Jump to content

wigwam jones

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,238

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by wigwam jones

    Pentax Converter Read Please

    in Pentax

    Posted

    I agree with John - the genuine Pentax-made adapter is best. I've had troubles with the cheap clones. I realize that the genuine adapter can be hard to come by, but they do sell on eBay all the time, one just has to be careful to get the 'real' thing. They will have "Pentax" or "Asahi" engraved (not printed) on the adapter, and they typically go for around $30 USD. Not cheap, but they work well and you buy them once. If it says "M42" on it, it is not genuine.

    Necessary to put full name on photo for credit/copyright to be valid? Initial a word ok?

    in Business of Photography

    Posted

    <p>

    Anthony,

    </p><p>

    Rachel is correct - a work is copyrighted the moment you create it (this is US copyright we're talking about here, other countries' laws may vary). She is also correct that you can then register your copyright with the US Copyright Office if you wish - it does confer additional protections.

    </p><p>

    Refer to the source:

    </p><p>

    <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#fnv">http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#fnv</a>

    </p><p>

    NOTE TO SKY SPIRITS: The following is a quote from a US government website, and as such is PUBLIC DOMAIN. There is no risk to you by allowing me to quote it.

    </p><p>

    *** QUOTE ***

    </p><p>

    <blockquote>

    Form of Notice for Visually Perceptible Copies

    </p><p>

    The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all the following three elements:

    </p><p>

    1. The symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word "Copyright," or the abbreviation "Copr."; and

    </p><p>

    2. The year of first publication of the work. In the case of compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful article; and

    </p><p>

    3. The name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner.

    </p><p>

    Example: © 2006 John Doe

    </p><p>

    The "C in a circle" notice is used only on "visually perceptible copies." Certain kinds of works?for example, musical, dramatic, and literary works?may be fixed not in "copies" but by means of sound in an audio recording. Since audio recordings such as audio tapes and phonograph disks are "phonorecords" and not "copies," the "C in a circle" notice is not used to indicate protection of the underlying musical, dramatic, or literary work that is recorded.

    </blockquote>

    </p><p>

    *** END QUOTE ***

    </p><p>

    You can register many photos at one time for one single fee if you wish to do so - there is no need to pay a large fee for every photograph you register. In addition, soon you will be able to register your copyright online:

    </p><p>

    <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/eco/index.html">http://www.copyright.gov/eco/index.html</a>

    </p><p>

    A 'watermark' is nothing more than a semi-transparent block of text that obscures the photograph in a material way - usually making it useless for copying purposes if a person planned to take it an use it as their own. It generally ruins the photograph for online viewing purposes, though. Here is an example:

    </p><p>

    <a href="http://members.aol.com/Roseb44170/waterm.jpg">http://members.aol.com/Roseb44170/waterm.jpg</a>

    </p><p>

    Here is information about how to watermark your photos:

    </p><p>

    <a href="http://cameras.about.com/od/printing/ss/watermark.htm">http://cameras.about.com/od/printing/ss/watermark.htm</a>

    </p><p>

    'Blade' Probe Turns Up More Questionable Photos by Detrich

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    "The original posting is baited and mixes apples and oranges."

     

    I don't feel that it is, since I do not have a strong opinion here one way or the other. Can you show me what is 'apples' and what is 'oranges' in my original post? I promise I'm not baiting anyone - I do not have an ax to grind here, I really have no opinion as to whether the removal of the legs should have been a firing offense or not. I accept that if it violated the newspaper's standards and the photographer knew about it, then that's that. But I'm not at all sure if such standards are well-done, even if well-intentioned. That's the heart of the matter, right?

     

    "Editors want a factual image. Play with the content and you will be fired. Its as simple as that. The new Reuters guidelines are also quite clear what you can and cannot do with an image."

     

    Noted that the Reuters guidelines are NEW. Meaning this is an issue that confronts all photojournalists, and it is in the process of evolving. Worthy of discussion, don't you think?

     

    In addition, 'play with the content' - that's unclear, and I'm not trying to be disingenuous here. I mentioned one possibility - what if (in the case of the missing feet) the photographer had simply cropped out that particular banner? Cropping is allowed, is it not? If not, what if he had zoomed to frame differently? Playing with the content how? When? By what means? Is telling a subject to turn and face the camera playing with the image? What about taking the photo with a special lens or filter, to achieve a certain effect? And so on.

     

    In other words, if the end result would have been the same - no distracting feet - does it matter how that was obtained? By framing, by post-shot cropping, or by digital manipulation?

     

    In the case of the fireman - it was noted that a polarizer might have given the same effect - but it would have been pre-shot. Would that have been 'different'? I am actually looking for a yes or no answer here, if you please. And if you feel it would have been a different situation, why do you feel that way?

     

    I will certainly admit to playing Devil's Advocate here - again, I'm not taking a side, but I am interested in people's opinions on the issue.

    'Blade' Probe Turns Up More Questionable Photos by Detrich

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    Ocean - 'photoshopping' is in the process of becoming a word. It has entered the lexicon already (I did not coin it) and Adobe has apparently done little to enforce their trademark on the name - so just as aspirin and Band Aid are now generic and nearly generic, respectively, photoshopping is becoming a word which means digital manipulation in the manner of that performed by Photoshop . It would seem as if you are objecting just to object. Fair enough.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop

     

    "The term "photoshopping" is a neologism, meaning "editing an image", regardless of the program used (compare with Google used as a verb). Adobe discourages use of the term [1] out of fear that it will undermine the company's trademark. The term photoshop is also used as a noun referring to the altered image."

     

    matt m - Some speculate that the photos got published due to a lack of oversight. Others believe the rush to scoop took priority. Still others attribute political motives to Reuters or at least to their editors in this case. Bloggers apparently uncovered a plethora of clearly photoshopped (neener neener, Ocean) photos published by Reuters that originated from this photographer and others he worked with. The mainstream media didn't appear to want to cover that, for reasons I won't speculate on. In any case - what if the clone work had been masterful? Would it be ok then? Just curious what your reaction to the changes are, not how well or badly they were executed.

    'Blade' Probe Turns Up More Questionable Photos by Detrich

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    Valid comments!

     

    Let us look at it more in the light of a DUI law. We know that two people with the same blood-alcohol content are not impaired to the same extent - everyone's response to the effects of alcohol is different, and heavy drinkers also develop a tolerance for a high B.A.C.

     

    And yet, since it is impossible to have an objective standard to answer the question "How drunk are you," we instead substitute the only objective standard we can - the B.A.C. limit for any given state.

     

    So one guy is plastered well below the legal limit - another is stone cold sober at twice the legal limit.

     

    Fair? No. But perhaps the only way we can have any means of keeping drunk drivers off the road at all.

     

    Now, can we apply this to photojournalism?

     

    If we say NO PHOTOSHOPPING, period, then any modifications get you fired - and that appears to be the direction we are going. It does not matter what the alteration is.

     

    If we say we'll take each issue on a case-by-case basis, then we can no longer be objective about what is and is not allowed.

     

    Thoughts?

    'Blade' Probe Turns Up More Questionable Photos by Detrich

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    Recent threads in "Casual Conversations" have noted a timeline on this story.

     

    First, there was a question about a photograph published by the Toledo Blade by

    photographer Allan Detrich.

     

    Then, Detrich resigned.

     

    Now, the Toledo Blade reports finding more photographs that had been digitally

    altered, presumably by Detrich.

     

    This is not the first time this has come up. A photographer in North Carolina,

    Patrick Schneider, was fired for a second offense of modifying a photograph that

    ran on the front page of his newspaper, the Charlotte Observer - in his case, it

    was a firefighter on a ladder taken against a setting sun, and level values were

    changed.

     

    http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002914629

     

    Another, more infamous photograph, was taken in Beirut by Adnan Hajj, and

    published by Reuters - it appeared to be nearly entirely bogus, and further

    examination revealed it to be one of many.

     

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13165165/

     

    And now we have the latest in this trend.

     

    http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003571081

     

    http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/04/toledo01.html

     

    This link shows the modification that was made:

     

    http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/04/images/toledo_four_images_000.jpg

     

    It is very clear to see - a pair of legs (belonging to another photographer)

    were removed from where they protruded from beneath a banner. They detracted

    from the image. "Fixing" the image in this case did not substantially subtract

    from the 'truth' of the photojournalistic image.

     

    So, from this we gather that there are strong standards being put in place

    (assuming they are not there already) that presume a zero-tolerance for altered

    images.

     

    But one may assert that a photo stored in JPG format *is* altered, by the preset

    values in the camera itself. A photographer who intentionally selects a

    polarizing filter or a flash is altering the image. A choice of one f-stop over

    another is altering the image - but these all alter how the image is recorded,

    not after it is recorded. In the example image of the legs sticking out - what

    if Detrich had merely cropped the photo to remove the banner entirely? Would

    that then have been acceptable?

     

    So what is so realistic about the image in the first place - in other words, is

    this not like putting a chastity belt on a street-walker? The loss has already

    occurred!

     

    So, in decreasing order of 'damage' to the actual news content:

     

    1) Heavily-altered images of battle damage in Beirut that never occurred.

     

    2) Level values changed in fireman-on-ladder photo that gave heightened

    emotional impact, but did not change the fact of the photo.

     

    3) Legs removed from bottom of nearby banner, a distraction at best.

     

    I am curious to find out what most people here think of these recent goings-on.

    No denying that good or bad, they are having a serious impact on the business

    of photojournalism!

    Pinup photos back in vogue

    in News from the Photo World

    Posted

    http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007704140360

     

    "BIRMINGHAM -- Sun shines through the huge loft windows of Angela Karen's

    photography studio, offering even more of a spotlight for Tyler Whitten, a

    black-haired 25-year-old with piercing blue eyes.

     

    Whitten strikes her first pose wearing nothing but an oven mitt, an apron tied

    behind the neck and red, ruffled panties.

     

    She raises two cooking pots slightly in the air and stares into the camera with

    an expression that says if she makes anything, it will not be dinner."

     

    Interesting story, also a business idea for some, perhaps. FYI, click on the

    link to read the story.

    War photographer captures truth

    in Street & Documentary

    Posted

    The quote was "Issues were brought closer to the present as he spoke calmly and quietly about the effects Agent Orange, the nuclear weapon used by U.S. soldiers, had on present generations of Vietnamese people as well as on U.S. troops exposed to the chemical."

     

    Yes, I am fairly certain that Agent Orange was a defoliant, a chemical agent, and not a nuclear weapon. Good catch, I glossed right over that bit!

     

    "Over? Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?" - 'Bluto' Blutarski, from the movie "Animal House."

    Not Nikon related, but I like the people here...

    in Casual Photo Conversations

    Posted

    "Either way I don't think anyone is out there policing the high school drama departments looking for copyright violations."

     

    I can understand why you'd think that, but you might be surprised.

     

    There are a lot of guys who drive around going from juke box to juke box in little towns all over - checking to make sure ASCAP gets their due. Bars and nite clubs get sued on a regular basis for failure to purchase a license. It doesn't cost a thing to hire them - they get paid out of the fines and legal settlements that ASCAP reaches with those who steal copyright. Do you not suppose that Dramatist's Play Service (or whomever administers the rights) does not check on violators, so they can collect more bucks for their clients? I would not be so certain.

     

    Even if the risk is low - you're asking the high school to take the risk so that *you* can take photographs. Why would they run that risk when you get the benefit if it works, and they get hammered if it doesn't?

     

    I'm all for photographer's rights; most here know that about me. But composers, playwrights, and others are entitled to just compensation for their work as well. They can set restrictions on how their work is performed - and we as photographers should be on their side, really. The laws that protect their rights also protect ours. Sometimes it makes it tough to take photos at a school event - sorry about that. Life goes on.

×
×
  • Create New...