joe_willmore

I've got a new e-Book out on Amazon entitled: "Hummingbirds: Attracting and Photographing Hummingbirds of the Mid-Atlantic." Out just in time for the arrival of the little buggers.

<p>If I want to see if any photos that I've posted online have been taken without permission and posted on a website or used for an add, what options do I have besides using Google Images? Any other sites or search engines you'd recommend to find out if a photo has been copied and used without permission elsewhere online?</p>

<p>Frank,<br> First, welcome to the USA and I hope you and your family have a great trip. You certainly have a lot of great possibilities you can see.<br> Second, seeing National Parks is great. But you're in a part of the USA (especially Northern Arizona and Southern Utah) where the scenery is spectacular even without hitting a national park. For instance, something that isn't on your list but I'd highly encourage is to take the time to stop and visit a slot canyon in Northern Arizona or Southern Utah. There are hundreds of them that are not that inaccessible. The most famous ones are the Antelope Creek ones (upper and lower) in Northern Arizona.<br> Third, as others have pointed out, Yosemite is in the opposite direction. But to be honest (and this is coming from someone who has been to Vegas a couple of times, has family in Utah so have been there maybe 60-70 times in my life, plus taken a couple of visits to Arizona), as beautiful and diverse as all of those places are, to me the two greatest national parks in the USA are Yosemite and Yellowstone. It would be a major drive to get to Yosemite but if that were all you saw (with it's amazing diversity...the waterfalls, El Cap and Half Dome, Merced river, Tuolumne Meadows, the entrance to the Valley, bear sightings and other wildlife), I'd pick Yosemite over all of the other options--it really is that incredible of a location.</p>

<p>Here's a blog with the experiences of Simon Stackpoole who was shooting for a soccer/football magazine (Offside) in Brasil 2014: http://www.oldredliontheatre.co.uk/a-photographers-world-cup-blog.htm<br> While it won't answer all of your questions, it will give you a better idea of how some of the working sports photojournalists approach this assignment (especially an extended one).</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>1. I use a Mac (several actually). It's really critical to have a large screen/monitor. I'm lazy and do some edits on a 13" laptop. But usually I use a 14" x 20" monitor (that's just the size of the screen). Color settings matter a lot (b/c what you see on the screen may not reflect the resulting edit).<br> 2. Save all work you get paid for. No telling when you mail off a DVD and it never arrives. Or the DVD arrives and the client insists it's unreadable. Or your edits need work of some sort. Or the client threatens to sue claiming you didn't send 90% of the shots and you need to show a lawyer how much work you did or how many edits there were. And as a general rule, having a backup to what's on your computer is critical. As for me, I have an airport express (Mac) backup plus a couple of portable hard drives (depends upon category). Two are just for unedited RAW files that I save. Okay, I'm anal. But the point is: if it's a paying client then you want to save it.<br> 3. You're asking multiple questions on #3. If it's a model, you want to have them sign a release. It can be paper and you scan it in and email them a copy. Or it can be an electronic release. If they're restricted on what they can do with the photos then your best best is a watermark on the actual photos or a stamp on the back indicating that printing or copies are prohibited (though there are plenty of ways around that). If you're just going to give them a CD and then they print the images, any effort by you to restrict (their ability to make additional edits or make a gazillion copies) is extremely limited and you ought to admit defeat going in...just include a notice saying something like "please don't make a gazillion copies" and recognize that 50% of your clients will do so anyway.</p>

Several thoughts about the Rosenthal picture and some of the comments in this thread: 1. It was taken while the battle was still going on. Mt. Suribiachi (where the flag was flown) was the high point of the island and it's peak had been seized by the Marines. The battle would rage on for another month. There were still spider holes and bunkers on Suribiachi that held armed Japanese. it's true they didn't raise the flag under a hail of gunfire. But it's also true that there were still Marines fighting and dying on Suribiachi when the second flag was raised. 2. There was film of the flag raising. Watch it. It's nothing spectacular--almost boring. It's a powerful message about our art...about how still photography can freeze and emphasize a particular moment. The guy doing the filming was right next to Rosenthal, if you do a stop-action on the film, you can see Rosenthal's photo. But in the hurry of movement as the group of Marines raises the flag, that dramatic pose get's lost. 3. There are many reasons why the photo is powerful. But for people who know nothing of WW-II, the military, or even war, it's still a powerful photo. It's a dynamic photo--while the poses are frozen you see and can predict the movement, you can see the bodies seek to surge forward. And basic photo composition rules will tell us that a diagonal line is the most dynamic you can have...it provides energy to a photo. And then you have a geometric shape (pyramid or triangle) formed by the flagpole and the line of men. So you have a still photo that screams movement and energy and dynamic nature. I understand the reasons why the absence of faces is symbolic from a military standpoint. But think of why B&W is powerful for some photos...it emphasizes form/lines and hides or de-emphasizes other elements (that would otherwise be distractions. The absence of clear faces (and identities) allows us to focus on the physical effort, the dynamic movement in the postures. We don't get lost in thinking "well, guy #2 looks like a hunk or a movie star" or "guy #3 certainly hasn't shaved but #4 has...or he could be young and not have facial hair." To put it another way, take off their uniforms and have them dressed as telephone workers and have them raising a telephone pole and it's still an impressive, eye-catching photo for some of the composition reasons I've mentioned.

<div></div>