A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Just a question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old September 15th 18, 09:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Just a question

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

And then we had the macaque selfie copyright phenomenon. :-(
Whe photographer owns copy rights .. and .. who/what-ever
pushed the button/triggered the image capture event is deemed
'the photographer' .


so who owns the copyright for photos where nobody pushed the
button/triggered the image capture event, as would be the case with a
self-timer or an intervalometer?


The person who started the self-timer's "count-down" is the person who
pushed the button. The image capture was simply delayed.


correct.

Just as when I press the shutter button on my mechanical SLR, the image
is not captured instantaneously; there is a very slight delay as each
gear, cog, and lever in the mechanism does it's thing.


irrelevant.

Nonetheless, I am the person who initiated the image capture, so once
the image is fixed in a permanent and tangible form, I am the copyright
owner.


correct.

In the case of the monkey pictures, the photographer created a situation
where an image capture (or several images) was likely to occur. He set
up the camera so that the lighting and focus would be conducive to that
image capture (most likely by setting the camera to an auto function).
And he likely owns (or is responsible for) the camera gear. So the human
is the photographer and the copyright owner.


correct

Whether or not an animal
can hold a copyright is not material.


yes it is.

if another person pressed the shutter, they would hold the copyright
since *they* are the one who took the photo.

animals can't hold copyrights, so even though the animal took the
photo, it can't hold a copyright.

it's very simple, but peta wanted to waste everyone's time and money
for some publicity.
  #52  
Old September 15th 18, 09:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 569
Default Just a question

On 09/14/2018 08:42 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 21:31:17 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:57:22 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On 13 Sep 2018 06:32:29 GMT, Sandman wrote:

But the topic here was specifically about saving time in editing. Not post-
processing, but editing.

That depends on what you feel the topic is. That was not the topic of
the original post. It may be the topic of what was added in responses
to the original post.

Saving time is a consideration in employing the new PS features, but
the consideration I was asking about is more along the lines of "You
don't need to hone your skills in doing this because it can now be
done automatically."

Tony, whether you realise it or not, you are making a game of post
processing. Your objective is to ovecome the obstacles to produce an
acceptable image. That places you in a different category from those
whose only ambition is to produce an acceptable image.


I agree. Sometimes I will take a photograph and edit it with changes
PS for no other reason than to practice and develop my skills.

I took this photo just off St George Street in St Augustine FL just a
few weeks ago. I saw the busker, turned and shot, and then noticed in
processing the image that he's sitting just where a curb-like thing on
the wall ends, and that there's a second person in the image. I
didn't notice either when I shot the photo.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...2018-08-30.jpg

The image bothered me. It looks like I edited the image and removed
the curb-like part. The above is cropped but nothing more.

So, just for practice, I "restored" the curb-like extension that never
existed and removed the other person:

https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...8-08-30-PS.jpg

I still see some places that I'd tweak a bit more.

Just for the record, this was for my own amusement. To me, it's
unethical to add/change this much to a photograph and not make it very
clear that the result is Photoshopped. You can clone out a bit of
trash, and make a few minor deletions of things like electric lines,
but you shouldn't make major changes like this and not reveal that you
have created a scene and not just photographed a scene.

I think that's why I have such an aversion to photographs with
obviously replaced sky and faked bokeh-like or out-of-focus,
background. They are created scenes, not photographs of scenes. The
photograph was just the starting point.



As for the ethics: In broadcasting, there is a Federal Communications
Commission rule regarding recorded programs. If time is of special
significance, or if an affirmative attempt is made to indicate that a
program is live when it is actually recorded, then it must be announced
as recorded.

How this relates to your retouched photo: If you indicate in some way
that this is the actual scene, then you should reveal that it is
photoshopped. ("Yes, Your Honor, he was sitting just like that drumming
on a joint compound bucket...") But if it is one of many un-captioned
photos in your St Augustine trip photo album, then I don't have an
ethical problem.

I do have a problem with the base-curb on the left. The sidewalk surface
has softened a bit in focus but the curb is tack sharp. I'd like to see
the upper-curb softened a bit as it goes to the left also. Other than
that, IMHO, your unethical edits have created a better photograph.

--
Ken Hart

  #53  
Old September 16th 18, 12:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Just a question

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 05:19:59 -0400, Neil
wrote:

On 9/14/2018 8:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:20:42 -0400, Neil
wrote:

--- snip ---
We can disagree about their being "photographers", since as I see it
that term applies to people whose primary occupation is taking photos
and you feel otherwise.


So it's not sufficient to use a camera and take photographs. One must
be paid enough to make a living before you can be called a
photographer?

I'm sorry, I don't buy. Taking photographs makes a person a
photographer. Making a living by taking photograpohs makes a person a
professional photographer.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/photographer?s=t

Your interpretation requires one to discard the portion of this *single
sentence* after the word "especially".


Whereas your requires one to ignore the portion of this *single
sentence* before the word "especially".
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #54  
Old September 16th 18, 07:20 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Just a question

In article , Neil wrote:

Sandman:
And, when was the last time you met someone that preferred analog
film to digital?


Frequently


Professional photographers that make their living from taking photos? I don't
know, I just find that very hard to believe, unless you know this one
eccentric artsy guy and you meet him frequently

Sandman:
Not someone that occasionally shoots with analog film, someone
that prefers it? We may move in different kind of circles, but
it's been a great while since I saw a wedding photographer come to
the reception with a Nikon F4


Wedding photographers, news photographers, and photographers working
for ad agencies have specific job requirements that make automation
a big plus.


These people are the professional photographers you talked about though. And
they make out the vast majority of professional photographers...

It doesn't negate the value of the skills in question.


For them it does, mostly.

Neil:
Again, you're referring to scenes where generic lighting is all
that is needed, and I'm referring to making decisions about the
subtleties of a difficult scene.


Sandman:
Which means you are referring to skills that:


1. Very fe people have
2. Very very few instances require


Rendering the applicability and availability of the skill a very
very small margin in the grand scheme of things.


It *still* doesn't negate the value of having those skills.


Isn't the value of a skill in direct relation to how much you get to apply
it? Why value a skill you never get to use?

--
Sandman
  #55  
Old September 16th 18, 07:24 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Just a question

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Eric Stevens:
--- snip ---


Neil:
We can disagree about their being "photographers", since as I
see it that term applies to people whose primary occupation is
taking photos and you feel otherwise.


Eric Stevens:
So it's not sufficient to use a camera and take photographs. One
must be paid enough to make a living before you can be called a
photographer?


I'm sorry, I don't buy. Taking photographs makes a person a
photographer.


That's a bit too inclusive for me. That would mean that damned near
every middle school and high school kid is a photographer because
they take photographs with their phone cameras. They are the
photographer of the photographs they take, but they are not
photographers.


But where do you draw the line, though? Is it with intent, when a middle
school kid uses his camera phone and put in a bit more effort in the end
result? Obviously the smartphone camera isn't the issue here, since iPhone
photos have been on the cover of many magazines, including Time. And the line
can't be firmly at "professional photographer" since then that distinction
needn't be done.

--
Sandman
  #56  
Old September 16th 18, 11:03 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default Just a question

On 9/15/2018 7:12 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 05:19:59 -0400, Neil
wrote:

On 9/14/2018 8:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018 12:20:42 -0400, Neil
wrote:

--- snip ---
We can disagree about their being "photographers", since as I see it
that term applies to people whose primary occupation is taking photos
and you feel otherwise.

So it's not sufficient to use a camera and take photographs. One must
be paid enough to make a living before you can be called a
photographer?

I'm sorry, I don't buy. Taking photographs makes a person a
photographer. Making a living by taking photograpohs makes a person a
professional photographer.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/photographer?s=t

Your interpretation requires one to discard the portion of this *single
sentence* after the word "especially".


Whereas your requires one to ignore the portion of this *single
sentence* before the word "especially".


All my statement -- it is not an "interpretation" -- requires is that
one understand the role of a predicate in a sentence. If that is
insufficient, then understanding that the format of English language
dictionaries presents alternative definitions in a hierarchical list,
not as subject and predicate in a single sentence.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #57  
Old September 16th 18, 11:11 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default Just a question

On 9/16/2018 2:20 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , Neil wrote:

Sandman:
And, when was the last time you met someone that preferred analog
film to digital?


Frequently


Professional photographers that make their living from taking photos? I don't
know, I just find that very hard to believe, unless you know this one
eccentric artsy guy and you meet him frequently

I'm not sure why you snipped the context that explains where I would
frequently come across a number of professional photographers that make
their living shooting film in order to support your notion. Perhaps your
need to do that underscores my point... hmm.

Sandman:
Not someone that occasionally shoots with analog film, someone
that prefers it? We may move in different kind of circles, but
it's been a great while since I saw a wedding photographer come to
the reception with a Nikon F4


Wedding photographers, news photographers, and photographers working
for ad agencies have specific job requirements that make automation
a big plus.


These people are the professional photographers you talked about though. And
they make out the vast majority of professional photographers...

It doesn't negate the value of the skills in question.


For them it does, mostly.

It doesn't for the good photographers.

Neil:
Again, you're referring to scenes where generic lighting is all
that is needed, and I'm referring to making decisions about the
subtleties of a difficult scene.

Sandman:
Which means you are referring to skills that:


1. Very fe people have
2. Very very few instances require


Rendering the applicability and availability of the skill a very
very small margin in the grand scheme of things.


It *still* doesn't negate the value of having those skills.


Isn't the value of a skill in direct relation to how much you get to apply
it? Why value a skill you never get to use?

I always use the skills that I've acquired over the decades. The main
thing that technology does is help me understand when it's better to use
those skills, and I find that pretty valuable, both in terms of finance
and satisfaction.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #58  
Old September 16th 18, 03:37 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Just a question

In article , Neil wrote:

Sandman:
And, when was the last time you met someone that
preferred analog film to digital?

Neil:
Frequently


Sandman:
Professional photographers that make their living from taking
photos? I don't know, I just find that very hard to believe,
unless you know this one eccentric artsy guy and you meet him
frequently


I'm not sure why you snipped the context that explains where I would
frequently come across a number of professional photographers that
make their living shooting film in order to support your notion.


How did I support my notion, pray tell? I snipped you talking about art
shows, which said nothing about the amount of professional photographers
that make their living shooting only film.

Neil:
Wedding photographers, news photographers, and photographers
working for ad agencies have specific job requirements that make
automation a big plus.


Sandman:
These people are the professional photographers you talked about
though. And they make out the vast majority of professional
photographers...


Neil:
It doesn't negate the value of the skills in question.


Sandman:
For them it does, mostly.


It doesn't for the good photographers.


For the it does, mostly.

Neil:
Again, you're referring to scenes where generic
lighting is all that is needed, and I'm referring to making
decisions about the subtleties of a difficult scene.

Sandman:
Which means you are referring to skills that:

1. Very fe people have
2. Very very few instances require

Rendering the applicability and availability of the skill a
very very small margin in the grand scheme of things.

Neil:
It *still* doesn't negate the value of having those skills.


Sandman:
Isn't the value of a skill in direct relation to how much you get
to apply it? Why value a skill you never get to use?


I always use the skills that I've acquired over the decades.


While I find that hard to believe, this really wasn't about you, was it?

--
Sandman
  #59  
Old September 16th 18, 04:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Tony Cooper[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 188
Default Just a question

On 16 Sep 2018 06:24:42 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Eric Stevens:
--- snip ---


Neil:
We can disagree about their being "photographers", since as I
see it that term applies to people whose primary occupation is
taking photos and you feel otherwise.

Eric Stevens:
So it's not sufficient to use a camera and take photographs. One
must be paid enough to make a living before you can be called a
photographer?


I'm sorry, I don't buy. Taking photographs makes a person a
photographer.


That's a bit too inclusive for me. That would mean that damned near
every middle school and high school kid is a photographer because
they take photographs with their phone cameras. They are the
photographer of the photographs they take, but they are not
photographers.


But where do you draw the line, though? Is it with intent, when a middle
school kid uses his camera phone and put in a bit more effort in the end
result? Obviously the smartphone camera isn't the issue here, since iPhone
photos have been on the cover of many magazines, including Time. And the line
can't be firmly at "professional photographer" since then that distinction
needn't be done.


I'm not sure there's a need for a distinct line. I would only
describe a person as a "photographer" when that person is one who
routinely takes photographs for fun or profit that are not
"photographs of the moment".

In other words, the person who routinely takes photographs of his/her
food or friends in social situations is taking "photographs of the
moment". They are responding to and capturing what is in front of
them at the time but did not have any intent to find a photographable
subject.

I'm quite willing to say that the person who takes a photograph of the
moment is the photographer of that photograph, but not that the person
is a photographer.

The person who routinely goes out with a photograph-capable device -
camera or phone - looking for something to photograph is a
photographer.

I don't take a hard line on this, though. If someone wants to say "My
wife's the photographer of the family" because the wife is the one who
knows how to operate the phone's camera function, I'm not going to
correct that person.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
  #60  
Old September 17th 18, 12:32 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default Just a question

On 9/16/2018 10:37 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , Neil wrote:

Sandman:
And, when was the last time you met someone that
preferred analog film to digital?

Neil:
Frequently

Sandman:
Professional photographers that make their living from taking
photos? I don't know, I just find that very hard to believe,
unless you know this one eccentric artsy guy and you meet him
frequently


I'm not sure why you snipped the context that explains where I would
frequently come across a number of professional photographers that
make their living shooting film in order to support your notion.


How did I support my notion, pray tell? I snipped you talking about art
shows, which said nothing about the amount of professional photographers
that make their living shooting only film.

Those art shows and the museums are where I see the photographers that
primarily shoot film ("only" is your construct, not mine). Since there
are a number of shows per year, as well as a number of photographic
shows in the museums per year, the number of photographers who shoot
film far exceed the "...one eccentric artsy guy..." that comprises the
notion you are trying to support. Is that really beyond your
comprehension to the extent that you required this explanation (which
you'll probably snip to present some other bogus point of view)?

Sandman:
Isn't the value of a skill in direct relation to how much you get
to apply it? Why value a skill you never get to use?


I always use the skills that I've acquired over the decades.


While I find that hard to believe, this really wasn't about you, was it?

That depends on what you meant by "...how much *you* get to apply it" in
your above statement. I typically regard the term "you" in that context
as a reference to me, which would make your comment really about me.

--
best regards,

Neil
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good Rôgêr Digital Photography 0 April 21st 05 03:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.