If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Eclipse success
Well, I've made my debut as a digital-era photojournalist...
I photographed the beginning of the eclipse, downloaded the images, edited them, called the news desk of the Atlanta newspaper, got permission to e-mail the images to them, did so... and one is published in today's paper. You can see them at: http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/...ex.html#041027 I think that all of us could be contributing to local newspapers (if we want to) very easily because of the ease of e-mailing the pictures. -- Clear skies, Michael A. Covington Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Michael A. Covington wrote:
Well, I've made my debut as a digital-era photojournalist... I photographed the beginning of the eclipse, downloaded the images, edited them, called the news desk of the Atlanta newspaper, got permission to e-mail the images to them, did so... and one is published in today's paper. You can see them at: http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/...ex.html#041027 I think that all of us could be contributing to local newspapers (if we want to) very easily because of the ease of e-mailing the pictures. Nice pictures. "I encourage other amateur astronomers to do this. It's one of the best ways to share your pictures with others." And to undermine the careers of serious, income-earning professional photographers, unless you were paid. Were you? How much? Did your contract with the newspaper require that you relinquish rights to the picture? Did the newspaper cut you out of income from future uses? I suppose you know that newspapers are among the greediest of rights-grabbers and photographer-devaluers. We should _not_ feed them, no matter how good it feels at the moment. It may be that the crest has passed and the slippery slope has control, but if you respect photography as a career, every little bit of friction can slow the decline... -- Frank ess |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Frank ess" wrote in message
... Michael A. Covington wrote: I think that all of us could be contributing to local newspapers (if we want to) very easily because of the ease of e-mailing the pictures. .... "I encourage other amateur astronomers to do this. It's one of the best ways to share your pictures with others." And to undermine the careers of serious, income-earning professional photographers, unless you were paid. Against a free market economy, are you? I made a deal that I thought was advantageous for me. People in numerous fields -- especially writers and computer programmers, of which I am one -- have learned that giving away a certain amount of work free helps to *promote*, not undermine, their careers. Besides, the amateur photographer who e-mails pictures to a newspaper could easily be *starting* a career, not undermining somebody else's. Or do you feel that nobody in the future should become a photographer, so that the old-timers can have a monopoly on all the work? Were you? How much? Did your contract with the newspaper require that you relinquish rights to the picture? Did the newspaper cut you out of income from future uses? The paper got nonexclusive rights to one rather mediocre picture. (I am well aware of rights issues. In fact at no point did I sign anything; I simply gave them permission, by e-mail, to print the picture as news.) Although not paid money, I was credited by name, and my book was mentioned. To me, that is a valuable indirect advertisement. Besides, the newspaper is part of the community, and I enjoy sharing things with my neighbors. I suppose you know that newspapers are among the greediest of rights-grabbers and photographer-devaluers. We should _not_ feed them, no matter how good it feels at the moment. It may be that the crest has passed and the slippery slope has control, but if you respect photography as a career, every little bit of friction can slow the decline... Ah. And we should abolish the World Wide Web, because that, too, is a way for people to share their pictures and writings with the public thereby "undermining" the careers of professionals? And abolish amateur astronomy, amateur woodworking, amateur basketball, etc., because all these things put "professionals" out of a job? I don't think so. -- Clear skies, Michael A. Covington Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Michael A. Covington wrote:
"Frank ess" wrote in message ... Michael A. Covington wrote: I think that all of us could be contributing to local newspapers (if we want to) very easily because of the ease of e-mailing the pictures. ... "I encourage other amateur astronomers to do this. It's one of the best ways to share your pictures with others." And to undermine the careers of serious, income-earning professional photographers, unless you were paid. Against a free market economy, are you? I made a deal that I thought was advantageous for me. People in numerous fields -- especially writers and computer programmers, of which I am one -- have learned that giving away a certain amount of work free helps to *promote*, not undermine, their careers. Besides, the amateur photographer who e-mails pictures to a newspaper could easily be *starting* a career, not undermining somebody else's. Or do you feel that nobody in the future should become a photographer, so that the old-timers can have a monopoly on all the work? Were you? How much? Did your contract with the newspaper require that you relinquish rights to the picture? Did the newspaper cut you out of income from future uses? The paper got nonexclusive rights to one rather mediocre picture. (I am well aware of rights issues. In fact at no point did I sign anything; I simply gave them permission, by e-mail, to print the picture as news.) Although not paid money, I was credited by name, and my book was mentioned. To me, that is a valuable indirect advertisement. Besides, the newspaper is part of the community, and I enjoy sharing things with my neighbors. I suppose you know that newspapers are among the greediest of rights-grabbers and photographer-devaluers. We should _not_ feed them, no matter how good it feels at the moment. It may be that the crest has passed and the slippery slope has control, but if you respect photography as a career, every little bit of friction can slow the decline... Ah. And we should abolish the World Wide Web, because that, too, is a way for people to share their pictures and writings with the public thereby "undermining" the careers of professionals? And abolish amateur astronomy, amateur woodworking, amateur basketball, etc., because all these things put "professionals" out of a job? I don't think so. Michael A. Covington Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html Well said Mike. But the subject Frank brought up is indeed a very complicated one, and a hellofa can of worms I might add.. No one should sell or otherwise trade a product is a manner that knowingly damages the economic well-being of those that have invested (I speak of individuals, not corporations or rapacious capitalists). Frank seems to have a 'thing' about newspapers and I would agree when it comes to the huge chain-type operations, not local community publications. I predict a long life for this thread (G). Regards. Ken. -- http://www.rupert.net/~solar Return address supplied by 'spammotel' http://www.spammotel.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Davey wrote:
Michael A. Covington wrote: "Frank ess" wrote in message ... Michael A. Covington wrote: I think that all of us could be contributing to local newspapers (if we want to) very easily because of the ease of e-mailing the pictures. ... "I encourage other amateur astronomers to do this. It's one of the best ways to share your pictures with others." And to undermine the careers of serious, income-earning professional photographers, unless you were paid. Against a free market economy, are you? I made a deal that I thought was advantageous for me. People in numerous fields -- especially writers and computer programmers, of which I am one -- have learned that giving away a certain amount of work free helps to *promote*, not undermine, their careers. Besides, the amateur photographer who e-mails pictures to a newspaper could easily be *starting* a career, not undermining somebody else's. Or do you feel that nobody in the future should become a photographer, so that the old-timers can have a monopoly on all the work? Were you? How much? Did your contract with the newspaper require that you relinquish rights to the picture? Did the newspaper cut you out of income from future uses? The paper got nonexclusive rights to one rather mediocre picture. (I am well aware of rights issues. In fact at no point did I sign anything; I simply gave them permission, by e-mail, to print the picture as news.) Although not paid money, I was credited by name, and my book was mentioned. To me, that is a valuable indirect advertisement. Besides, the newspaper is part of the community, and I enjoy sharing things with my neighbors. I suppose you know that newspapers are among the greediest of rights-grabbers and photographer-devaluers. We should _not_ feed them, no matter how good it feels at the moment. It may be that the crest has passed and the slippery slope has control, but if you respect photography as a career, every little bit of friction can slow the decline... Ah. And we should abolish the World Wide Web, because that, too, is a way for people to share their pictures and writings with the public thereby "undermining" the careers of professionals? And abolish amateur astronomy, amateur woodworking, amateur basketball, etc., because all these things put "professionals" out of a job? I don't think so. Michael A. Covington Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html Well said Mike. But the subject Frank brought up is indeed a very complicated one, and a hellofa can of worms I might add.. No one should sell or otherwise trade a product is a manner that knowingly damages the economic well-being of those that have invested (I speak of individuals, not corporations or rapacious capitalists). Frank seems to have a 'thing' about newspapers and I would agree when it comes to the huge chain-type operations, not local community publications. I predict a long life for this thread (G). Regards. Ken. Thank you for your reply, Ken. I don't have a particular 'thing' about newspapers; just about organizations who squeeze every bit of juice from their employees, contractors, and freelancers and keep the profits from the changes. What they publish, more and more often, is mediocre pictures, many times freeze-frames from amateur video. The whole process is eroding the quality of their products. I'd like to see the decline halted, or at least retarded. Mike, it seems to me you lost track of what I said and asked in my message, and flailed around whipping up a suds storm of suppositions and extrapolations all your own. I say: people with respect for working photographers should _not_ give away their work. It hurts current and future career photographers. You say you received just compensation. Good for you. That's all you needed to say, but clearly not all you had to say. Fine. Just don't imagine any words, deeds, or actions into my posts. In the meantime, maybe someone will reconsider a 'donation' to one cause, and support another. -- Frank ess |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Frank ess" wrote in message
... I say: people with respect for working photographers should _not_ give away their work. It hurts current and future career photographers. Wow, maybe we should license cameras so that only people who have passed rigorous tests and paid professional fees to the government can have them in their possession and use them. More government regulation, less personal freedom. If you can't handle the heat, get out and do something that you can handle. Clyde Torres |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Frank ess wrote:
Thank you for your reply, Ken. I don't have a particular 'thing' about newspapers; just about organizations who squeeze every bit of juice from their employees, contractors, and freelancers and keep the profits from the changes. What they publish, more and more often, is mediocre pictures, many times freeze-frames from amateur video. The whole process is eroding the quality of their products. I'd like to see the decline halted, or at least retarded. A good point, Frank, but keep in mind too, sometimes "amateur" efforts are all that's available, especially in the case of breaking news. Prime example: almost all the first footage of the 9/11 attacks were amateur video, mostly from tourists - with fast-changing events it can take time for the "professional" cameras to come to bear, and important moments may be missed. In the end, only one or two cameras caught the initial impact that day, one being a semi-pro filming a documentary in the streets below, swung upward at the unexpected sight of a low-flying jet... after the first hit, dozens if not hundreds of cameras captures the next several hours, but those first critical seconds would be lost if not for the common hobbyist. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Frank ess" wrote in message ... I say: people with respect for working photographers should _not_ give away their work. It hurts current and future career photographers. Exactly whose career was I hurting? How many newspapers have professional astrophotographers? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Davey wrote: Michael A. Covington wrote: "Frank ess" wrote in message ... Michael A. Covington wrote: I think that all of us could be contributing to local newspapers (if we want to) very easily because of the ease of e-mailing the pictures. ... "I encourage other amateur astronomers to do this. It's one of the best ways to share your pictures with others." And to undermine the careers of serious, income-earning professional photographers, unless you were paid. Against a free market economy, are you? I made a deal that I thought was advantageous for me. People in numerous fields -- especially writers and computer programmers, of which I am one -- have learned that giving away a certain amount of work free helps to *promote*, not undermine, their careers. Besides, the amateur photographer who e-mails pictures to a newspaper could easily be *starting* a career, not undermining somebody else's. Or do you feel that nobody in the future should become a photographer, so that the old-timers can have a monopoly on all the work? Were you? How much? Did your contract with the newspaper require that you relinquish rights to the picture? Did the newspaper cut you out of income from future uses? The paper got nonexclusive rights to one rather mediocre picture. (I am well aware of rights issues. In fact at no point did I sign anything; I simply gave them permission, by e-mail, to print the picture as news.) Although not paid money, I was credited by name, and my book was mentioned. To me, that is a valuable indirect advertisement. Besides, the newspaper is part of the community, and I enjoy sharing things with my neighbors. I suppose you know that newspapers are among the greediest of rights-grabbers and photographer-devaluers. We should _not_ feed them, no matter how good it feels at the moment. It may be that the crest has passed and the slippery slope has control, but if you respect photography as a career, every little bit of friction can slow the decline... Ah. And we should abolish the World Wide Web, because that, too, is a way for people to share their pictures and writings with the public thereby "undermining" the careers of professionals? And abolish amateur astronomy, amateur woodworking, amateur basketball, etc., because all these things put "professionals" out of a job? I don't think so. Michael A. Covington Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html Well said Mike. But the subject Frank brought up is indeed a very complicated one, and a hellofa can of worms I might add.. No one should sell or otherwise trade a product is a manner that knowingly damages the economic well-being of those that have invested (I speak of individuals, not corporations or rapacious capitalists). Frank seems to have a 'thing' about newspapers and I would agree when it comes to the huge chain-type operations, not local community publications. I predict a long life for this thread (G). Regards. Ken. Hi... Long life thread starts... May I quote one of your lines? hellofa can of worms I might add.. No one should sell or otherwise trade a product is a manner that knowingly damages the economic well-being of those that have invested (I speak of individuals, not corporations or rapacious Then I can never (were I young enough) apply for a job... might be taking one away from someone less qualified who might lose there's... I can never offer anything... not to sell you a car, or fix your TV, or tune up you 'puter, or write a piece of software... each of these would put someone else's livlihood at risk. Right? Ken |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Eclipse | rob | 35mm Photo Equipment | 21 | November 1st 04 06:01 AM |
Eclipse of moon on Oct. 27 | Jerry Gunnett | Digital Photography | 132 | October 23rd 04 05:40 AM |
Eclipse of moon on Oct. 27 | Joseph Meehan | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | October 16th 04 03:49 PM |
Eclipse of moon on Oct. 27 | Jerry Gunnett | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | October 16th 04 06:15 AM |