for commercial work you need permission? Not really. Permission is required to enter if it's private property. Agreements on what you do with the images afterwards is more of a contract issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 19:03
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Not really. Permission is required to enter if it's private property. If you sell images of distinctive buildings you'd need a property release.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 19:05
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:If you sell images of distinctive buildings you'd need a property release. Maybe this isn't the right place for this kind of debate, but this is bullshit and I hate copyright.  If I record some photons while standing on public property, I should be able to do whatever I want with the results.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
I thought it was mentioned here once that there's a difference between selling a photo taken on public property of someone as fine art, and selling it as like stock photography or advertisement or whatever. Is that true? And if so, is it the same or different with buildings?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 19:31
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I thought it was mentioned here once that there's a difference between selling a photo taken on public property of someone as fine art, and selling it as like stock photography or advertisement or whatever. Is that true? And if so, is it the same or different with buildings? There are exceptions, of course, like this: http://www.diaart.org/sites/main/lightningfield which is explicitly defined as a work of art itself and is copyrighted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 19:40
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I thought it was mentioned here once that there's a difference between selling a photo taken on public property of someone as fine art, and selling it as like stock photography or advertisement or whatever. Is that true? And if so, is it the same or different with buildings? No idea how it involves buildings, but here's what you're referencing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 20:40
|
|
|
Ah yeah. That makes a bit more sense. I can't imagine doing photography as anything other than a hobby for myself, as it seems to get really complicated with model releases, rights issues, usage contracts etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 20:50
|
|
|
Can someone explain how someone has copyrighted any image of the eiffel tower at night? How can that possibly work?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 20:55
|
|
|
A5H posted:Can someone explain how someone has copyrighted any image of the eiffel tower at night? How can that possibly work? The image of the Eiffel tower is copyrighted. This does not grant the photographer copyright over the Eiffel tower itself. Same reason that modern recordings of Mozart can be copyrighted.. it's the performance that's significant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
xzzy posted:The image of the Eiffel tower is copyrighted. This does not grant the photographer copyright over the Eiffel tower itself. Huh? But how is it illegal for me to go and shoot somewhere and get the eiffel tower in the background? (If I try to sell the image) It's not my fault there's a big building that I can see from my public place? Unless I'm misunderstanding something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 20:59
|
|
|
Not completely unrelated: http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/extended/archives/who_owns_cooling_towers/
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
A5H posted:Huh? But how is it illegal for me to go and shoot somewhere and get the eiffel tower in the background? (If I try to sell the image)  Certain architectural "icons" have copyrights associated with them, and I have no idea how or why that works. It's completely counterintuitive. But in general you are free to do anything you want with any picture you take while standing on public property. This doesn't mean you're immune to lawsuits, which is why most smart photographers carry around a pad of release forms. People can sue you for anything they want.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
This may be unfair, but I'm genuinely surprised that the Cops had their heads on straight. Good for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:This may be unfair, but I'm genuinely surprised that the Cops had their heads on straight. Good for them. That's not unfair at all. It's the videographer, the recorded footage changes everything. I've only ever once had a police encounter that resembled anything from that video and that's because his partner's wife occasionally did engagement photos in front of the building that I was eyeballing. I've taken to acting puzzled when asked by a cop or security guard why I'm taking pictures and explaining that taking pictures is what you do with a camera. Being reasonable in the face of intimidation has never got me anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 22:43
|
|
|
Sweet. The Unoffical Apple Weblog has used some of my pictures for the release of Lion today. http://www.tuaw.com/2011/07/20/lion-ten-things-that-bug-me/ http://www.tuaw.com/2011/07/20/links-to-all-our-lion-tips-in-one-convenient-place/ If you are interested, they are from these sets: http://www.flickr.com/photos/eeek5127/sets/72157627155402586/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/eeek5127/sets/72157627038073657/
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2011 23:50
|
|
|
Eeek posted:Sweet. The Unoffical Apple Weblog has used some of my pictures for the release of Lion today.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 09:16
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:This may be unfair, but I'm genuinely surprised that the Cops had their heads on straight. Good for them. Especially the first one who was (if I am not mistaken) a CSO (Police Lite) ThisQuietReverie posted:I've taken to acting puzzled when asked by a cop or security guard why I'm taking pictures and explaining that taking pictures is what you do with a camera. Being reasonable in the face of intimidation has never got me anywhere. I've decided that if I face any issue, I shall speak in a foreign language to them and look blankly when they talk in English.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 16:21
|
|
|
spog posted:I've decided that if I face any issue, I shall speak in a foreign language to them and look blankly when they talk in English. I look forward to hearing from you regarding your experiment when you're released from federal prison in 20-30 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 17:50
|
|
|
I haven't had any trouble yet but I understand that "Officer, am I being arrested, or am I free to go?" is a useful phrase.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 17:53
|
|
|
Something that just came to my mind: In "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow", the last shot is Gwyneth Paltrow taking the one last picture on her film camera, which she had saved for the "perfect" shot. After she took it, Jude Law informs her that the lens cap was still on. Couldn't she have taken the same shot again, since the frame with the lens cap wasn't exposed?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 18:18
|
|
|
FLX posted:Something that just came to my mind: In "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow", the last shot is Gwyneth Paltrow taking the one last picture on her film camera, which she had saved for the "perfect" shot. After she took it, Jude Law informs her that the lens cap was still on. Couldn't she have taken the same shot again, since the frame with the lens cap wasn't exposed? Depends on the camera. Many cameras have the shutter cocking and film advance linked together. One workaround would be to hold down the film rewind button while cocking the shutter which would cock the shutter but not advance the film, but that's not something a casual user would know about. HPL fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Jul 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
HPL posted:Depends on the camera. Many cameras have the shutter cocking and film advance linked together. One workaround would be to hold down the film rewind button while cocking the shutter which would cock the shutter but not advance the film, but that's not something a casual user would know about. Well on most SLRs, the film rewind button works as a double exposure control. I haven't seen that movie, so maybe that's not what she was using. EDIT: hurrrr, if it was an SLR she would have known the lens cap was on. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 19:57
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Well on most SLRs, the film rewind button works as a double exposure control. I haven't seen that movie, so maybe that's not what she was using. The film had her carrying around some generic rangefinder style camera, if I remember right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 20:00
|
|
|
xzzy posted:The film had her carrying around some generic rangefinder style camera, if I remember right. I haven't seen the movie but from what I'm seeing on the internet, it's an Argus C3. Those separate rewind and shutter cocking actions IIRC, so double exposures would be no problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 20:12
|
|
|
Especially since she's supposed to be a news photographer in the film, who should know this. Still, I found the film to be quite entertaining with a really unique setting à la Crimson Skies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 20:21
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:This may be unfair, but I'm genuinely surprised that the Cops had their heads on straight. Good for them. I've just had a look but can't find anything but I'm sure I read in the news a while back that a very important memo came down from some top dog in the UK police force that basically said "stop harassing photographers in public places, they have every right to photograph what they want in a public area". Edit: this is the MET's stance on it http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm AceClown fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Jul 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
Shmoogy posted:I look forward to hearing from you regarding your experiment when you're released from federal prison in 20-30 years. I should have been clearer that I would just feign ignorance of the English language to the security guard, not the police (if they were called). Either the police officer sides with me and we can mock the security guard, or they stop and search me and I get to claim compensation from them and I can get a new lens: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/19/police-payout-stop-mark-thomas
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 04:21
|
|