Eclipse success

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

"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

"Ken Davey" wrote in message
...

Well said Mike.

Thanks...

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).

That sounds nice until you try to work out the consequences. All
competition "knowingly damages the economic well-being" of anyone who is
selling at a higher price.

This is an instance of what I call Popper's Law, pointed out by Sir Karl
Popper, the great economist and philosopher. No matter what you do, some of
its effects will work against your own interests and those of people you'd
like to favor. For example, by merely putting your house on the market, you
change the supply/demand ratio and thereby depress the price of every house
in town.

The Soviet Union tried to get around this with a "planned economy" in which
prices were not set by the market. It didn't work, and merely attempting it
required terrible restrictions on personal freedom.

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 don't much like the way chain-type newspapers are managed myself. I think
this one is owned by a small chain, but the management is quite local.

I predict a long life for this thread (G).

I agree, and I won't stick around for it. I find economics much less
interesting than photography

--
Clear skies,

Michael A. Covington
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html

"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?

Clyde Torres wrote:
"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.


Who are you directing this to? What "heat" are you talking about? What
do you mean by "handle"?


--
Frank ess

I should add one more thing. I was talking about ASTRONOMICAL photography.
Almost all the astronomical photographers in the world are amateurs or
semi-amateurs. Only observatories keep a professional on staff. And surely
you don't think all the pictures of the eclipse must come from an
observatory or NASA.

I am not talking about amateurs competing head-on with ordinary
photojournalists.

"Eddie Luck" wrote in message
...
Whereas something like astronomy is not profitable - it's an amazing
subject, but exisits "illegitimately". It's science, and needs as much
information as possible from any source.

I think you were echoing my point, made elsewhere, that I wasn't competing
head-on with conventional photojournalists. Thanks for your support.


I should just clarify this. IMHO it's a case of mankind with God-given
intelligence trying to prove that God doesn't exist, and ultimately I
don't
think it'll work (no matter how smart we think we might be) =)

I must admit you leave me more puzzled...

*What* is "mankind...trying to prove that God doesn't exist"?

I am a scientist, and I believe in God. (A professional scientist in
another field, and an amateur astronomer.)

--
Clear skies,

Michael A. Covington
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Who are you directing this to? What "heat" are you talking about? What
do you mean by "handle"?

You know exactly what I'm talking about. And it's "handle?", not handle"?

Clyde Torres

Clyde Torres wrote:
"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Who are you directing this to? What "heat" are you talking about?
What do you mean by "handle"?

You know exactly what I'm talking about. And it's "handle?", not
handle"?

Two attempts, two wrong.

Too bad, Clyde.

--
Frank ess

Clyde Torres wrote:
"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Who are you directing this to? What "heat" are you talking about?
What do you mean by "handle"?

You know exactly what I'm talking about. And it's "handle?", not
handle"?

Two attempts, two wrong.

Too bad, Clyde.

--
Frank ess