dougityb

<p>half the users on the Internet, or probably 2/3rds, don't even know what a screen capture is. </p>

<p>Jeff, that irrelevance re; the screen dpi is circumvented if the user downloads the image and prints from another program. </p>

<p>good point! </p>

<p>As a layman, I'd maybe like to see a "personal use" clause added to the copyright law that would allow legally downloading and/or printing for your own enjoyment. As a photographer, I'd be against it, though. </p>

<p>I have mixed feelings about that, Jeff. On the one hand, I'd like to be free to do that with photographs I see online and I admire. On the other, I resist an open armed invitation for someone to print mine. And I agree about the hermit bit, too. however, I find it hard to believe that someone hasn't, or can't, come up with a coding device to embed in jpgs that will make them unprintable. Flash is about as close as you can get, I guess. </p>

<p>reading over the fair use page of the copyright law: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107, and the sections which follow, I'm not surprised to see paragraph after paragraph affording rights and limitations to sound recording artists, and barely anything on pictures. The photography world needs an unprintable jpg file! </p>

<p>From the layman's point of view, it seems like it should be legal to collect images from the Internet, for example, from portfolio pages on this site, and collect them into a folder of your own on your own computer, so they can be viewed without having to go online. From the photographer's point of view, I suppose one could package a collection of jpgs to sell for such purpose, except who would buy them? </p>

<p>Those statements are posed from the layman's point of view. As a photographer, I'd like to lock my jpgs in such a way that they would not print. </p>

<p>Seems strange that you can print a page off the internet so easily, and with sufficient quality, and at the same time unavoidably violate a copyright.</p>

<p>If I'm on the Internet, on a page with a picture I like, and the picture is clearly marked as copyright, all rights reserved, no use whatsoever, etc, and I click print and make a print of the page on nice photo paper, have I violated copyright? <br>

If not, then what if I isolate the image using View Image, and print that so there are no browser artifacts (frames, text, buttons, etc) on the print, or if I pull the image to my desktop and then print from a program other than my browser, have I violated copyright? <br>

If I take said prints and frame them and hang them in my home or office, have I violated copyright?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm sure that if I stopped to consider this question before making any given photograph, the photograph would not be made. If my photographs objectify people, places or things, maybe that's because I objectify people, places or things. I'm much more comfortable making the shot and letting someone else figure it out for themselves. In the end, as has been stated above, the viewer will make his or her own conclusions about an image, regardless of whatever Truth is used to create it.</p>

<p>Kodachrome is still in production? </p>

<p>Rashed, the meaning of your English is getting through and is understandable. </p>

<p>To me, being a "professional" means nothing more than using photography to make money in order to eat, be clothed, have a place to sleep, raise a family, etc. Being a pro is all about making money by getting paid for your photography. That's the definition.</p>

<p>There are many, many skilled photographers who make amazing photographs, but they can't sell, or they're filled with self-doubt and don't believe their work is good enough for people to buy. Or, maybe they just do it for fun, and make their money by being doctors, or teachers, or librarians, or any other kind of work.</p>

<p>And there are photographers whose work is poor, or maybe just average, but they convince buyers to buy their photography because they're good at selling, or because everyone likes them. I've heard a phrase about a good seller that goes like this: "He could sell refrigerators to Eskimos," the idea being that Eskimos, who live in the frozen arctic, don't need refrigerators, but the good seller could sell them one because he is so good at selling. A possible translation for your area might be "he could sell sand to a Bedouin."</p>

<p>And then there are those who make outstanding photographs, and who also have a good sense for business, and know what their photography is worth. These are the true professionals, although, by definition, they share the title of "professional" with those whose work is bad, but who can still sell it.</p>

 

<p>Ex-pro. While I was earning my meager living with photography, I took whatever job I could, whether I knew how to do it, or not, and quite frankly, can't remember too many that I really enjoyed. </p>

<p>Out of every 100 hours of work, probably 5-10 were spent photographing, and the rest were spent doing other business related stuff: Looking for clients, negotiating with clients, trying to get paid, keeping the books, getting mail, cleaning around the studio, driving back and the forth to the lab, driving back and forth to a job site, etc. </p>

<p>I think "being a pro" is over rated. It doesn't mean you're better than any other photographer, it just means you're getting paid for whatever you do produce. There are lots of professionals whose work is horrible, and lots of amatuers whose work is magnificent. </p>

<p>I guess the best part about being a pro was either getting paid, or getting new equipment, and the best thing about not being a pro is that I no longer have to take pictures of stuff I have no interest in....like brides, homely people, and shiny inanimate objects.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The picture, or your interaction with the lens as you were using it, which was be more influential to you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm interested in the picture. If I was interested in the lens as a piece of sculpture, or as a device more on the level of a kaleidoscope, I wouldn't consider myself a photographer. </p>

<p>AF lenses work terrific for me, especially since my eyes are not as good as they were for the first 45 years of my life.</p>

<p>wow, still going strong. I thought this thread ended more than a week ago. </p>

<p>Experimental. (as a new category)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The american culture is afraid to show some skin ( oh my god that's a nipple right there !! ) but they are more than happy to show you blood, and lots of it....</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This is off topic, but in the town 40 miles down the highway from me, some guy tried to open a porno shop. He actually had it open for a while, but it was closed down by local authorities. In court, it was finally decided that he couldn't open the store again. </p>

<p>I thought it was ironic that in my state (Virginia), a completely sane and respectable person can't buy something that will almost definitely be used/watched/enjoyed privately in the home with the doors locked and the shades drawn, but a certifiably crazy person could go to a local gun shop, buy several guns and loads of ammo, and then kill 32 people with them, (Virginia Tech, 2007).</p>

<p>Tell me that's not screwed up.</p>

<p>I would like to propose a few new categories for the photo critique forum: </p>

<p>Beauty/glamor (as opposed to portrait, or fashion because the point is beauty, not portraiture, and not fashion)<br>

Model portfolios (as opposed to fashion, since not all models model fashion)<br>

Animals (as opposed to either pets or nature, for example zoo animals, or farm animals, fish, bigfoot, etc.)<br>

Buildings and structures (as opposed to Architecture, which is too specialized. This could include houses, churches, sheds, skyscrapers, etc)<br>

Miscellaneous/uncategorized (as a catch all )<br>

I'm sure there are other categories out there. Is it too much trouble to add these to the forum?</p>

<p>Luis, your cab driver poet story is the most amazing thing I've read in this thread since it started. </p>

<p>no, I was wrong. There is no "uncategorized" category, although it shows up on the critique home page. </p>

<p>So, May I suggest a Miscellaneous category? How about :</p>

<p>Miscellaneous People<br>

Miscellaneous Animals<br>

Miscellaneous Buildings<br>

Events<br>

Places, etc. <br>

as possible options.</p>

<p>I would like to be counted with those who think we could use a few more categories! Very often I have photos which I feel do not fit any of the existing options and I have choose the best alternative, or close my eyes and be random. Some suggestions could be Animals (the closest thing is Pets, or Nature, or Birds), Farm Life, Beauty, Models, Men, Women, etc. Maybe a person could select a couple categories, instead of being limited to just one. Some categories are too restrictive. I would not want to post a picture of a church in the Archictecture category, for example, but what's the next best alternative? How about a sub category, or separate category Buildings, or something.</p>

<p>Oh, and I was just looking, and do I now see an "uncategorized" category? If so, that's an excellent compromise!</p>

<p>Luis, your answer give me a broader prespective on this issue, and answers many other questions that have been waving about in my head for years. Thanks. I approach my art, and my life, on much simpler terms, such as "Doug hungry: must eat now' and "Pretty flower good. Sharp nettle bad"</p>

<p>Maybe we have to agree that there is indeed a sexual basis with regard to the power and the glory in order to get back to answering the question? </p>