jimadams

<p>Does that look and sound familiar? <em><strong>"All photos are copyright the photographer, and may not be used without written permission."</strong></em></p> <p>It should, it's on everyone's portfolio on this site. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've <em>never</em> given <em>anyone</em> written permission, or any other kind of permission, to use my photographs for their own ends.</p> <p>Yet photo.net allows your photographs to be tweeted, Facebooked, Googled, liked or disliked by idiots who aren't even members of this site, and otherwise sent all around the world on the Internet. Basically, photo.net allows your photographs to be used in any shape, form, or fashion without you having the slightest say-so in the matter. I've found my photographs on Google, and on middle European websites with comments on them written in languages I have no hope of understanding.</p> <p>Ever work in an office environment with a LAN system, a system that usually gives you a warning with you log in that goes something like "you have no reasonable expectations of privacy, etc. etc. blah blah blah.? Same thing on photo.net. You have no control over your own work here. Your work can be stolen, printed, sold, misinterpreted, and who knows what all. And what do you get out of it? Nothing. Zero. <em>Nada</em>. Zilch.</p> <p>It pisses me off, big time. What about you? Or do any of you even pay any attention to where your work ends up?</p> <p> </p>

<p>Anyone notice that the man on the right has what appears to be a bottle of whiskey in his left hand? I can't tell if it's empty or not, though.</p> <p>It's immaterial to me whether or not this is a publicity shot. There is a staggering amount of detail in this photograph. The viewer can even see the sign for the Essex House far in the background (sort of over the middle man's head, and it's in reverse). But one of the things I like most about this photograph is the sense of casualness and fun, which is entirely authentic to me. As someone who, in his younger days, did iron work similar to this, I can relate to this. It took me about a day-and-a-half (and a lot of ribbing from the other guys on the crew) of sliding along a 9-inch-wide beam on my butt before I could get up and actually <em>walk</em> on it, but once I did, it was just another job. Like these guys, we had no safeties. There was no such thing as OSHA yet. We even had guys who would do little dance steps as they carried bags of big steel bolts along the beams (I was <em>not</em> one of them). So I imagine this crew had its share of clowns, too.</p> <p>The thing to remember about this photo, is that it was 1932. The height of the Great Depression. A man would take any job, anywhere, to support his family. These guys were one tiny misstep away from death every day, but they did it anyway. You don't see that in this photo, but you can <em>feel</em> it.</p> <p>I love this photograph. It's real, but not real at the same time. It may be a setup, but it's also documentary photography at its finest...no HDR and overprocessing here, just straight photography. It shows our country in a way that we'll never see it again, I think. </p> <p>I'd like to know what kind of camera, lens, and film were used. </p>

<p>Thanks, Michael. Where did you find the link?</p>

<p>How do I view the names of photographers following me? There seem to be a good many of them...I'd like to know who they are. I can't find any info in my workspace on this.</p>

<p>I've never made an HDR image in my life.</p>

<blockquote> <p>My adult children don't want to go to flickr anymore so it is getting a little more difficult to share images (I am not a Facebook fan).</p> </blockquote> <p>Why not just e-mail them photos, along with your thoughts and comments on the photos? Give it a personal touch rather than the impersonal interface offered by a computer.</p> <p>Or better yet, put photos on disk and mail the disk to them. </p> <p>Flickr, much like Photo.net, is becoming a parody of itself.</p>