|
|
Post by herron on Oct 28, 2010 18:19:35 GMT -5
I held off from posting a reply, since I can get myself really worked up over some of the stupid garbage people try to sell on evilBay, with claims of good for student, or don't know if it works, but .... Equally infuriating are the jokers who will lift text and pictures directly from my web site, as if my restored and pristine collection item was the piece of junk they really had to sell. evilBay has been really good about taking down the offending auction, if the seller doesn't remove my info and pics. But, as far as teaching is concerned, I think EVERY student of photography should learn first with film. Things like exposure latitude and The Sunny 16 Rule are as important as composition and depth of field knowledge, and what better way to learn them than in a situation when making the wrong choice means failure of the attempt. Any clown can shoot digital images over-and-over, changing settings until he gets something useful (or useful enough to be Photoshopped later), but knowing what to do in the first place is the most important part of being not only a creative photographer, but a good photographer. One of my sons decided he wanted to be a photographer (after first getting a degree in psychology), and I was delighted he chose the prestigious College for Creative Studies to pusue that second degree. They taught him with film (and darkrooms), even though he would be using digital in his professional career. He learned well, as his web site testifies.  |
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Oct 28, 2010 19:29:52 GMT -5
Ron,
I've had this too, and not just on ebay. I had two people who lifted pictures and text from my website and used it on their own site. When I emailed them one deleted the material with an apology. I emailed back and told him to go ahead and use it provided he acknowleged it as mine.
The other informed me that "anything posted on the internet is public domain". When I put him straight on this he got really abusive and told me I didn't know what I was talking about, so I got a friend who is a licensed legal advocate to email him quoting UK, EU and US copyright acts, and threatening legal action. It worked!
That's why all the pictures I now post have my watermark on them. When I get around to remaking them all my web pictures will have this watermark.
It's annoying to have to do this, but I respect other people's copyright to the best of my knowledge and like mine to be respected as well.
PeterW
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2010 20:26:52 GMT -5
Ron:
The conversation is going far afield but. . . I would like to agree with you on using film to learn photography. I long argued that learning to write on paper rather than with a computer teaches one to organize their thoughts and material better.
Sadly, however, I'm afraid the chances of someone wanting to shoot with film instead of digital are even slimmer than getting people to write on paper. Young people grow up snapping pictures with their phones, now. In fact, lots of people record their vacations using only a 2 mpx or smaller image from a phone. The pictures aren't that great but they don't really care as long as they have some sort of image. It's all about instant gratification.
With digital things like exposure, latitude, depth of field and "Sunny 16" aren't that relevant to most people because equipment had reached the point where anyone willing to get the least but familiar with their camera can usually get pretty decent images.. The people whose ancestors were satisfied with the images from a Kodak Instamatic 126 now can produce images as sharp as what I was creating with a Nikon F in the '60s. Sure, once in a great while my knowledge of shutter speeds, apertures and film speed is valuable but not to the degree it was when everyone had to shoot film.
Frankly I find it difficult to believe very many people can make a living in photography today because it is quit possible to produce fantastic images without mortgaging your home. The only thing a "pro" has to sell is his or her ideas and knowledge. And from what I have seen lately, most people only care about getting a recognizable picture they can post easily on their Facebook page.
As I see it, the war is over (a lot faster than I ever thought it would end). Digital won. There is still a generation of "old guys" like us who appreciate the mechanical elegance of a well made film camera but our group is getting smaller every day. And even guys like me with 60 FSU and German rangefinders and Japanese SLRs do most of our actual shooting with digital gear.
As far as copyright and the Internet are concerned, I never post an image with a resolution of more than 72 ppi and I seldom post any photo I figure anyone would want to use commercially. Trying to protect anything posted on line where there are a billion users probably is a lost cause.
Wayne
(aka Mr. Cynical)
|
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Oct 29, 2010 20:17:47 GMT -5
I think that Ron's son's experience is apposite and illustrates the difference between a photography degree or (fine) art degree major in photography and a "photography class" at high school, tertiary or adult education level. My daughter, in the photography module of her Industrial Design degree, has to use a digital camera; no film allowed. Ron's son, with the luxury of a 3 or 4 year degree devoted entirely to photography, got to learn darkroom. He quite possibly made or used a pinhole camera and a Large Format camera too. This point of difference comes down to available time and pedagogical goals. There is also a deeper philosophical discussion at play re: education versus (vocational) training, but that is getting very emotive ground indeed.
As for the unlicensed use, I had the embarrassment of having a private bicycle collector inform me that one of my photos of his collection appeared in an English book on WWI. Not only was the photo uncredited, but the bicycle was purported to belong to an "unknown American collector". The bicycle in question was photographed in Melbourne, Australia! Meanwhile, I'm having to seek copyright permission to use 2 19th century photographs from a public library collection before my PhD thesis is made available in PDF form via my university's online archive. I now agree with Mr Cynical!
|
|
|
|
Post by herron on Oct 30, 2010 7:09:28 GMT -5
Ron, I've had this too, and not just on ebay. I had two people who lifted pictures and text from my website and used it on their own site. When I emailed them one deleted the material with an apology. I emailed back and told him to go ahead and use it provided he acknowleged it as mine. The other informed me that "anything posted on the internet is public domain". When I put him straight on this he got really abusive and told me I didn't know what I was talking about, so I got a friend who is a licensed legal advocate to email him quoting UK, EU and US copyright acts, and threatening legal action. It worked! That's why all the pictures I now post have my watermark on them. When I get around to remaking them all my web pictures will have this watermark. It's annoying to have to do this, but I respect other people's copyright to the best of my knowledge and like mine to be respected as well. PeterW I know what you mean. Too many people believe images on the internet are public domain. So are the written words. Alas, the internet is far too vast to regulate properly. I post a link to the Copyright Office in my copyright notice ... but I doubt anyone actually goes there. Certainly not the fellow lifting images and copy! |
|
|
|
Post by herron on Oct 30, 2010 7:14:38 GMT -5
Ron: The conversation is going far afield but. . . I would like to agree with you on using film to learn photography. I long argued that learning to write on paper rather than with a computer teaches one to organize their thoughts and material better. Sadly, however, I'm afraid the chances of someone wanting to shoot with film instead of digital are even slimmer than getting people to write on paper. Young people grow up snapping pictures with their phones, now. In fact, lots of people record their vacations using only a 2 mpx or smaller image from a phone. The pictures aren't that great but they don't really care as long as they have some sort of image. It's all about instant gratification. With digital things like exposure, latitude, depth of field and "Sunny 16" aren't that relevant to most people because equipment had reached the point where anyone willing to get the least but familiar with their camera can usually get pretty decent images.. The people whose ancestors were satisfied with the images from a Kodak Instamatic 126 now can produce images as sharp as what I was creating with a Nikon F in the '60s. Sure, once in a great while my knowledge of shutter speeds, apertures and film speed is valuable but not to the degree it was when everyone had to shoot film. Frankly I find it difficult to believe very many people can make a living in photography today because it is quit possible to produce fantastic images without mortgaging your home. The only thing a "pro" has to sell is his or her ideas and knowledge. And from what I have seen lately, most people only care about getting a recognizable picture they can post easily on their Facebook page. As I see it, the war is over (a lot faster than I ever thought it would end). Digital won. There is still a generation of "old guys" like us who appreciate the mechanical elegance of a well made film camera but our group is getting smaller every day. And even guys like me with 60 FSU and German rangefinders and Japanese SLRs do most of our actual shooting with digital gear. As far as copyright and the Internet are concerned, I never post an image with a resolution of more than 72 ppi and I seldom post any photo I figure anyone would want to use commercially. Trying to protect anything posted on line where there are a billion users probably is a lost cause. Wayne (aka Mr. Cynical) I know, Wayne. It's sad, but true. Digital has won. The snapshooters of the world will never go back to film. But there are pockets of professional photography still using film (usually large format), and quite a few good photographers making a good living at their trade. My son included. www.jeffherron.com(edit) But I still contend knowing the basics enables good photos to begin with. Digital only allows you to discard the dozens of bad ones you took, before getting that lucky "automatic" one. And some shots (like those my son takes) will never be attained by luck. There's too much set-up involved. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2010 22:48:31 GMT -5
Ron. The "shoot everything to get one good one" started before digital. When I was a newspaper editor and the photographers were using Nikon FMs and Pentax MEs with autowinders, it was common practice for even the college-trained ones (especially the college-trained ones) to fire five-frame bursts and pick the best of the five. Drove me crazy!
W.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2010 22:53:18 GMT -5
I think that Ron's son's experience is apposite and illustrates the difference between a photography degree or (fine) art degree major in photography and a "photography class" at high school, tertiary or adult education level. My daughter, in the photography module of her Industrial Design degree, has to use a digital camera; no film allowed. Ron's son, with the luxury of a 3 or 4 year degree devoted entirely to photography, got to learn darkroom. He quite possibly made or used a pinhole camera and a Large Format camera too. This point of difference comes down to available time and pedagogical goals. There is also a deeper philosophical discussion at play re: education versus (vocational) training, but that is getting very emotive ground indeed. As for the unlicensed use, I had the embarrassment of having a private bicycle collector inform me that one of my photos of his collection appeared in an English book on WWI. Not only was the photo uncredited, but the bicycle was purported to belong to an "unknown American collector". The bicycle in question was photographed in Melbourne, Australia! Meanwhile, I'm having to seek copyright permission to use 2 19th century photographs from a public library collection before my PhD thesis is made available in PDF form via my university's online archive. I now agree with Mr Cynical! We ran into your problem in book publishing often when libraries demand payment to use photographs. Actually a 19th century photo or artwork is long out of copyright . Legally you can't be charged for "right" but they can charge you for supplying a high rez copy to you if you request it. For books we usually paid the libraries something just for the goodwill. Legally we didn't have to pay anything because most of the photos we used were long out of copyright. Wayne |
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Oct 30, 2010 23:58:26 GMT -5
Wayne, that sounds like a good policy. I consciously only used photos which came from a "friendly" city library rather than our National Library/Alexander Turnbull Library, which has a keen nose for the dollar. I'm really only following university policy by applying for copyright permission "dotting my t's and crossing my i's" or something like that. I trust it'll be a formality.
Mind you, universities can be pretty bad culprits when it comes to charging for research done by paying postgrad students. Many charge like a wounded bull for interloaning Ph.D. theses. My sister is a medical librarian and she has many war stories about that particular racket. I'm pleased that my university (Lincoln University, NZ) is promoting open access to knowledge by publishing our theses online, with free access.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Farrell on Jan 8, 2015 21:05:22 GMT -5
The "student" part of this reminds me of my daughter, doing High School photography 10 or so years ago. She required a film camera, so I gave her a Yashica SLR I had fixed up. She soon swapped this for my Pentax K1000, which had a lot more cred with the other students.....
|
|
