thebarnman

As for the delay, it is frustrating. Since I thought that Summer/Autumn is the most convenient time for shooting slides personally for me. And if it's not out until the end of August, then it might as well be delayed until Spring of 2019.

Unless you live in the desert areas like in Arizona; then fall through spring is ideal!

Even later, black and white films started recommending blue flash bulbs, though I suspect it doesn't make so much difference.

Earlier B&W films were Orthochromatic (not sensitive to certain wavelengths of light,) Panchromatic B&W film on the other hand is sensitive to most wavelengths of light...I suspect the blue flash bulbs provided the type of light that worked better with Panchromatic B&W film.

Thank you William,

Yes, that is Arizona. Glad you liked the Bugatti...I'll tell you that was one heck of a ride!

I really liked your advise to respond quickly, unfortunately I couldn't sit down and draw up the Usage Rights till tonight. Oh well; In the future I'll be sure to respond right away to what ever request I might get. At least I'll be following through.

Thanks again for all your help!

Sounds to me like they are fishing. They may or may not have 'a budget for this'. I’d treat that comment with a grain of salt.

 

I have a had a few approaches like this and I tend to take a simplistic attitude: my view is the (my) files/negs have been hanging around gathering dust for several years and now some wants Usage Rights. . .

 

Unless the image(s) contain extremely valuable content which cannot be re-shot, for example - dead person, building now destroyed, etc, I respond quickly with my ‘Standard Usage Rights Invoice’ (valid for 30 days).

 

With what would you be content? If the images were ‘stock standard’ – (and remember recognizing they’ve been sitting and making no money at all for years), I’d be happy with (US$) 250~400 per image for, "all usage for three years and by-line credit".

 

The main point is to respond quickly, as if this is just another request, like the many that you get each week. You’re busy. Don’t be greedy. Avoid a ‘negotiation’. If they really want the images and have the money, and you’re not greedy they’ll respond and pay quickly, too.

 

WW

I've been contacted by the Director of Marketing of a theatre chain for the possible use of my already completed touched up high resolution color images (shot a number of years ago) for their theatre. They have seven locations (in different states) and the use could incorporate one or all of the following...Web, Flyers, Postcards and Banners. The images may be used at only one location or all seven.

There's one site that suggests "Per Image = $250, or Per Use $250 per license use on image, but I don't know if that price would be correct in this situation. In this particular case; I would not mind one price (Per Image) for unlimited use for a certain period of time anywhere from three to five years.

At this point there has been no talk about price. Even so; it was communicated (via email) I would be compensated, (and told via phone they really don't have a budget for this, and I've also been told by the same person they will see what they can do.) I said I would get back with them about the cost.

I'm posting this to ask for suggestions on what kind of price range would be reasonable.

Thank you...

<p>The camera body's job is to be light tight and provide a means for exposures. That has not changed in over 100 years. <br>

It's the film/sensor/lens/photographer combination, and use of light that make the difference. </p>

<p> </p>

<p><img src="http://www.aztmp.com/Photo.net/bversion.jpg" alt="" width="752" height="671" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Obviously , the watermark is to help prevent the unauthorized use of an image. Once the image is paid for in a limited use situation such as a website, the image without the visual watermark is needed.</p>

<p>However in your case, I've read a hidden watermark service. Sure it costs money, however the watermark is hidden till its copied. I read about it here...</p>

<p><a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100503233611AAPhuBg">http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100503233611AAPhuBg</a></p>

<p>Interesting. </p>

<p>Each one of those pages only shows the copyright and/or only credits the site where the images came from, not the photographer. And, I think photographer rights are mostly stripped away once anyone posts to any one of these social websites such as Facebook, Twitter, Flickr etc. It surprises me so many people are willing to void their rights to their images just so they can share them to the world. At least that's the way things seem to be heading. </p>

<p>When it comes to a website using images from other sources, I don't see anyone crediting the use of that image to the individual photographer. And in fact, I had recently learned websites such as Facebook now strip away any and all metadata of any image uploaded to that site. </p>

<p>Why is that and what rights does a social site really have over the use of one's images? I think there was a law written about that in 1976 that protects the rights of individual images when it comes to others copying or using them. <br>

<a href="http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html">http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html</a></p>

<p>Then of course there's the example in the news story that demonstrates laziness when properly crediting the individual's work. Or more properly termed, total disregard for copyright law. Laziness and ignorance is no excuse when it comes to the protection of one's work. If one can't get permission from the photographers in question, the news organization or anyone in that matter does not have the right to use that image. </p>

<p>Unfortunately, most people don't seem to know that simple fact and unfortunately there does not seem to be a simple recourse for making someone comply. Because of that, the abuse of image usage without proper credit will continue. </p>

<p>One way to protect the rights to one's images is with the use of a watermark. Of course a watermark can be removed easily with the use of a program such as Photoshop, however if the watermark is big and or is located on the image in multiple areas, it makes it harder to remove the watermark without damaging or partially obscuring the image. The use of a watermark will also render the image as "not as pretty" or "desirable" to look at. And well, I guess that's the point. The usage of a watermark allows one to share their images to the world with less chance someone will want to copy it and use it on their site. If the image is really that good, then someone will take the time to ask permission for it's use without the watermark.<br>

<br>

If not, there are plenty of other images sitting around the website waiting to be abused. </p>

<p>Sorry, you need to click on this link to get to the images (one by one.)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Slideshow/2012/04/13/12-Worst-Supermarkets-in-America.aspx">http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Slideshow/2012/04/13/12-Worst-Supermarkets-in-America.aspx</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/04/13/The-12-Worst-Supermarkets-in-America#page1">http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/04/13/The-12-Worst-Supermarkets-in-America#page1</a></p>

<p>In the above story, Flickr is credited for some of the images. I thought the images from flicker came from individuals! </p>

<p>What will happen is you will photograph a bunch of models for images to be used as comp cards. You will be paid $25 for a whole day's work. If the agency is legit, the model won't pay anything. If the agency is not legit, they will charge the "up and coming model" $800 to be photographed by one of their "own" photographers (you.) You'll get the $25 for your day's work and they'll keep the rest. <br /><br /><br />They will want to see all your images and they will be the ones choosing what images to use even if you don't like the image or not. <br /><br /><br />My advise, if you understand what your getting yourself into; at least take the time to quickly edit out the images you don't like and give them copies of the rest. </p>

<p>I like to shoot almost any type of B&W negative film and sent it to Dr5 for reverse processing (to be turned into B&W slides!) <br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.dr5.com/blackandwhiteslide/filmreviewdev1.html">http://www.dr5.com/blackandwhiteslide/filmreviewdev1.html</a></p>

<p>Something is a little confusing here. <br /><br /><br />The example below (from a former post) may not be good; <br /><br /><br />"100-200-400-800-1600-3200-6400-12800-25600-51200-102400.<br />or<br />"X" - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10."<br /><br /><br /><br />I would say the ISO numbers are correct. It's the "times factor" that need to read differently. <br>

For example;<br /><br /><br />Starting at 100 ISO, 200 ISO is two times faster than 100 ISO. So I'm thinking the correct "times factor" numbers should read...<br /> <br /> "X" - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11. <br /><br /><br />So now we can answer the question. <br /><br />The original question reads...<br /><br /><br />"How many stops brighter is ISO 102 , 400 compared to ISO 100? How many times <br /><br />faster will it be?" <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />I'm going to start with the easy one first. Before I answer, I want to note he uses the term "brighter" when in fact I think the term he means to use is "faster" or "sensitive." <br /><br /><br />400 ISO is three stops faster than 100 ISO. <br /><br /><br />And;<br /><br /><br />102 ISO is .02 stops faster than 100 ISO (essentially the same ISO rating and would be unperceivable exposure wise.)</p>

<p>Regardless of what you say, Walmart does NOT return negatives. <br /><br /><br />I finally received a response from Walmart. Officially, They do not return negatives. When the film is sent out, it goes to Fuji Lab and the negatives are not sent back. The only thing that the photographer gets is the CD and prints (if you pay for prints.) <br /><br /><br />It's even clearly stated on the envelope the negatives will not be sent back. This has been going on for about 2 months.</p>

<p> This is for Jeff Sudduth, <br /><br /><br />Jeff, I finally received a response from Walmart forget about that link you suggested I read. Officially, they do not return negatives. When the film is sent out, it goes to Fuji Lab and the negatives are not sent back. The only thing that the photographer gets is the CD and prints (if you pay for prints.) <br /><br /><br />It's even clearly stated on the envelope the negatives will not be sent back. This has been going on for about 2 months.</p>

<p>When I get scans from Walgreens or Walmart (or any scanning service,) it does not come with Adobe 98 or sRGB. According to Photoshop, it comes with NO profile and asks me if I want to leave it that way or convert it to a different profile. <br>

By any chance, is it a really wide color space, so if I wanted to save it as ProRGB or Adobe 98, it would really have the color space of one of those profiles? <br>

If not, what then type of space are they being scanned at?</p>

<p>Here's a sample of what I'm talking about...</p>

<p>The sample is not of a full frame of film...only a smaller area of it. </p><div></div>

<p>In the camera (I don't know the model number) there is a choice. sRGB and Adobe 98. <br /> The images were going to be printed...so I picked Adobe 98 from the camera setting.<br>

<br /> When the images were opened in Photoshop, they opened up easily as if they were Adobe 98 profiles. However when checking the profile of the images, they were something like "Canon RGB" or soemthing like that.<br>

<br /> Just to make sure there would be no problems down the road, I converted the color profile from "Canon RGB (or what ever it's called") to Adobe 98.<br>

<br /> There seemed to be a VERY slight difference in color I could detect like in the deep blues (though I could have been seeing things.)<br>

<br /> Is Canon's RGB the same as Adobe 98?</p>

<p><br /><br />Thanks for the info. <br /><br /><br />1st, I'd like to make a correction. The driving time to the local pro lab in my area is 40 minutes back and forth. Doing that twice adds up to 80 minutes. 40 minutes to drop off, another 40 minutes to pick up...for a total of 80 minutes. <br /><br />And by the way, the scans from Walmart from C41 B&W is really good. <br /><br />Ok, moving on...<br /><br /><br />I did exactly what you told me not to do...I called Walmart's photo department to ask a couple questions just to make sure I heard them right the first time. <br /><br /><br />1. If I were to send my film out for development, can I request to have my negatives returned. <br />The answer is "No." <br /><br />2. Do you scan the negatives any differently when making a print or a scan for a CD. <br />The answer is "No." <br /><br />That was the end of the conversation!<br /><br /><br />Now that I've read what you've written, checked out that thread you suggested...and getting the information I've received from my local Walmart's photo department, I've decided to write their customer service. <br /><br /><br />I'm starting to wonder if the negative issue is different in other parts of the country. So I asked about the negatives being returned to photo@walmart.com as I really don't have time to make a test roll. <br /><br /><br />I'll let you know the response.<br /><br /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Interesting as it does look like silver deposits. Kind of like silvery blotches on it. If I had a digital camera, I'd take a picture of it to share. <br /><br /><br />I'll post a sample part of an image later, though I think it's silver deposits. <br /><br /><br />Thanks! <br /><br /></p>

<p>UPDATE...</p>

<p>I recently picked up a reprint of one of the C41 B&W negatives from Walmart. <br /><br /><br />It was perfect. It was so good, I had to call them to make sure if the <br />4x6 print I received from the negative was printed optically or first scanned <br />digitally then printed. <br /><br />I was assured it was from a scan of the <br />negative. <br /><br />So at this point, it seems like my option is to have C41 <br />B&W negatives developed at Walgreens (so I can get my negatives back) and <br />take them to Walmart to have them scanned and put onto a CD. <br /><br />The only <br />downside to that is the extra cost. The reprints at Walmart are 29 cents each <br />and $2.96 for the CD. Not too bad, but my local Walgreens charges $4.99 for <br />development only. <br /><br />So we're talking $18.39 for one roll of B&W C41 <br />negatives. <br /><br />At that price, I could take it to a pro lab and it would <br />probably cost a little less, though the problem with that is (and what I'm <br />trying to avoid) is the drive across town and the pro lab does not do one hour. <br />And so that would be two trips across town...since they only develop on certain <br />days. That's 80 minutes of driving back and forth two times. <br /><br />I could <br />call Walmart and see if it's possible if I can have C41 negatives sent out for <br />development and CD, and have the negatives returned. Even if they say yes, I'd <br />always be worried and wondering if the negatives really will come back or not!</p>