MichaelChang

<p>Another well made series of a fat cat photoshopped into classical paintings through the centuries:<br> <a href="http://fatcatart.ru/gallery/?lang=en">http://fatcatart.ru/gallery/?lang=en</a></p>

<p>A series of hilarious photoshop composites of Mr. Bean onto famous paintings. The site may load slowly but worth the wait. A number of the composites are in high resolution when viewed large that reflects the degree of skill and care of the artist. <br> <a href="http://rodneypike.com/mr-bean-store/">http://rodneypike.com/mr-bean-store/</a></p>

<p>The OP associates high art with exclusivity, rarity and high monetary value, but those are only partial attributes mostly controlled by a handful of people. You can make photography rare and exclusive in the hopes of commanding high prices, and many have tried, but that neither augments nor diminishes it as an art form.</p> <p>Academic institutions have acknowledged photography to be high art which in itself should be adequate validation. </p>

<blockquote> <p><em>"Its purpose is that of an experience, created (and experienced) by the artist, experienced by the viewer."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Arthur, I would say that a photographer <em>records</em> and <em>modifies</em> the experience similar to an audio recordist or motion picture cameraman. This contrasts most other art forms where something is created from nothing. </p> <p>The relative contribution of a photographer to the entire experience of the viewer can be debated, and that's where the old adage, paraphrased, comes in: "if you want to make exciting photos, go stand in front of something exciting." - It makes little difference whether the photo is simple but made exciting by its subject, or a complex photo is composed of the collaborative work by many non-photographer contributors. <br> <br> I think at least part of the reason photography does not command high value in the art world is the same as any other recorded medium - it's meant to be reproduced and distributed, but that doesn't make it any less of an art form. </p>

<p>To me, the value of photography as an art form isn't measured by some arbitrary monetary value placed on it, rather it's the art of preserving cultural values so we can share in the present and remembered by future generations. </p> <p>"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Great_Day_in_Harlem_(photograph)">A Great Day in Harlem</a>" (1958) is a good example which lead to an Academy Award nominated <a href=" (1994) and referenced in the movie "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminal">The Terminal</a>" (2004). </p>

<p>Would offering digital downloads be a good idea to complement the existing site-managed hard copy print sales? </p> <p>Members who choose to participate can, for example, set their own prices and image dimensions with a portion of the proceeds going to photo.net. </p>

<p>Alisha, if you're running a Windows computer, here's a tutorial on how to recover files emptied from the recycle bin:<br> <a href="http://www.asoftech.com/articles/how-to-recover-files-deleted-from-recycle-bin.html">http://www.asoftech.com/articles/how-to-recover-files-deleted-from-recycle-bin.html</a></p>

<p>Christal, do you know the camcorder model he's interested in? I've not heard of a mainstream camcorder of the traditional form factor that doesn't have autofocus so what you're suggesting is puzzling, but if the unit is something more like a GoPro equivalent with a fixed wide angle lens, then it would make sense, and no focusing will be necessary under common usage circumstances. </p>

<blockquote> <p><em>"So far merely tens of millions were put into this particular company. Nothing, compared to the amount Google put into their closest competition."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>But isn't that what democratization is all about, making things better, cheaper, so it's accessible to everyone? <br> <br> Google paid $500M for Skybox because they don't have the wherewithal to build such an organization on their own from scratch, and I'm guessing they will capitalize on their organizational strengths by leveraging existing Google products synergistically to compete with these startups. <br /><br> <br> I don't know that anyone can predict how it'll all evolve, but the idea that it's happening at all is exciting. <br> </p>

<p>What I find fascinating is its entire approach to problem solving by a group of ex-NASA engineers who undoubtedly couldn't have done it at NASA, and by doing so on its own has itself democratized space imaging joining the likes of SpeceX, and probably for a lot less money than had NASA done it. <br> <a href="https://www.planet.com/">https://www.planet.com/</a></p> <p>As for its return on investment, I'm sure these silicon valley space entrepreneurs will find a way to make the data set freely accessible to end users; we'll just have to wait and see how they'll do it.</p> <p>This type of innovation can be expanded to make an array space telescope; a Hubble replacement, if you will, at substantially lower cost. The conceptual applications of these types of approaches are endless. <br> </p>

<p>I guess they shouldn't have bothered, then, huh? :-) </p>

<p>Interesting TED talk describing an ingenious array of tiny satellites equipped with cameras to line-scan the entire earth's surface every single day:<br> <a href="

<p>Erin, if you enjoy tinkering and find the idea of expanded capability exciting, then I would go with either of the two Canon cameras on your list; both are compatible with a (free) firmware replacement called CHDK which will greatly enhance the capability of these cameras by adding motion sensing, time lapse, full manual control, shooting RAW, and enhanced video features, etc.. See:<br> <a href="http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK">http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK</a></p>

<p>Tim, I don't know where you're located or aware of the following - there is a limitation to filing civil or criminal proceeding regarding copyright enforcement in the U.S. as follows:</p> <p >(a) Criminal Proceedings. — Except as expressly provided otherwise in this title, no criminal proceeding shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within 5 years after the cause of action arose.</p> <p >(b) Civil Actions. — No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.</p> <p ><a href="http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html">http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html</a></p> <p > </p> <p >In Canada, it's 3 years from the time of infringement discovery:</p> <p ><a href="http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-50.html#h-58">http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-50.html#h-58</a></p>

<p>Ko Min, have you seen the replies to the same question you asked 3 days ago?<br> <a href="/business-photography-forum/00cxtq">http://www.photo.net/business-photography-forum/00cxtq</a></p> <p>In case you're not familiar with the site operation, you can receive email notification by clicking on "<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-thread-alert?thread_id=00cxtq">Notify me of Responses</a>" at the bottom of each thread. </p>

<p>That's an interesting addition, John. It'd be fun to observe their interaction. I normally watch the Canadian version - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragons%27_Den">Dragon'd Den</a> - which featured Kevin O'Leary until his defection to Shark Tank.<br> <br> The granddaddy shark of them all is Foxconn who has as firm a grip on GoPro as it does on Apple. <br> </p>

<p>The rejection of manual flashes doesn't necessarily mean the absence of knowledge to use it, rather it might be that TTL is simply more suited to the type of work involved and its slight inconsistencies in exposure is inconsequential. Given the on-the-go, rapid-successive-shot photography which is so prevalent these days, it's no wonder non-TTL flash systems have fallen out of favor. </p>

<p>Christal, Charles' video appear to be made with a P/S camera on the two links you provided; if I'm correct and his objective is to better the video quality, there are a number of YouTube tutorials on the subject that might prove helpful:<br> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=++youtube+videos+producton+quality">https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=++youtube+videos+producton+quality</a></p> <p>Ditto Matt's suggestion on "The Filmmaker's Handbook". </p>

<p>Simon, I actually agree with you, mostly. :-) </p> <p>I'm no doubt on thin ground expressing what must be a very unpopular view, and I've been no less a "victim" of ripoffs even as a humble amateur. The problem, as we all agree, is the costly IP rights enforcement making any realistic recourse a lost cause for all but the most persistent artists, but whose outcome is often a hollow victory with questionable deterrent effect.</p> <p>These recurring complaints of theft will persist until the day we can all become like Bert, a JD/artist, so we can enforce our own IP rights without additional legal costs. </p> <p> </p>

<p>I see their problem as a corporate philosophy of providing orphan products rather than offering integrated solutions.</p> <p>A TV is a commodity item that competes on price, rather than a turnkey solution other high end manufacturers partake in when they see a TV as part of a home theater system tied to multi-room home automation where high margins can be commanded.</p> <p>Their lighting gear is the same. It provides an alternate choice for consumers on a small part of their photography needs and not a whole lot more.</p>

<p>Every new or disruptive technology that has come to existence which enabled copying has encountered this problem and none have ever been resolved through IP rights enforcement.</p> <p>From the early days of home audio recording and photocopying through VCRs and digital audio in the 80s and the Internet, software piracy and 3D printing of today, the issue has only become bigger; what used to be a corporate problem has become every content creator's problem as a direct consequence of something becoming democratized.</p> <p>Content creators who have benefited from this type of "theft" tend to think of infringement as free marketing and advertising thereby becoming the benefactor through its capitalization. There are many such examples including photographers even if it`s not immediately apparent that `theft`has helped increase their visibility and popularity. </p> <p>There is no debating the legal, moral and ethical aspects of these acts, but accepting it as an inevitable part of cultural norms and thinking of creative ways to benefit from it, as many corporations and individuals have done, seems more fruitful to me as opposed to swimming against the tide. </p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p><em>"Maybe he thought that $14M was enough to be able to jump off the treadmill, kick back a little, and enjoy life."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Nah, Kevin O'Leary manages investment funds in the $billions and a personal net worth of over $300M. This windfall is chump change, and you can bet if there was any potential of taking the company into the hundreds of millions, he'll be all over it. <br> <br> The math is pretty simple: $2.99/month from each paying customer; you'll need a million paying subscribers to gross $36M per year, minus expenses to rent cloud storage space and deliver prints - not a trivial objective if at all achievable. </p>

<p>This is a good article on optical image stabilization methods and some of their myths and misunderstandings:<br> <a href="http://www.brayebrookobservatory.org/BrayObsWebSite/HOMEPAGE/OIS_M%26M.html">http://www.brayebrookobservatory.org/BrayObsWebSite/HOMEPAGE/OIS_M%26M.html</a></p>

<p>John, I'm see that as much of a PR story as a success story. There are so many entrepreneurial tech folks from teenagers to adults building sites and apps who have become successful that the GrooveBook story is really a very tiny fraction and not so unusual.</p> <p>I would still like to know why O'Leary thought it was better to cash out @ $14M than to build the company further for even greater equity - clearly he's seeing limits to the business or he's simply not the guy with enough ideas to take it to the next level.</p> <p>So many of these startups come and go and what's hot today is gone tomorrow. It would be interesting to see if GrooveBook will still be around in 3-5 years. </p> <p> <br> </p>

<blockquote> <p><em>"There is no longer room from debate on the subject because if you put your best work on the Internet, so some is going to steal it."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>There is an interesting video of the <a href="https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/2014/11/creativitywithoutlaw">"Creativity Without Law"</a> conference which examines areas such as the culinary arts, cocktail recipes, graffiti and tattoos where intellectual property rights is either not recognized or offers virtually no protection, and how these areas of creativity continue to thrive:</p> <blockquote> <p>"The event will focus on the growing body of scholarship examining the on-the-ground practices of creators and innovators. That scholarship challenges intellectual property orthodoxy by suggesting that incentives for creative production often exist in the absence of, or in disregard for, formal legal protections. Instead, many communities rely on evolving social norms and market responses to ensure creative incentives."</p> </blockquote> <p>Below is part 1 of 4; the remaining links should appear on the sidebar. The entire conference video is 6 1/2 hours and worth the time if you're interested in this sort of thing: <br> <a href=" </a></p> <p>Somewhat related, I was reading a CNN article about famed celebrity attorney, Marty Singer, who talks about the challenges of going after tabloids in the Internet age. He has been retained in recent days by Bill Cosby.<br> <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/09/30/celebrity.lawyer.singer/">http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/09/30/celebrity.lawyer.singer/</a></p> <p>It seems for every artist attempting to go after an IP infringement, there is another artist finding ways to capitalize on the infringement by others. I don't have statistics, but the latter approach would seem more fruitful to me in today's climate and how business is done. </p>