pete_harlan1

September 4, 2009

Wish I didn't find your post Jennifer. ;)

I was born and raised in Conn. Sniff-Sniff

Other than the best foliage in the world, I would suggest any of the following seashore towns along I-95.

Guilford, (My Fav) ;)...Madison, Saybrook, Old Saybrook.

You have incredible seafaring themes to shoot, really old.

A trip to New Haven will provide some great architectural shoots if you like that.

Yale University comes to mind.

All these towns are just a few miles off I-95. They are steeped in history and tradition AND off the beaten path where most tourists never bother to look.

Ya got me thinking now; so if you see some guy with 2 cameras attached to his body, moving in some really odd positions; ya..That's me, looking for "The Shot" ;)

September 4, 2009

Chad,

First; don't worry about less than wonderful answers/commentary from posters.

You will find this anywhere you go in the business world. Similar to eating chicken, swallow the meat and spit out the bones.

Lesson one my friend, photographers create; you need to develop a thick skin in the art world.

even if i only make 50 bucks a month doing it. This, as a hobby, isn't cheap!

</blockquote>

OK..In that context, you are relegated to the "microstock" agencies.

QUANTITY, not necessarily QUALITY is what sells there. Read the forum groups on these micro-sites.

Don't take everything you read or hear as gospel...if you read and listen long enough, a pattern will soon emerge; I'll let you figure that one out.

If you choose the micro-stock route, get ready for what is probably the biggest ongoing photography arguments on the planet! ;) I'm serious.

Stock, micro-stock, whichever path you choose; you will soon see it is NOT an easy way to make money. To some it's no way at all; it depends on who you talk to.

I've been with Corbis for a number of years. You can of course look into them, but their requirements are far more stringent than any micro-site. Their payouts are much better too with less submissions; but they are not a cattle drive like the micros. Read about them at the least; you'll see for later reference what is needed if you decide to swim in deeper water.

My advice for the emerging shooter who'd like to make a little x-tra money?..There are easier and more fun ways to make a few bucks in photography than stock photography.

If you need further advice on this topic, please feel free to email me. If we start talking about stock here, the thread will become unwieldy.

September 3, 2009

What's a realistic way to structure this relationship?

</blockquote>

There is none.

What there is; is a LEGAL way to structure this; and yes, a licensed attorney will probably be needed to prepare the paper work.

1) You state you are a salaried worker in the capacity of photographer. This is "work for hire". You are NOT entitled to anything unless your employer agrees to it.

2) If (aidjoy) agrees to you keeping the copyrights as well as licensing rights of all images, have the agreement in writing.

Ask for "Unrestricted Use" if you can get it and "In Perpetuity"

I would also like to use photographs I've produced outside of AidJoy projects

</blockquote>

Slippery slope on this one.

</blockquote>

This one can not be answered unless you answer (who,what and where)

1) Who or what did you photograph?

2) What do your subjects understand to be the use of the photos?

3) What was the setting? (i.e) Public...private... paid?

4) Are model releases needed from who you photographed? Property releases?

5) Is there "Association" between these "outside" sources and (aidjoy)?

6) What is the monetary value or "pro forma" earnings of the images in question?

To make this as smooth as possible for all parties involved,

hammer out the agreement with aidjoy. Concerning the "outside" sources; you'll have to look at #4 closely and answer it.

September 3, 2009

1. It is my right as the photographer to be acknowledged, this is something I should not have to ask for. 2. I would much like to keep the rights to my Images.

</blockquote>

Ok Kiti..Hardball time.

1)It is NOT your right to ask or expect anything beyond what is contracted for.

2) You want to keep the rights? Stay well clear of "Work for Hire" I seriously doubt in this situation they will grant that.

You can always ask and then include it in your contractual agreement.

September 3, 2009

<a id="eCO_1.5" name="eCO_1.5"></a>Can I register a collection of works with a single application? A collection of works may be registered with a single application if either of the following requirements is met:

<ul>

</ul>

<ol>

<li>The collection is made up of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf#page=9">unpublished works</a> by the same <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html#author">author</a> and owned by the same <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf#page=9">claimant</a>; or </li>

<li>The collection is made up of multiple <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html#publication">published</a> works contained in the same unit of publication and owned by the same claimant.</li>

</ol></blockquote>

Eric,

Like any government office, you need to do some home work. Read above.

You can register many images via electronic media for $35.

"Small fry" stealing my images has never been a concern to me.

I wish everyone would steal the images I post on the web! It would be great if they could market any of my images and make a ton of money. At that point you would find me in federal court with my attorney. If they want them to print for personal use or even claim authorship, I really don't care.

Of course this is a pipe dream. You'll never see companies like IBM, Microsoft, Sears etc stealing images from the web. I wish! LOL

The © symbol offers ZERO guarantee someone won't steal your images. If they are from another country; good luck getting a settlement; assuming you even find out about it.

So go ahead and register your copyright if you need better protection. IF a issue arises and you are in court; your chances of proving infringement are much, much greater.

Copyright infringement if proven carries a statutory award of no more than $30,000..$150,000 if you can prove "willfull Intent."

September 3, 2009

Well, a few things are at play here.

1) As soon as you press the trigger, YOU own the copyright.

2) Watermarking keeps honest people from stealing your work, unless the mark is so obnoxious no one would bother trying to clone it out! ;)

3) Far greater protection is afforded if you (Register) your copyright.

Is it good to Register a copyright? You bet! It's inexpensive AND we never know if the photo we took might end up in a major publication w/o YOU getting paid. Chances of that happening? Slim to none.

Point 2 from above.

I rarely place the symbol © on any of my images.

Why?

1) If it's for profit, I use contracts. I don't need it on the photo.

2) If it's not for money but only to show a sampling of my work, (web page etc...) I hope someone DOES steal it with deep pockets. Again, chance of that happening? Pretty close to Zero.

3) With meta data, IPTC etc..It's pretty easy to prove I shot the image if needed in court. This is where the registration will assist greatly if large monetary damages are to be awarded.

The copyright symbol is often used in publications where the photographer is getting a credit line..(i.e) © 2009 p.harlan etc...It absolves the publication of someone copying the image from the magazine and re-selling it.

How much theft protection does a simple watermark provide? Not much.

Can you litigate in a court of law based only on a watermark? Maybe

A registered watermark? Absolutely.

Is it worth it? Depends. How much are we talking? $$$

My words to you are now "copyrighted". They are for all to read, distribute, print etc.

Now if PN produced a book for (sale) and quoted what I just wrote, I could sue unless their TOA clearly indicates everything on their website becomes their property.

Copyright law as it releates to photography is poorly understood by most amateurs.

Most amateurs don't really need to worry about copyright law.

Most amateurs SHOULD understand the basics of copyright law.

Hope that helps.

September 3, 2009

Sure it's a good investment. The price Vs quality alone makes it a good buy.

You also get a range that you do not have now which will come in quite handy with kids playing in the park etc...

September 3, 2009

Is it wise under some circumstances, and not needed in others?

</blockquote>

Eric,

Are you asking about protecting your work from theft?

September 3, 2009

Aimee,

I'd give them the rights; if they wanted to pay for the license. ;)

Ka'Ching!

September 3, 2009

Indeed, "Work for Hire" generally means you have rights to nothing except getting paid. I said generally because contracts, licenses can be written/adjusted/modified as needed as long as all parties involved are satisfied.

It appears you are not willing to "Work for Hire"

So why not counter with "freelance"?

I fear another problem you will have is contractual complexity if you "Freelance"

The "Hold Harmless" and dual "Indemnification" clauses will be unwieldy at best.

Working for hire is always tilted in favor of the company. In this case, I see the cruise ship's reasoning.

If you are hurt while on board etc..at least you are covered..or should be. Thescenario of freelancing places the cruise ship company at great risk unless you arewilling to sign a waiver. (See Indemnification)

My question for you is "Why do you care who retains the rights?"

It appears you may have a opportunity here to build a resume' unless you are already a world renown photographer...AND, get to see some of the world at the same time.

It is bad to allow legal concerns to drive your business model; if you have one.

The two are seperate from one another and should be treated as such.

Risk/Reward

September 3, 2009

Lot's of opinions Marissa.

Here's mine.

There is a old business adage, "Perception is reality"

Ya..If your web site says "Member of the BBB" it tends to lend credence and adds "perception" to your clientel'. Many people will "Perceive" you as having nothing to hide and have nothing but happy customers.

Downside? If you do have complaints filed with the BBB, that may hurt your business.

Old legal phrase "The thing speaks for itself"

If the (risk Vs Reward) marketing decision is beneficial, go for it.

September 3, 2009

Gary makes an excellent point.

simple commodoties, or do you want to target a higher end market

</blockquote>

A good approach might be to look at what companies who do this as their bread & butter are seeking.

Corbis is a great example. They often put out a 'All Call" or "Project" notices.

They routinely take the pulse of the world of stock photography. I'm not speaking of the micro-sites that are becoming a dime a dozen.

The "what's hot; what's not" question completely depends on what YOUR goal is.

From my personal perspective, what I shoot is quite boring; but it pays the bills.

My "Fun" shooting is just that, fun; but I would'nt attempt to market it.

September 3, 2009

Digital Haze phenomenon inherent in all Bayer Matrix systems, which is a major contributor to the "fog" you mention.

</blockquote>

Now THAT seems to make sense.

is the 'fog' not just the outcome of having your camera's contrast set to low?

</blockquote>

believe me; I considered that sometime ago, but the answer is (no).

If I may back up a bit.

First, my posting has nothing to do with shooting RAW.

I shoot RAW (High Priority Images) when it counts and expect to be PPing.

When I shoot what I consider (Low-Priority) images, birthday parties, family gatherings, etc; I shoot jpeg. I have neither the time nor the inclination to PP RAW files for photos like that.

Someone will no doubt ask "why not shoot both?" Personal preference; I don't want the additional "Fat"

of RAW + JPEG taking up HD space for no real reason. 'Nuff said.

Besides, a camera like the D-300 produces wonderful high quality JPEGS anyway when extensive editing is not in my plan. (i.e) birthday parties.

Setting "in camera" parameters to coax a (cleaner) image seems too variable to me it it's final outcome.

Setting contrast to a higher value is fine in SOME situations. The result though is one I prefer not to have; that being "clipped" shadow areas.

Hence; I find myself coercing the image in PP anyway.

Based on all the great input so far, I've come to the conclusion a custom curve may be my answer and leave the "in camera" processing pretty much neutral when shooting JPEG.

September 3, 2009

Tom:

The test images were shot as JPEGS. The ONLY correction I made was CURVES to the photo labled Corrected.

No; ADL was not turned on. I rarely use it. Good guess though, I have left it on by accident in the past which can cause probs.

William: The corrected image is far closer to what I recall.

I don't shoot thru "dirty windows." :)

September 2, 2009

Am I just imagining this?

</blockquote>

Probably.

The D-300 sensor is far superior in noise supression compared to the D-40.

I don't see what you are seeing.

What I am seeing is higher resolution with the D-300 that you may be mistakingly calling noise.

A better test will be to shoot a clear blue sky with both..then pixel peep.

September 2, 2009

Get Nikon for sure!..Best in the world.

No; wait; maybe that was Canon...Ummmm; darn; I forgot.

Jared; ANY camera is a compromise. I've yet to see the perfect camera body or lens for that matter.

This is the Nikon forum, so naturally mostly Nikon people hang around here, and yes; we all have a biased POV.

Research...do what works for you.

Image quality, usability, build quality..I could have gone either way.

Both companies make a excellent product.

What I find interesting, and I believe someone else alluded to this, 90% of people using $2,000 camera bodies use about 40% of the features; ever!

..Hmmm? Might as well buy a quality P&S.

September 2, 2009

Lex & Tom,

Your comments are appreciated and valued.

I've shot professionally for years, so it was difficult to post my question. I don't feel so bad now as it is becoming clear that "out of camera" jpegs will rarely produce a shoot it and print it scenario. This seems to be not a stupid question with a obvious answer I may have overlooked.

I shoot jpegs for fun..and lots of 'em..When a client is paying, RAW all the way.

Tom, I'm glad someone else was able to see this "Dirty Veil." My eyes are a little older, but not THAT old yet. LOL..and you might be right Tom, I may have to adjust some of the "in Camera" processing to get a image that eliminates or reduces this effect I dislike. Personally, with my bias to RAW shooting, I find it hard to molest even a jpeg with forced algorithms..such is life I suppose with jpeg.

Lex, great observations...and yes, my camera profile is set to Adobe RGB, I just convert it to sRGB at PP for web uploads etc. Interesting comment on lens flare. The lens here (18-200) while hardly of super high quality seems to control flare fairly well and the sun was at my back as I thought about this test shot, elimination ghosting too. Your analysis has some credence though; I don't see this "veil" effect as much with my 50mm prime, but it is still there.

Thanks again,

Pete

September 2, 2009

Found it! :)

For a 1st time wedding shoot, you did ok.

You will no doubt get many opinions, but like the golf swing, don't try to correct everything all at once; that would not be possible.

To start the ball rolling....More light! The cake cutting image is too dark.

September 2, 2009

The link didn't work for me

September 2, 2009

If you are based in the UK - CORBIS LONDON 111 Salusbury Road London NW6 6RG, UK Phone: +44 20.7644.7400 Fax: +44 20.7644.7401 In the US - CORBIS HEADQUARTERS 710 Second Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104, USA Main Phone: +1 206.373.6000 Main Fax: +1 206.373.6100

Make a call or write a letter of inquiry.

Read all the PDF documents on the Corbis website.

Be aware of a recent decision by Corbis to (eliminate) and re-classify thousands of images.

Hope the info helps.

September 2, 2009

Making simple corrections is too much work? If you have a problem having to work with images

</blockquote>

Thanks Steve; good response that helps me reach a conclusion.

No; I have no problem working with or editing images, been doing it a long time.

Perhaps my question stemmed from a little laziness since I do a lot of product work and am trying to cut the time I spend in PP.

I love batch processing, but obviously one can not do this when the camera "looks" at scenes differently with no predictable outcome given so many variables.

Given what many of us have come to know as the "perfect" looking histogram still does not guarantee a result we were hoping for.

So thanks to all,

I feel satisfied with the answers and will continue to "tweak" the curve when needed; which seems to be often. ;)

September 2, 2009

Thanks Roger,

..but I'm not talking about the camera "nailing" it every time; but I see your point.

If you look at my EXIF data, even though I shot the sample images in JPEG, I rarely allow the camera's PP algorithms to molest the image, save sharpening due to the lens I was using that evening. I tend to keep my jpegs neutral, but that is personal preference only.

Maybe I need to crank up contrast etc when shooting jpeg.

What I consider a (average) scene may not be what someone else considers average in tonality, contrast etc.

In the sample I provided, there are no wild swings in exposure, so I know I was well within the camera's dynamic range.

I notice this phenomena even with controlled studio lighting, although not quite as obtrusive.

September 2, 2009

Tom; Anthony,

Thanks for looking.

Your opinions help to reinforce my original thought;

On rare occasions, we may get a "perfectly" exposed shot that requires no PP...I've had a few myself; but generally some PP will be needed to clean up the shot. RAW is of course a different story and I expect to have to work the digital negative.

Ahh, if only we could shoot gray cards all day. ;), boring subject, but the exposure would be bang on; pretty much. ;)

September 1, 2009

Fog? Slime? I just don't get what you mean by those terms.

</blockquote>

Poor descriptors maybe.

The UN-corrected image though slightly over-exposed has the appearance of (lower contrast) AND, looks as though a hazy plastic covering needs to be scraped off to reveal the "cleaner" image.

Hope that helps describe what I'm talking about.

My 2nd question dealt with how to shoot this if possible w/o PP which clears this image up immensely IMO.

I DID try SIX seperate f/stops to prove or disprove my theory. In other words, + exp comp and - exposure comp in 1/3 increments

The haze, fog or whatever I choose to call it, remained; even with a technically good histogram.

The mystery remains; at least for me.

September 1, 2009

Hmm Can't post 2 images I guess..Here's the Corrected image

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by pete_harlan1