paulie_smith1

<p>Are you cropping or reducing the image size? Am not clear on it and they are different things.</p>

<p>Get some books like Henry Horensteins Beyond Basic Photography and learn to tell over/underdevelopment from over/underexposure. If you can't tell that basic bit of information looking at your negatives you need to learn.<br>

Spend as much time on the learning about this stuff as you would practicing a violin. It is a lot more than picking up a camera and pushing a button.<br>

A college or community education class or three might help as well.</p>

<p>Just be glad your name is not Joe Jones, Bob Smith or similar.<br>

You can't do much about someone using their own name for their own business.<br>

Maybe you should change to a generic business name, like AAA photo.com or something like that?</p>

<p>If the photo works, what difference does it make?</p>

<p>Trespass and ownership rights are a problem for some. What do you trespassers do when on the property illegally and you fall through a floor into junk and end up with a punctured lung, broken leg or lose an eye?<br>

You sue the owner. We see it time and again. This is why many rural are farm owners post their property.<br>

How many of you take something tangible, not just photos. "They won't miss this" and you walk away with a souvenir - while becoming a thief as well as a trespasser.<br>

And you wonder why many don't want you on their property?<br>

In our area we find antique dealers driving back roads and invading old farmsteads and stealing stuff. We find people going into old homes and buildings and taking the copper out. We find photographers taking photos and giving out GPS info and telling others about the places. These others come in and don't respect property rights, move things around, damage them, drive over fields planted in crops, get stuck and generally cause problems.<br>

Ask first and respect property rights. You don't want someone coming into your home and property uninvited, do you?</p>

<p>Mr. Harrington, any way you know of to find the legal copyright owner of an image you see used on a website when you have very strong suspicions it is not used with permission?<br>

I have tried finding the copyright owners using tineye. A waste of time. It shows postings but no information.<br>

A way to do this would be appreciated.</p>

<p>Henry, tineyes what I have been trying. No data shows on most of the photos I have checked.</p>

<p>I am running into the same thing with a photo of Al Gore with his fists & arms raised in triumph on being selected to run for US President. Searching (tineye - thanks to the other post) shows me many places it has been used an posted but none show ownership and copyright information.<br>

How do I find this for photos on the internet? Want to be able to contact the photographers and ask permission for use on some images but that is very difficult when I can't find their information for either copyright or contact.</p>

<p>You are definately having problems with your developing. Try tray development in the dark, using a brush over the negative back forth and side to side and see the diffence. You appear to be getting extra density from agitation on the edges as well as uneven development running top down on this particular image. A clean, flat bottom tray and brush development will give you a comparison. Shoot two shots of a few scenes and develop one in the tray and one the way you are now.<br>

Tray development with a brush is clean, simple and easy to do. You just add darkness and move the negative to the stop and then the fix and then the rinse tray. No scratches if you are careful and don't drop it. Add a couple minutes in a pre-soak bath and you will get even better results. Use one shot developer - use and throw out - and your quality should be a bit better as well.</p>

<p>Matt,<br>

I posted that for the specific image I was trying to check. Thought this would be better for a more general approach.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks, found the photographer and the news agency as a result. Had been trying for a couple hours using Google with no success. Must be an easier way to find out the owner/copyright holder of an image.</p>

<p>I have been trying to find the copyright owner of a specific photo. This time it is one with no metadata or XMP/IPTC data i can locate when opening the photo from another website.<br>

I am trying BBC where the http data shows it came from and searching shows it came from. Have emailed them but no response so far.<br>

Anyone know of an easier way to check on copyright? Possibly a search engine that will show who the photographer is? It is an easy one to find but the copyright owner isn't on anything I have checked yet.</p>

<p>Now will try to upload it for the purpose of finding who actually owns copyright or if it is public domain.</p>

<b>Moderator's note:</b> Photo removed. As per photo.net's Terms of Use, do not post photos that are not your own. A link to the photo is sufficient.

<p>Am attaching a news photo that was posted on another forum(not photo.net) and am trying to find out who took the image. Have tried finding the info embedded in the photo with no luck. Maybe someone on here has seen it and can help with the information?</p>

<p>Am trying to get the photo added, no luck so far. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/08/asia_pac_enl_1215079331/html/1.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/08/asia_pac_enl_1215079331/html/1.stm</a></p>

<p>The link above should get you to the photo in case I can't get it to show here.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For the price you are talking you can get a Canon 20D and lens. Possibly a 30D if you look around a bit and get lucky.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you want to shoot 4x10 then do so. Film holders are available from Hong Kong via eBay. Just bought four for around $200 and I can't tell them apart from those I got from Canham a few years ago.<br>

Got a back for the 8x10 Deardorff and modified it to take the 4x10 holders.<br>

If you are contact printing it works very well.<br>

Lenses are not too bad. A 300 Nikkor M and a 120 Nikkor. On occasion I borrow a 90XL from a friend. Very nice and it covers the 4x10. The woods are full of lenses that will work for this format. Many older Calumet/Scneider/Rodenstock and others out there that will work well and don't cost much.<br>

If you want to shoot 4x10 and take advantage of camera movements this is a good way to go.</p>

<p>Did the University PAY for insertion of the ad?<br>

In the US a person does have control of their image for commercial purposes.<br>

Checking with an attorney who practices intellectual property/copyright law is the only way you will find the answer here.<br>

In general, an ad featuring one person implies that person endorses what the ad is about. Just being a student may not be enough to take the school off the hook if this person did not consent with knowledge that they were consenting to their likeness in a paid advertisement.<br>

Some athletes are sueing their former schools and the NCAA for using their image after their playing days for the school are over. This is the kind of information to look for as it may well apply to this situation as well.</p>

<p>Are you an employee? Are you a freelancer who signed a Work for Hire agreement?<br>

Until your status is known not much advice can be given that will be worth anything to you.</p>

<p>The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals has breathed new life into a copyright infringement action by

photographer Peter Murphy against radio shock jocks. The action involves interesting questions of fair use,

DMCA violations, and defamation. <br>

The opinion may be found at: &

n

bsp

; ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/102163p.pdf</p>

<p>You will have to add in t

he htt

<p><a href="

<p>This is one reason many real sports shooters photoraph with both eyes open.</p>

<p>Yes, I find film with the 5x7 and 8x10 to be less expensive than the digital route - for me.<br>

I shoot fewer images and more than half are destined for final prints. I don't shoot a numer of sheets of film of one shot. I mix my own chemistry and coat my own papers for pt/pd and do still make B&W contact prints on silver chloride papers. The size of the negative is the size of the print in 8x10 and usually with 5x7 - though I can enlarge 5x7 with the old Beseler enlarger I have had for 20 years now.<br>

Folks pay a premium for hand done work. The portraits are unretouched. The images the way I want them to look and the number limited mainly because of the work involved in printing.<br>

For me, it works OK. For some the darkroom is not fun or enjoyable.<br>

The digital work is a different animal. I would never try photographing a college football game with the 5x7 or 8x10 though an old speed graphic would still work OK - as long as it was only a few shots and not full coverage of the whole team during the game. For news events the big camera would be an event all by itself and at times upstage the event being covered, especially with small town events and politicians. Wouldn't want that.<br>

I shoot differently with the larger camera than I do with digital. Part is 30+ years of experience with the larger format and working much differently and more tightly with it than with digital.(or even 35mm/medium format) Knowing the end result is a contact print, and just a few of them has me shooting differently. I am not trying to get a pass catcher just as he grasps the ball while a linebacker is folding him in half. I am trying to get a feeling on film that will translate to the final image. When I set up and see it is not working as I want or envision - I take the camera down and move on. With digital I may try to force it a bit at times.<br>

One thing I really like with digital is image stitching for panoramics. Even with the 8x20 I could not get what I wanted way too often. Now I can plan and stitch and get what I envision thanks to technology - and I don't need a banquet camera to do it.</p>

<p>For me film costs less all the way around. Part of that is how I work. For others it would be more costly if they did not discipline themselves in their shooting to do more 'cherry picking' rather than shooting and hoping. Niether one is 'right', they are ways of working in a comfort zone that allows me to get the results I hope for with a minimum of fuss while having confidence in my working methods and my gear.<br>

Just hope the batteries on the 8x10 Deardorff don't die on me as I can't figure out where they are...</p>

<p>I did not mean to be offensive and see how it could be seen that way.<br>

Your question sure does look to me like you don't know what you are doing.<br>

You should be able to see which of the two would fill the bill from what you posted you are using now. A 50 that you already have covered with your zoom and an 85 that is a touch longer than the zoom.<br>

What is it the 135 wide open won't cover for you with shallow depth of field? Why do you think you need one of the two other lenses? Will you really be using them wide open? How much more of a 'feel' do you think you will get over your zoom wide open?<br>

Why not find someone or a shop or CPS and get and shoot each to see which might work? Seems like a simple and quick way to find an answer.</p>

<p>Sure wish we had ISO 6 to 64 available as many of us used to use for various things when we were shooting a lot more film. Having the very slow ASA/ISO settings with specialty films and mainline Kodachrome 25 was one more tool to use for creative images.</p>

<p>If you don't know what you are doing, what are you doing shooting weddings?<br>

Do you have a second body and strobe setup so you won't be out of business when one craps out during a wedding? Do you have business insurance?<br>

Or are you another guy with a camera who is a 'photographer'?<br>

"You buy a camera, you are a photographer. You buy a piano, you own a piano".<br>

Why not rent or borrow the lenses(you <em>ARE</em> a CPS member, right?) and see which works best for your style of wedding coverage?</p>

<p>My Free Copyright has as much force and effect as 'The International Star Registry' in getting astronomers to call a star by your name.<br>

Formal registration is the only real protection you have. Group registration makes it easier.<br>

Even then your work needs to be 'original' and 'creative' if you expect to win in court when filing an infringement claim.</p>