james_smith55

April 20, 2012

What is being simply asked is for you to post a link to some of your photos. This is a photography forum after all. It's not complicated..

</blockquote>

You're right this is a photography forum. It is not a Stalinist gulag in Siberia. None of use has to respond to orders from other forum members demanding that we post this or that. I think I've taken up enough of the forum's time and space debating I don't know what. Time to give the other folks a chance to express their opinions.

Good bye.

April 20, 2012

Actually, if you asked Ray Krock (the founder of McDonalds) about his success, he'd tell you (and did many times): It's not about making hamburgers, it's about making a system of making stores that make hamburgers. His success came from understanding how to scale, and how to take advantage of economies of scale.

</blockquote>

This. Marketing is huge in photography but you also have to have a workflow where you can efficiently deliver reproducible results that meet the clients needs in a timely fashion on demand. What you are seeing on this web site might be a sampling of the members' finest work. You don't know if they took 3,000 photographs to come up with 5 really nice shots. You aren't going to make a living that way.

My question is , are these landscape , bird and flower pictures salable

</blockquote>

The planet is flooded with people trying to sell pictures of sunsets, birds, and flowers. The world was not flooded with people trying to sell pet rocks. It's one thing if pictures of sunsets, birds, and flowers exist and it is quite another if they exist AND there is a deluge of people selling them for $1. Go to Shutterstock to have your dreams crushed.

April 20, 2012

Hello all, I am an Army retiree currently work as an Air Force photographer maintaining a studio and also shooting news and editorial photos. I have 12 years photography experience, 6 of which is in forensic photography (hopefully I will get certified this summer).

</blockquote>

Sounds like you have a lot of experience and if the $700+ billion Pentagon budget is true I assume you've worked with some nice equipment. If you have a nice portfolio of work you should be able to get work doing something somewhere assuming there is demand. We don't know where you live and we don't know what the local market is like. How many other photographers are offering services you are interested in offering in the civilian world?

Thoughts, and in this new age of digital cameras when photographers are increasingly providing services for less, how would I fair, how would I market myself? 1 niche, I'm still in the 15% here that still shoot film of all formats.

</blockquote>

If you shoot medium format film it should be pretty easy to market that with a few biased samples ;) Seriously though if you have a more premium market you could sell things like "hand made" large B&W enlargements. But you will have to aggressively market them and do plenty of education. Also if you are good at developing and making prints people do that as a business as well. They get a web presence and then have people mail them their film. They process and print it. I'm talking about black and white here. I can't imagine it's too expensive to do other people's black and white stuff if you are already set up to do your own in volume.

In all the jobs I've done since I started shooting with digital, I've never been asked to use film or questioned about use of digital.

</blockquote>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19592">Jeff Spirer</a>, marketing is part of running a business. And part of marketing is making clients suddenly realize they have needs they never even knew they had. Steve jobs didn't wait for people to walk up to him and ask for an overpriced mp3 player. He made one and sold it to the world. Look at smartphones. How many people actually "need" those things? I don't know if marketing film prints is something that has a large lucrative market... but it does have a market. Quote from Arizona Highways...

In order to achieve the high-quality reproductions in our publications, we prefer large format (4x5) transparencies, especially for the large scenic landscapes for Arizona Highways is famous.

</blockquote>

I suppose the types of requests you get depend on who you work for. Know what I mean?

FYI I have no recollection of ever selling a film scan or print. Frankly it's never come up. I am not a pro and everything I've sold thus far is digital. But I've always thought if done correctly one could market film products to the right people. The forensic thing is an interesting idea. If you have the original negative or slide that would be awfully hard to tamper with. I also like the idea of offering large portraits taken on medium format film to the upper end clientele. It's a possibility. I don't know how viable it is but it's certainly a space I would like someone to explore.

April 20, 2012

"I photograph anything that comes in front of my lens that doesn't involved gross violations of people's privacy. My film/digital sensor honestly doesn't care what I shoot."

I, and I suspect Brad as well, are far more interested in creating a body of work than a collection of things that film or a sensor happened to capture.

</blockquote>

Welcome to the club. Not sure why that needs to be explicitly stated on a photography forum.

(I'm giving James the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't just shoot stuff at random. I don't think that's what he meant.)

</blockquote>

Thank you Sarah. I assumed everyone would understand as you do that I photograph a wide variety of things, but I guess on the internet you have to spell it out for some.

If Georges Seurat were alive today, painting, and online, I wonder if he'd be able to show some of his work to an interested viewer on the web? Or would he refuse saying that an online viewing of his work cannot possibly recreate the quality and character of how his brushes render points?

</blockquote>

I think George Seurat would be like the rest of us who routinely show our work in a digital medium regardless of how we create it. And I think that George Seurat if he saw a 700 px image of an Ansel Adams landscape and a camera phone picture he could appreciate them for what they were and wouldn't assume if he want to an art gallery to see a full size hard copy he would confuse the two.

April 20, 2012

>>> When you are looking at an 800 px photoshoped image you can't tell much about the camera, lens, technique, film, etc.

But that's not what I care about when looking at photographs. Generally, I could care less about that.

</blockquote>

If all you do is make 700 px cell phone pictures and post on Facebook you can afford to be that cavalier. If your intention is to make 11x14 prints all that stuff comes into play. I learned this from years of experience. People are going to have to separate themselves from their emotions. All these modalities exist for a reason. None of them is perfect and at these rock bottom prices I see no reason to try and use one imperfect tool for everything.

OK, here's one of my street portraits, a person named Delondra I encountered on the street, posted at 700 pixels, max allowed by pnet:

</blockquote>

As I've stated multiple times. That doesn't tell anyone what it will look like in an 11x14 print on the wall. If your domain is 700 px images then you can skimp on all kinds of things and get reasonable results. When people ask me about what camera I used for a particular image I ask them why. If they are just curious I tell them. If they want to replicate the experience I ask them what they want to do with the final image. If all they want is some facebook pictures I steer them to much cheaper more convenient options.

When you are looking at an 800 px photoshoped image you can't tell much about the camera, lens, technique, film, etc. But it should give you a very good idea whether the image is worth looking at.

</blockquote>

If composition, lighting, subject matter are bad they ain't gonna get better just because you have a bigger file. But if focus is slightly off or there is motion blur or shallow depth of field in a landscape some PS sharpening can mask that. A soft lens can be masked as well in Photoshop particularly if the original is shrunk down to 700 px. Even noisy images can be cleaned up and shrunk down and look respectable.

I have sent small 800 px proofs to people that were thinking about buying one of my images. Most of the stuff I have sold is editorial so a lot of the time they aren't looking for the most artistic picture. They want one that tells the story. But I am honest with them if the image is a little soft or blurry. It may not be apparent at all in the smaller image. I explain to them if you want to use the image on the web or make a small quarter page reproduction it will be fine. But if they want something that is full page I inform them that the 800 px proof is not representative of what they will see in regards to sharpness and detail.

Having a 700 px bake off does NOT tell you anything about what a large print will look like on the wall. It is a completely futile exercise. I don't know how many ways there are to say it.

>>> Now interpolate it back up to its original size. Open the original and look at them side by side at 100% or there abouts. Do they look the same? Of course not, that's silly.

</blockquote>

Exactly.

Now, post up one of yours. I'd like to see what your photos are about...

</blockquote>

I photograph anything that comes in front of my lens that doesn't involved gross violations of people's privacy. My film/digital sensor honestly doesn't care what I shoot. It produces the same quality of images regardless of subject matter. And none of the results can be fully evaluated in a 700 px small sample.

Look Brad heck will freeze over before I dump my SLRs and rely solely on my camera phone for 11x14 prints. You can post all you want but no one in this forum is going to jump on that band wagon. Don't know what to tell you.

April 20, 2012

Because they are are only website that makes (or at least claims to make) actual scientifically based tests on camera sensors.

</blockquote>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=14630">Bob Atkins</a>, C'mon now. I've read some of your articles and I liked them. Don't ruin my memories. We all know people can haul out fancy looking equipment with very technical sounding names and use the results to back up whatever point of view they have. I'm not saying that is what is going on here but just because someone throws out some exact sounding numbers with some jargon doesn't mean they've gotten real meaningful objective data.

Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth by Canon shooters begin...

</blockquote>

I tell people to buy systems not bodies... especially in the digital age. Nikon and Canon are running into a ceiling. I'm glad Canon has decided to chill on the megapixel thing and has made some rather nice advancements in the video arena. Don't encourage Nikon. The megapixel wars have been one of the most detrimental things in the photography industry. The megapixel wars have rendered the majority of P&S unusable. I would much rather have a low noise 8 megapixel P&S than a 14 megapixel noise box. I know the D800 does a decent job in the noise department but really what is up with the megapixel thing?!

Both are fine cameras. Anyone selling their gear to switch to Nikon or Canon based no this is an idiot. The next iteration will be completely different. What are you going to do? Switch again?

April 20, 2012

Show me some of your photos. I promise I'll make a mental allowance knowing that a web rendering probably sucks 95% out of the life out of their printed glory.

</blockquote>

Unfortunately it really doesn't work that way. There's a lot that goes into making an image. You really can't put an exact clinical number such as 95% on any part of the process. Furthermore when you view an image at 800 px you really can't tell what all has or has not been lost as compared to the original. When I send small images to friends and clients I do a little photoshopping and add sharpening. Some of the images I send to friends have technical issues like slightly off focus that I can cover up by shrinking the image down and adding some sharpening. If people want prints I tell them that's not possible because the original is a bit out of focus.

Sometimes people ask about a lens or camera based on a few small emailed pictures. I kindly explain to them that any reasonable camera/lens combination could get similar results since it is such a small image. I don't tell them I shot the image with a medium format camera. It's not relevant. On the other hand if they ask me about a portrait with nice bokeh I explain to them that the only way to achieve the same result easily is with a fast lens. Several people after hearing this have gone out and gotten a fast prime lens and thank me to this day. Same when they've asked me about a landscape. I explain to them what a polarizer is and they come back grinning ear to ear. Same with a cheap bounce flash and portraiture.

When you are looking at an 800 px photoshoped image you can't tell much about the camera, lens, technique, film, etc. This isn't me talking here. It's been said numerous times on this forum. When I want to buy a lens I find a site that has tested it out and compared it at full size to several other lenses in that focal length. The results are often surprising to me. Some decades old lenses hold their own against high priced modern lenses. Some lenses that are cheaper actually catch up to more expensive lenses when they are stopped down one or two stops. And some things that look like a big deal are actually irrelevant when an image is printed.

In short you won't even be able to tell me what camera, medium format, 35mm film, or 35mm digital, I used to make an image if I post a 800 px sample on this forum. How on earth are you going to be able to evaluate what an 11x14 print will look like on my wall? You can't just take the image and use some algorithm in your head to add back some "95%" mystery factor. Photography and physics for that matter don't work that way. Do me a favor. Take one of your full size images. Shrink it down to a 800 px TIFF. Add some sharpening. Make it look nice. Now interpolate it back up to its original size. Open the original and look at them side by side at 100% or there abouts. Do they look the same? I didn't think so. If your computer and Photoshop can't do it then I don't you can do it in your head.

April 20, 2012

Hi, at times I like to shoot film with small prime lenses.

</blockquote>

Why? The Canon 17-40mm zoom ain't that big and it's pretty sharp. Obviously at f4 it's not that fast. It's not too expensive though... relatively.

Ray, rather than dragging around multiple wide angle lenses, you might consider a zoom. I shoot the Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 lens, which takes 77mm filters.

</blockquote>

I hear ya. I'd get a 17-40mm zoom first and then maybe buy one fast prime in that range. Just get the 17-40mm or the Nikon equivalent. Shoot with it. Then check the exif info after a few weeks or months and see which focal length you seem to use the most, 24mm, 28mm, or 35mm (I'm assuming the OP is shooting digital).

So I thought a 28mm for general use and at other times a 24mm for landscapes like what John Shaw suggested in one of his earlier books. I just thought that is it really that necessary to get all the FLs ....

</blockquote>

Have you used a 24mm and a 28mm?! Did I misunderstand you? Are you suggesting getting a 24mm AND a 28mm? How much money do you have?! Anyone that gets primes that are only 4mm in focal length apart is either very wealthy or insane. I have a medium format camera and use nothing but primes on it. I have four focal lengths. In any one day I will usually use maybe one or two of the focal lengths. On a busy day three. I've never used all four. I had big plans about getting other lenses but I quickly realized it's a pain constantly changing lenses and frankly I can get a lot accomplished with just two lenses.

April 19, 2012

Understand. But my photography is not about lens/equipment evaluation. That's what yours is about.

</blockquote>

Bad news my friend every photographer uses lenses and "equipment." They are a part of the process. They aren't the ONLY part of the process but they are a part. If you confine your activities to making nice 800 px images then yes there are a lot of things you can skimp on. Most of us don't live there. Nothing chaps my hide like getting a nice image and then realizing I can't blow it up and hang it on my wall because I used the wrong format or the film is too grainy for my purposes. If that makes me an evil person then guilty as charged. I am just baffled by people that get married to one format and then fiercely defend it to the grave. Be adventurous. With today's falling prices on analog equipment go out and have some fun. You don't have to spend a bunch of dough and if you try something out and it doesn't live up to your expectations just sell it on ebay for a small loss or maybe even a small profit.

It's a real shame Robert Frank didn't use...

</blockquote>

He seemed to do okay with is LEICA! LEICA $$$$>Bronica $. Wanna use another example? Robert Frank used a solid piece of equipment for his work. It was hardly the "camera phone" of his day. Don't mean to hurt your feelings but I would take a LEICA rangefinder over your Android camera phone any day of the week. So would most people on this forum. No offense dude. I'm sure you have a nice phone.

April 19, 2012

With digital we take many more photographs, probably many more than a film camera. Wouldn't the wear and tear burn up the shutter of a digital camera much sooner than that of a film camera?

</blockquote>

I've never heard of an amateur wearing out a shutter. Anyway if you buy lower end DSLRs like the digital rebel and upgrade ever two or three years you will always have a fresh shutter. Sell the old DSLR on ebay. If you sell it after only two or three years it will still be worth a few hundred dollars. I just don't see DSLRs as something you own for 30 years like analog cameras. But truth be told analog cameras have gotten so cheap now if my shutter ever failed I would just toss my 35mm camera and get another one.

April 19, 2012

I understand now. Your photography and photographs are about communicating technical parameters and quality of your equipment. My photography is definitely not.

</blockquote>

Nope. I just like to make quality work. If anyone took a look at my equipment and knew anything about photography they would most certainly not mistake me for some gear head spending exorbitant amounts of money on over priced yuppy jewelry. I have never heard anyone that uses a Bronica ETRS as their medium format workhorse being accused of having photographs that, "are about communicating technical parameters and quality of your equipment."

"As has been pointed out numerous times on this forum and others you simply cannot truly evaluate the quality of an image based upon some 800 px (in the long dimension) digital reproduction." That's just utter nonsense...

</blockquote>

Yeah, dude whatever. I assume you've never done any digital photo editing. I can take a 10 megapixel blurry shot and shrink it down to 800 px in the long dimension and apply some unsharp mask and it'll look pretty good. You can't evaluate lenses, cameras, film, scanners, technique, film grain, anything in a 800 px shot. You can judge composition though I prefer to be a bit more holistic. If your goal is to make 800 px pictures I would tell you a medium format film camera is a waste. But if you want to make a nice large print to hang on your wall and enjoy I would suggest upgrading from your and Andriod phone. I'm still scratching my head about why this is even a topic for debate on a photography forum.

A cell phone picture can look pretty good on a cell phone or on a computer screen shrunk down after some editing. But try and make a 11x14 print and compare it to some scanned Velvia and it's going to look pretty mediocre. This is not an opinion.

April 19, 2012

Why not offer to loan him a print?

</blockquote>

I'm not a museum. If he is an active member on this forum and he can't figure out the quality difference between a medium format film print made from a tripod mounted camera using 25 ISO B&W film and a hand held camera phone image he is pretty much the last person I would mail one of my pieces to. I regularly take pictures with a camera phone, 35mm film and digital and various medium format film cameras. They all have their pros and cons and I am not beholden to any one format. I can take a step back and state why I honestly like/dislike certain qualities of each. I've seen a lot of things on the web but I've never seen someone say they want to get into some kind of Android phone vs Medium format film camera image quality duel. I just don't understand that level of fanaticism about ANY format. I'm still trying to figure out how he uses a bounce flash for the quick portraits or uses the polarizer for the landscapes. The bokeh with that Android phone shot wide open must be breathtaking.

April 19, 2012

Great! But "looking better" is in the eye of the viewer. Post 'em up with a link. I'd like to see them.

</blockquote>

As has been pointed out numerous times on this forum and others you simply cannot truly evaluate the quality of an image based upon some 800 px (in the long dimension) digital reproduction. The minimum size for any picture on my wall is 11x14. I simply cannot accurately represent on this forum the subtleties and characteristics of a B&W fiber print taken with a medium format camera and quality lens using high quality filters. You will simply have to take my word for it that the results are slightly better than what you get with a camera phone. Not really sure why this has to be explained on a photography forum.

Then please, impress me with some of those compelling photos

</blockquote>

Please see my statement above. Furthermore I have no need to "impress" you. If you feel your Android phone takes better pictures than my medium format camera that hardly sounds like an issue I need to resolve. You should make your art with whatever makes you happy. Enjoy your camera phone.

April 17, 2012

Check out Alamy. You can set up an account as a seller and sell your images. The nice thing about having a seller account is you can also click on different images and set various options and get a price. When I want to sell an image that is what I do. I ask the buyer what they want to use it for and then I check on Alamy what a rights managed image goes for under that criteria. I don't necessiarily sell the image through Alamy. I just use their calculator to get a price to see where the market is.

Whatever you do do not sell the image Royalty Free. Make sure it is Rights Managed. Also don't give it away for free. If it's worth them using it's worth them paying for it. You can negotiate a rate. Think about it. If they pay you $200 that's $200 towards a new body or lens. If they are a small agency on a limited budget you can be merciful and charge them less but don't give them perpetual worldwide rights for everything.

April 17, 2012

"Most of these cell phone pictures aren't that great to begin with" "The cell phone cameras are taking pictures that would not have been otherwise taken." Not only wrong, but laughable...

</blockquote>

Sorry you feel that way <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=153336">Brad</a>. I have pictures taken with 30+ year old cameras that look better than ALL cell phone pictures. And based on my admittedly anecdotal experience a lot of people are taking pictures now that never even owned a camera before they were forced to own one via their new cell phone. I have no recollection of anyone going out for the night with a camera when I was in college. Now people whip out cell phones and take all kinds of pictures that simply would never have been taken. I could do a far better job with my medium format camera and my Mecablitz 60 CT-4 but that is usually safely at home in the closet when I'm on beer number 3. Your experience may vary.

fair enough Sarah, all in all. Still, I think you take this way too personal and there's hardly a discussion on the internet that's worth that.

</blockquote>

I agree with this. Sarah just roll with it. Instagram from what I've seen is not worth getting this worked up about. I'm in your corner. I'm the kind of nutcase that is checking out 6x9 film cameras and furious Kodak stopped making slide film. Instagram is not on my radar. To to the Instagram fanboys I say, you want the old school look? Find some Ektachrome on the internet. Shoot it in medium format. Get it cross processed and be a man for Pete's sake! ;)

April 17, 2012

Jon Stewart RIPPED instagram. <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-april-10-2012-elon-musk">Link.</a> The skewering starts 10:18 in. Hilarious. Enjoy.

April 17, 2012

Again, my concern is can she demand the copyright from me without paying my copyright/ownership fee (which in this case I would charge $250). Again here is the question..... Can I require her to pay what I set as a price for the copyright or am I supposed to just hand it over even though I never agreed to anything about the copyright. Comprende? :)

</blockquote>

You asked multiple questions in this thread. I answered at least a couple of them. You have to READ our replies. Here is what I said...

I would think this would be fairly easy to establish in a court of law. I wouldn't get that bent out of shape about it. If she says you sold her a copyright then she will have to prove it. On the other hand you don't have a model release so you can't really sell the images for commercial purposes to third parties. P&G has no desire to get into a legal skirmish every time it puts out an ad for soap.

</blockquote>

Please reread my reply. You are dealing with a crazy person who seems to be broke. How on earth are they going to make you hand over copyright without a written contract or witnesses to corroborate their story? Use your head. If she isn't going to pay you tell her to f**k off and stop taking her phone calls. This isn't complicated. If she can't pay $250 (or some reasonable sum) for the video she certainly isn't going to go through the time trouble and expense of taking you to court.

Now you might want to take her to court but that really is taking things to the next level. Are your witnesses willing to show up in court and back you up? Even if you get a ruling in your favor you still have to collect. You can't get blood from a stone. The court will give you a ruling in your favor, take your filing fee and pat you on your head. It will be up to you to try and collect. Good luck with that. This was all covered in my response to you...

You could probably easily take her to small claims court and get some kind of ruling in your favor. You may not get the $250 but you would probably get something and get the copyright thing cleared up. She would also have to pay your $50 filing fee if she loses. You are just depending on the witnesses to be willing to throw her under the bus in a court of law.

</blockquote>

The problem with this thread is we don't know what you want. If your primary concern is she wants all the copyrights then just ignore her. She will have to go through a court case if she even wants to attempt that. Crazy low lifes can rarely string together the requisite number of coherent thoughts to initiate a legal proceeding... much less win. Put her on ignore and move on with your life. If you want money line up your witnesses, get your own story straight, and go to small claims court. But be forewarned that will probably be a waste of time that will cost you even more money. It's not that I don't think you can win some kind of ruling in your favor... I just don't think you are going to collect.

In other words let it go and ignore the woman. And for God's sake reread the thread and use the advice to avoid situations like this in the future.

If you want to post dirty videos of the woman on the internet in some kind of demented revenge plot, go ahead. Enjoy your time on Jerry Springer. I'm not sure how that will help your bottom line or professional reputation.

April 16, 2012

To be honest though if an app like instagram helps others enjoy photography then I'm all for that.

</blockquote>

Most of these cell phone pictures aren't that great to begin with and more importantly it's not like they are replacing a lot of quality photographers. Anyone that gives a damn about image quality already has a DSLR or a high quality P&S. The cell phone cameras are taking pictures that would not have been otherwise taken. So it is better to have a crappy picture than no picture at all. I see no threat.

April 16, 2012

"You also have to be a jerk." I certainly disagree with this.

</blockquote>

I meant you have to have some awkward conversations that will make people think you are a jerk. I once put up a gallery on my personal website of an event. A friend of a friend asked for a picture from the event... through the friend. They did not ask me directly because I had since moved from that town. I forwarded a low res image with copyright information embedded in the EXIF. The guy could look at the picture on his computer but he couldn't use it for commercial purposes (too small). If he wanted to use it for unrestricted commercial purposes that would have led to an awkward conversation about copyrights/credit/payment. No matter how polite I would be I would be viewed as a jerk. No way around it. People are used to amateurs handing out images for free. When they encounter one that doesn't... they're considered a jerk.

April 16, 2012

Why express an opinion about someone else's methods, equipment choices, photographs, etc. (the things customarily discussed in this forum), when those things do not affect what we ourselves are doing? Why should any of us "make decisions for other people" (e.g. what lens should I buy?). After all, it's none of our business.

</blockquote>

Why be a member of a forum then? I like the input and debate. You assume it has no effect on what we are doing. This websites and several others have definitely affected what I am doing. I like to hear other people's thoughts. I also like to bounce my looney opinions off other people just for a reality check.

I'm also left perplexed as to the rules of civility on this forum.

</blockquote>

This place is mild.

Because I made the simple (and I think valid) observation that fads (I didn't use that exact term) don't stand the test of time, I am accused of dictating to others how they should do their photography and dictating to others that they should not exchange photos on Instagram. I am accused of being an elitist and a snob who looks with disdain at everything that doesn't fit in my sheltered aesthetical world. Holy cow!

</blockquote>

Either ignore it or defend yourself. The second option is more entertaining for the rest of us. I agree with you by the way. Fads do not stand the test of time. It's kind of fun to see what is considered cool now that will be considered absurd ten years from now.

Lomography in all it's variants is atrocious. I like it though because it keeps people buying film. I especially like the medium format Lomo stuff. But twenty years from now I am sure there are going to be people kicking themselves for not having some decent slide or print film shots after they took the time money and effort to shoot film. <a href="http://usa.shop.lomography.com/cameras/medium-format-cameras/lomo-lubitel-166">Seriously a decent Bronica ETRS costs LESS than a new Lomography camera!</a> I dare anyone to say my assessment is wrong. This state of affairs makes no sense. It is marketing taken to the extreme and in 20 years when people find out how badly they've been burned they are going to be pissed. Luckily most people will never find out the awful truth.

Okay. Ready for the flames now!

April 16, 2012

They are forced to compete against image libraries that are offering vile prices. These practices are infringing on photographers' moral rights."

</blockquote>

That's free market capitalism. Why should someone pay you more for a photograph when others are willing to sell a photograph that meets the clients' needs for $1? There is nothing immoral about that.

April 16, 2012

Mods, is there any way we can get a prominent warning on the homepage of this site that says "Never do anything without a detailed written contract." We also need another warning that says, "Never give photographic digital files, negatives, or prints to friends or relatives unless you want your copyright to be ignored at best and stopped into the ground at worst."

I'll say it again, people do NOT respect the time, talent, and effort that goes into making a decent photograph. You have to be constantly in education mode. You also have to be a jerk. Most people would not say my work is worth six times as much as your $40 Supercuts haircut. But if that is the message you are trying to convey you have to say those words. You cannot transact business with hints and innuendo.

And if she doesn't own the copyright, am I allowed to take the photos public?

</blockquote>

Not sure. Please PM me the photographs and I will decide whether they should be made public :D

"A friend asked me to do a boudoir session of her to "woo" back an ex-boyfriend." This was your cue, at the very outset, to walk away. Cue meaning obvious giant red flag waving neon letters saying "RUN!"

</blockquote>

Exactly. I'm not sure what type of people you are associating with <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=7076311">Ashtin Paige</a>. Furthermore I don't know why you think someone like that has $250 just lying around. I'm not saying they treated you right but really what were you expecting? This isn't preschool. It's business. It's okay to be judgmental. I'll sit down and have a friendly beer with just about anyone. However, I will NOT transact business with just anyone that crosses my path. And if my introduction to a potential client involves a story about taking racy pictures to woo back an ex lover... I pass... politely. Now if you specialize in racy pictures that's fine. Then have a very specific contract and get a RETAINER up front. Before ANY work is done get a $100 retainer. This will scare most of the riff raff off. Once the work is completed you can settle the tab with money, haircuts, or sex. Whatever floats your boat.

Another friend said that since the "agreement" was made verbally and with witnesses, that counts as a contract in Texas at least. True?

</blockquote>

That's true everywhere in the civilized world. Contract law has been around longer than typewriters and mass literacy. Our current laws are based on common law that goes back centuries. You could probably easily take her to small claims court and get some kind of ruling in your favor. You may not get the $250 but you would probably get something and get the copyright thing cleared up. She would also have to pay your $50 filing fee if she loses. You are just depending on the witnesses to be willing to throw her under the bus in a court of law.

The main issue is that this wasn't just a client who wrote rude and demeaning emails but someone I know very well who also neglected to keep her word then DEMANDING the copyright for the price she wants to pay.

</blockquote>

Evidence would seem to suggest you don't know her that well.

I didn't offer the copyright in the first place... just the photos in a slideshow.

</blockquote>

I would think this would be fairly easy to establish in a court of law. I wouldn't get that bent out of shape about it. If she says you sold her a copyright then she will have to prove it. On the other hand you don't have a model release so you can't really sell the images for commercial purposes to third parties. P&G has no desire to get into a legal skirmish every time it puts out an ad for soap. If you want to use the pictures for editorial purposes or marketing go ahead. Just be ready to deal with a crazy person. If you find that type of thing fun then have at it. I just don't think it makes a whole lot of sense from a business point of view. This person is clearly a moron. If I was planning on stiffing someone on a bill I wouldn't let them take naughty pictures of me first. That should tell you exactly the type of person you are dealing with. Do you think you can win in a dirty street fight with someone like that? Even if you win in court you still have to collect. The court won't do that for you. That's a whole other procedure.

April 16, 2012

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1110391">John Ellingson</a>, I am not a lawyer and I probably wasn't very clear in my original post.

First of all upon further reflection I doubt there was anything sinister going on here and I probably would just drop the matter. The friend isn't going to understand or care about the copyright/credit aspect and bringing it up will probably only hurt the friendship. The videographer was probably thinking they were doing the client a favor and by now has probably forgotten about the wedding and moved on to other projects. I think there is a very real possibility that U.U.'s perception and reality are in this case are two very different things.

I stamp a specific copyright notice on ALL my images that I send out. I also only send out lo res email pictures so no one can make decent prints or use them in a full screen 1080p video.

I have had several clients over the years that actually got ownership. The got the film and processed it themselves, or required the negatives to be delivered to them. In those cases they were buying my services, and they retained the output of those services.

</blockquote>

That is a very specific situation. I have looked into hiring photographers when I was unable to shoot things myself and retaining ownership of the negatives. The prices I was quoted were a lot more than just getting some prints. And there was an explicit understand before any work was done. I didn't just assume I got everything. Furthermore I once went to Kinko's to get a color copy made of a professional photograph. I was told by the person behind the counter they could not copy the photograph because it was a professional photograph. Their reasoning was you own the print but you do not own the right to mass produce it. They said that I could use a self service copier and copy it myself but they could not be involved. The understanding of people that were in the business prior to the digital age is you are paying for service and a print. You are not buying an absolute right to mass produce the image and use it in any way you see fit.

It's like buying an MP3. You bought an MP3 but you have not bought the right to mass produce it and hand it out to all your friends.

And by the way U.U. has the original files. The videographer does not have a contract. You go to court and you have the originals. Now it's up to the videographer to prove they had some type of verbal contract. As I said though I don't believe anything bad was going on and I wouldn't turn this thing into a court case. I'm just giving an example.

Lack of a contract cuts both ways. What U.U. has in their favor is they have the time stamped originals from their camera. Presumably no one else at the wedding had the exact same camera and was witnessed taking pictures. If U.U. has RAW files that's even better. What I'm saying is it is fairly easy to establish U.U. took the original pictures. It is much more difficult to prove U.U. transferred an unrestricted license to their friend and the videographer. But again, not worth fighting over.

April 15, 2012

"Most amateurs don't seem to realize having your work forwarded all over the internet and used in an uncontrolled fashion destroys it's value and your reputation. I can't sell an image as rights managed if I am not in control of it." Amateurs don't sell images. That's what makes them amateurs.

</blockquote>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=580814">. Kaa</a>, when I say amateurs I meant non-photographers. That was not clear from my post. I meant if I email one of my images to a friend and then they distribute it in an uncontrolled fashion it destroys MY ability to sell my work. And yes I am an amateur and yes I sell my work. Unless you are using a very strict definition of amateur then those two things are not mutually exclusive.

There's also more to life than money :-)

</blockquote>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=580814">. Kaa</a>, if you can forward me a link where they are handing out free L lenses I will make a bumper sticker out of this sentence and put it on my car. As an amateur being able to sell my work every once in awhile enables me to buy more film, chemicals, lenses, and upgrade my camera. My statement about carefully controlling your work with some easy common sense steps should not invite this statement.

April 15, 2012

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=7072696" rel="nofollow">U. U.</a>, by the way I guess you missed<a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00aFit?start=20"> my post...</a>

As an amateur photographer I am very stingy about forwarding full size JPEGs to people. Acquaintances will ask you for a nice picture you took and then use it for all kinds of commercial purposes without giving credit or remuneration.

</blockquote>

I wouldn't be too pissed at your friend. This type of behavior is to be expected. I'm usually surprised when it doesn't happen. Don't forward full size images and don't forward images without copyright watermarks. Let your friends ask you to remove the watermarks. When they bring it up then you can have the conversation about copyrights and commercial use.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by james_smith55