keith_laban

<i>"However I don't speak in an offical, legal, capacity for photo.net"</i><p>

 

Who does?

Kelly, are you really suggesting that because there's so much criminal activity about that it's just not worth worrying about? I very much doubt it. Yes, many photographers are their own worst enemies, but they don't <b>all</b> have to be.<p>

 

People, as Kelly has suggested, value your images and protect them in any way you can, they <b>are</b> valuable and <b>are</b> worth protecting.

Patrick, all references to the folder, the presentation and the "Photo of the Week" have now been successfully removed from my community page.

 

Many thanks for your help.

Thanks Patrick, I've deleted the folder but it is still being shown on my community page. Perhaps the page isn't instantly updated?

 

Regarding the presentation, the POW image wasn't a part of the presentation. As I said I've deleted the images but can't see any way of deleting the remaining comments.

Thanks Josh.

I'd like to delete the following

presentation.<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=274753<p>

I've deleted all of the images that made up the presentation but can see no

obvious way of deleting the comments. There seems little point in retaining the

comments without the images.<p>I'd also like to delete the following

POW<p>http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005Ol4<p>The image was

replaced some time ago with a blank. There seems little point in retaining the

discussion without the image.<p>I'd also like to delete the following folder

which contains the above POW. I'm unable to delete the folder because it

contains a POW, or more accurately a blank. There seems little point in

retaining a folder that only contains a

blank.<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=407570<p>Any help would be

appreciated. TIA.

<i>"You can delete any photos you have uploaded"</i><p>

 

Not entirely accurate.<p>

 

Images uploaded to W/NW threads or imbedded in Forum threads cannot be deleted. "Picture of the Week" images cannot be deleted.<p>

 

The bottom line is to think very carefully before posting images anywhere, including photo.net.<p>

 

If in doubt don't.

<i>"You'd be surprised..."</i><p>

 

hmmm...let me think about this... my images are my living...but wow, I know, I'll grant some or all of my rights to those images to the public...<p>

 

Too right there's a lot of confusion...

Anyone who has any aspirations to earn anything from any of their images in any field would be insane to opt for anything other than "Copyright, All Rights Reserved.

Hopefully your website will rise above your photo.net profile. You are right to worry about it if it doesn't. Any photographer worth a light will have their website in 1st position on a web search.

Gosh, people are still posting to this forum?

 

Will the last to leave please be sure to turn off the lights.

<i>"Inspirational galleries on photo.net"</i><p>Mine's alwhite ;-)

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p><i>"Actually that is one of the most interesting things about the Seitz back; it can be used in different formats: 6x6, 6x9, 6x15 or 6x17 panorama"</i><p>Indeed, but my point was who on earth would want to shoot 6x6 or 6x7 on location using this beast?

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>The most exciting thing about the new Seitz/Dalsa cameras/backs is the time they take to scan an image when compared to the BetterLights. It would be good to see smaller format versions.

<i>"Surely by doing this you've helped contribute towards the emphasis that you do not like? Self fulfilling prophecy perhaps?"</i><p>Absolutely ;-)

<i>"Feel free to comment freely and honestly on my photos, I have thick skin and welcome any opportunity to learn"</i><p>Ben, <a href=" http://www.photo.net/photo/4360324">see here.</a>

<i>"Do people actually gain customers from having photos rated highly?"</i><p>Yes.

Ben, I used to write the occasional piece but eventually deleted the lot; I just wasn't happy with the emphasis here.

<i>"As far as who is qualified, I would expect the feedback from those posting images would tell you whether or not they're getting the kind of help they were looking for"</i><p>Is Carl Root the accomplished photographer he is because of critique or despite it?<p>The problem I have with much of the critique here on photo.net is that it stifles rather than inspires. Most punters and those who offer critiques are obsessed with subject and composition to the extent that they miss what image making is really about. Valuable critique should be aimed towards encouraging self expression, communication and help with direction rather than aiming to produce more 'photo club clones' or for that matter more "experts".

Also see <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00I76w&tag=">this thread</a>

Carl, the fact that you've typed <i>"expert"</i> rather than <i>expert</i> is in itself indicative that there might well be a problem in defining those who would qualify. And, don't even get me started on the value of those "experts" or the whole 'nature or nurture' debate.

Professional photographers and/or professional critics?

 

I know many professional photographers and while most tend to be superb business people many have learnt that doing enough is good enough, acceptable to the client and therefore very profitable. Creatively they rarely have to extend themselves and would have trouble offering a useful let alone compelling critique. As far as I'm aware there are no professional critics contributing to this website.

 

What do people here mean by "professional" or "more professional" when applied to this specific context, photographers and critics?

Laughing gas.

If anyone is really worried about copyright infringements then just stick a large watermark bang in the middle of the image.

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p><i>"Subject: E100G Kodak is to Fuji..."</i> but the point is it isn't, the Kodak and Fuji films you mention are very different.<p>E100G is way too cool for most outdoor applications. E100GX is much better for outdoor applications; in many situations it is more naturalistic than Provia but not quite as sharp. E100VS is just a disaster. Personally I use Velvia for overcast conditions and Astia for higher contrast situations.