Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

flamingos love the 20D

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 8:34:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Dirty Harry!
Nice shots, but why the "sig"? Better someone copying it than showing a shot
with a "sig" throuh it.
My 2 cents
Marcel

"Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote in message
news:%V_oe.1587390$8l.1116891@pd7tw1no...
> yay, I got a 20d.
> http://68.148.30.133/flam.jpg
> http://68.148.30.133/flam2.jpg
>
>
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 8:34:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
> "Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote in message
> news:%V_oe.1587390$8l.1116891@pd7tw1no...
> > yay, I got a 20d.
> > http://68.148.30.133/flam.jpg
> > http://68.148.30.133/flam2.jpg
>
> Congrats.
>
> The images could use a tad sharpening for display.

Being new to the world of serious digital SLR photography, what is
wrong with them in terms of sharpness? They look very good to me -
good contrast, great color, shallow DOF, but I feel like that was what
he was going for. What am I missing here?

Ben
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 8:34:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

komb...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Being new to the world of serious digital SLR photography, what is
> wrong with them in terms of sharpness?

flam.jpg: needs more light and sharpness ("snap")
flam2.jpg: needs more sharpness

Not much point in doing either until that silly copyright nonsense is
removed though.

> They look very good to me - good contrast, great color, shallow DOF,

Is that the code-word to be used for unsharp images? "Shallow DOF"?

> but I feel like that was what he was going for. What am I missing here?

A critical eye? Since you are "new" to "serious digital SLR
photography" (whatever the hell that means), here is your first lesson:
anyone can rattle off a few hundred frames of anything. So the main
job in this business is editing, and one needs to be ruthlessly brutal
in making the selections and subsequent edits. You have only so much
wall (or disk) space.
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 8:55:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Celcius" <cosmar@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:iO-dnY9l55bW4znfRVn-3g@rogers.com...
> Hi Dirty Harry!
> Nice shots, but why the "sig"? Better someone copying it than showing a
shot
> with a "sig" throuh it.
> My 2 cents
> Marcel
>
> "Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote in message
> news:%V_oe.1587390$8l.1116891@pd7tw1no...
> > yay, I got a 20d.
> > http://68.148.30.133/flam.jpg
> > http://68.148.30.133/flam2.jpg

That was because I post in a different forum where I've had stupid kids take
my stuff. I try and keep them so they don't ruin the image. Thanks :-)
--
www.harryphotos.com
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 8:58:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:

> A critical eye? Since you are "new" to "serious digital SLR
> photography" (whatever the hell that means), here is your first lesson:
> anyone can rattle off a few hundred frames of anything. So the main
> job in this business is editing, and one needs to be ruthlessly brutal
> in making the selections and subsequent edits. You have only so much
> wall (or disk) space.

I'm glad you could enlighten me without being a condescending prick.
That's a very important quality to possess when attempting to inform.

Regards,

Ben
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 8:59:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Celcius" <cosmar@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:iO-dnY9l55bW4znfRVn-3g@rogers.com...
> Hi Dirty Harry!
> Nice shots, but why the "sig"? Better someone copying it than showing a
shot
> with a "sig" throuh it.
> My 2 cents
> Marcel
>
> "Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote in message
> news:%V_oe.1587390$8l.1116891@pd7tw1no...
> > yay, I got a 20d.
> > http://68.148.30.133/flam.jpg
> > http://68.148.30.133/flam2.jpg
> >
> >
>
>

Amazing pictures. The 'sig' is a little distracting but I notice more and
more web photo's and artwork being stamped with a sig. I'm an artist and
have considered it myself but I think if someone wants to copy bad enough
they'll do it. I had someone come on my site and blatently admit she made
cards from my artwork. Shame, really, when that happens.
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 9:12:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com just can't stop himself from trolling yet again:

> I'm glad you could enlighten me without being a condescending prick.
> That's a very important quality to possess when attempting to inform.

So are you or are you not "new" to this "world" of "serious digital
photography"?

Or are you just a troll?
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 10:00:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> kombi45@yahoo.com just can't stop himself from trolling yet again:
>
> > I'm glad you could enlighten me without being a condescending prick.
> > That's a very important quality to possess when attempting to inform.
>
> So are you or are you not "new" to this "world" of "serious digital
> photography"?

I can eventually learn what I need to know, thereby changing my status
of newbie. I suspect you'll be a contentious jerk for perpetuity.
Just a guess, but I bet I'm spot on.

Regards,

Ben
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 10:39:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:02:24 GMT, "seacrest" <seacrest9x@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>"Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:tr09a1dojp1om0sbhod7dgj3eprmpeto5l@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:59:16 GMT, "seacrest" <seacrest9x@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm an artist and
>> >have considered it myself but I think if someone wants to copy bad enough
>> >they'll do it. I had someone come on my site and blatently admit she
>made
>> >cards from my artwork. Shame, really, when that happens.
>>
>> It leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, but does the possible theft by
>> one outweigh the viewing distraction of the many? Dirty Harry, who
>> himself stole his name from a film character seems to think so.
>>
>> You can probably tell, I completely disagree with graffiti-ing your
>> own work using some feeble excuse that children might copy them.
>>
>> In your case, although the girl who stole your artwork is a thief, did
>> her action damage you in any real way? Yes she profited from the
>> crime, but were you ever going to sell your images to those same
>> customers?
>>
>> Copyright theft is wrong, no two ways about it. It's also a fact of
>> life and when it happens to you it might make you feel better to think
>> along the lines I'm suggesting.
>>
>> --
>> Owamanga!
>> http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
>
>I do understand your point. No, there wasn't any real damage (in my case).
>Actually, I was told by my art friends I should feel flattered but I was
>more taken aback by her admission. I got over it. :)  No sigs on my
>artwork....however, I did consider it for a day or so.
>
>Btw, I'm curious--how would you feel about this:
>
>I had a look at your photographs on pbase. I paint and sketch Blue Herons
>quite frequently so they caught my eye immediately. Your pictures are such
>high quality but moreover, the compositions are excellent.

Thank you.

>Say an artist
>decides to use one of your Herons for a painting, how would you feel? One
>day you walk into a gallery and find your photograph has been turned into a
>painting that's selling for X number of big dollars. Would you sue?

Absolutely not. He's not my heron.

:-)

Just as I feel I should be able to take a photo of a statue and sell
that without any concerns of infringing the sculptor's rights.

I would however start selling my heron photos because their worth has
just been massively inflated by the fact this great artwork sells for
big bucks...

So, if you feel like using an image of mine as a basis for a painting,
go ahead. I'd love to see a photo of the end result - maybe you could
email it to me when you are done.

>I'm asking this because I know artists that are copying pictures off the
>internet from various sources and literally painting from those
>pictures.....and selling them.

I am doing exactly that right now, and don't see a problem. I'm
currently working on a 5 canvas 'jungle' scene in acrylics (actually
starts as a beach on one side, transitions to jungle and ends as
planes with elephants etc. As a reference I'm using lots of images of
wild animals I've downloaded from the web, usenet or pbase (including
stuff I've shot myself). No one photo will significantly be
identifiable in the resulting painting (I can't paint that well...)

Anyway, as they are destined to hang in my toddler's room, they will
never hit the marketplace.

> And in this crowded market, they'll
>probably never get caught.

As I've said, I don't see a problem. You can't really claim copyright
on composition (some pro's do if being ghosted by another photographer
at a wedding for example) but a shot of wildlife doing what wildlife
does is a bit of a stretch.

I'd be extremely interested to hear of any case where a painter has
been successfully prosecuted for copyright violation. Trademark
infringement would be easy, as would conspiracy/fraud if the work was
an exact duplicate and attempting to be sold as an original, but
copyright violation I just can't see happening. Maybe I'm wrong...

>Oh just some thoughts...not important. And sorry, not too applicable to
>digital camera's, either.

We are allowed to drift within reason, this is still reasonably
on-topic.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 10:39:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:02:24 GMT, "seacrest" <seacrest9x@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:tr09a1dojp1om0sbhod7dgj3eprmpeto5l@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:59:16 GMT, "seacrest"
>>> <seacrest9x@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm an artist and
>>>> have considered it myself but I think if someone wants to copy
>>>> bad
>>>> enough they'll do it. I had someone come on my site and
>>>> blatently
>>>> admit she made cards from my artwork. Shame, really, when that
>>>> happens.
>>>
>>> It leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, but does the possible theft
>>> by
>>> one outweigh the viewing distraction of the many? Dirty Harry, who
>>> himself stole his name from a film character seems to think so.
>>>
>>> You can probably tell, I completely disagree with graffiti-ing
>>> your
>>> own work using some feeble excuse that children might copy them.
>>>
>>> In your case, although the girl who stole your artwork is a thief,
>>> did her action damage you in any real way? Yes she profited from
>>> the
>>> crime, but were you ever going to sell your images to those same
>>> customers?
>>>
>>> Copyright theft is wrong, no two ways about it. It's also a fact
>>> of
>>> life and when it happens to you it might make you feel better to
>>> think along the lines I'm suggesting.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Owamanga!
>>> http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
>>
>> I do understand your point. No, there wasn't any real damage (in
>> my case). Actually, I was told by my art friends I should feel
>> flattered but I was more taken aback by her admission. I got over
>> it. :)  No sigs on my artwork....however, I did consider it for a
>> day or so.
>>
>> Btw, I'm curious--how would you feel about this:
>>
>> I had a look at your photographs on pbase. I paint and sketch Blue
>> Herons quite frequently so they caught my eye immediately. Your
>> pictures are such high quality but moreover, the compositions are
>> excellent.
>
> Thank you.
>
>> Say an artist
>> decides to use one of your Herons for a painting, how would you
>> feel? One day you walk into a gallery and find your photograph
>> has
>> been turned into a painting that's selling for X number of big
>> dollars. Would you sue?
>
> Absolutely not. He's not my heron.
>
> :-)
>
> Just as I feel I should be able to take a photo of a statue and sell
> that without any concerns of infringing the sculptor's rights.
>
> I would however start selling my heron photos because their worth
> has
> just been massively inflated by the fact this great artwork sells
> for
> big bucks...
>
> So, if you feel like using an image of mine as a basis for a
> painting,
> go ahead. I'd love to see a photo of the end result - maybe you
> could
> email it to me when you are done.
>
>> I'm asking this because I know artists that are copying pictures
>> off
>> the internet from various sources and literally painting from those
>> pictures.....and selling them.
>
> I am doing exactly that right now, and don't see a problem. I'm
> currently working on a 5 canvas 'jungle' scene in acrylics (actually
> starts as a beach on one side, transitions to jungle and ends as
> planes with elephants etc. As a reference I'm using lots of images
> of
> wild animals I've downloaded from the web, usenet or pbase
> (including
> stuff I've shot myself). No one photo will significantly be
> identifiable in the resulting painting (I can't paint that well...)
>
> Anyway, as they are destined to hang in my toddler's room, they will
> never hit the marketplace.
>
>> And in this crowded market, they'll
>> probably never get caught.
>
> As I've said, I don't see a problem. You can't really claim
> copyright
> on composition (some pro's do if being ghosted by another
> photographer
> at a wedding for example) but a shot of wildlife doing what wildlife
> does is a bit of a stretch.
>
> I'd be extremely interested to hear of any case where a painter has
> been successfully prosecuted for copyright violation. Trademark
> infringement would be easy, as would conspiracy/fraud if the work
> was
> an exact duplicate and attempting to be sold as an original, but
> copyright violation I just can't see happening. Maybe I'm wrong...
>
>> Oh just some thoughts...not important. And sorry, not too
>> applicable to digital camera's, either.
>
> We are allowed to drift within reason, this is still reasonably
> on-topic.

I hope one of the drifters is expert in Intellectual Property law, and
will clarify the status of copied/painted images as "derivative works"
over which a copyright holder may have some claim.

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 10:53:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dirty Harry napisa³(a):
> yay, I got a 20d.
yay learn about exposure!
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 11:18:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:02:15 -0700, "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com>
wrote:

>I hope one of the drifters is expert in Intellectual Property law, and
>will clarify the status of copied/painted images as "derivative works"
>over which a copyright holder may have some claim.

The weird thing is, they'd have to be interested in Flamingos to see
this thread....

....weird is good though.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 1:58:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> a écrit dans le message de news:
%V_oe.1587390$8l.1116891@pd7tw1no...
> yay, I got a 20d.
> http://68.148.30.133/flam.jpg
> http://68.148.30.133/flam2.jpg
>


Pictures are good looking (I do _not_ talk 'bout what you know...)

Animals (and other subjects...) love my... Guess the camera ?
http://laurentroye.blogspot.com/2005/05/pictures-animal...

Laurent ;-)
--
| http://laurent-roy.blogspot.com/ |
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 4:12:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote in message
news:_w3pe.904868$w62.217738@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Wow! Do you own the 600 f/4 L?
> John
>
> "Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote in message
> news:%V_oe.1587390$8l.1116891@pd7tw1no...
> > yay, I got a 20d.
> > http://68.148.30.133/flam.jpg
> > http://68.148.30.133/flam2.jpg


tamron 70-300 (used lens for 150 bucks) at f7.1, iso 800. Range about 3
feet (ok ok I admit they were behind glass in the mall lol).
:-)
--
www.harryphotos.com
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 5:37:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118092619.517568.250280@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>> "Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote in message
>> news:%V_oe.1587390$8l.1116891@pd7tw1no...
>> > yay, I got a 20d.
>> > http://68.148.30.133/flam.jpg
>> > http://68.148.30.133/flam2.jpg
>>
>> Congrats.
>>
>> The images could use a tad sharpening for display.
>
> Being new to the world of serious digital SLR photography, what is
> wrong with them in terms of sharpness? They look very good to me -
> good contrast, great color, shallow DOF, but I feel like that was
> what
> he was going for. What am I missing here?

The term I use to describe it, is texture. For an image of an 'object'
to look realistic, it should (assuming composition, exposure,
tonemapping, color, etc., are as intended) give hints about what
material something is made of (one step beyond surface structure).
Cardboard and leather should look different, even if the color happens
to be about the same. Feathers are perhaps even harder, because we
know what to expect.

I could show the images with some additional quality sharpening added,
however I would only do that with the author's permission. Of course
the JPEG images would also get some of the JPEG (despite the high
compression quality) artifacts 'enhanced' (not to speak about the
watermark ;-) ), but I've tried it and the images have sufficient
hidden detail/texture (possibly due to down-sampling the original), as
can be expected from 20D images taken with good technique.

Bart
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 5:37:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
news:42a4dfd9$0$44696$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1118092619.517568.250280@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Bart van der Wolf wrote:
> >> "Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:%V_oe.1587390$8l.1116891@pd7tw1no...
> >> > yay, I got a 20d.
> >> > http://68.148.30.133/flam.jpg
> >> > http://68.148.30.133/flam2.jpg
> >>
> >> Congrats.
> >>
> >> The images could use a tad sharpening for display.
> >
> > Being new to the world of serious digital SLR photography, what is
> > wrong with them in terms of sharpness? They look very good to me -
> > good contrast, great color, shallow DOF, but I feel like that was
> > what
> > he was going for. What am I missing here?
>
> The term I use to describe it, is texture. For an image of an 'object'
> to look realistic, it should (assuming composition, exposure,
> tonemapping, color, etc., are as intended) give hints about what
> material something is made of (one step beyond surface structure).
> Cardboard and leather should look different, even if the color happens
> to be about the same. Feathers are perhaps even harder, because we
> know what to expect.
>
> I could show the images with some additional quality sharpening added,
> however I would only do that with the author's permission. Of course
> the JPEG images would also get some of the JPEG (despite the high
> compression quality) artifacts 'enhanced' (not to speak about the
> watermark ;-) ), but I've tried it and the images have sufficient
> hidden detail/texture (possibly due to down-sampling the original), as
> can be expected from 20D images taken with good technique.
>
> Bart

What sharpening technique do you suggest? They have had unsharp mask
applied for MILD sharpening (.3 radius, %150-200% can't remember, threshold
1), the raw converter was set to standard. The lens wasn't the greatest
that's for sure and yea there could also be some loss from downsampling and
jpeg compression.
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 5:42:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote in message
news:qD5pe.1588395$8l.1522609@pd7tw1no...
>
> "JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote in message
> news:_w3pe.904868$w62.217738@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Wow! Do you own the 600 f/4 L?
>> John
>>
>> "Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote in message
>> news:%V_oe.1587390$8l.1116891@pd7tw1no...
>> > yay, I got a 20d.
>> > http://68.148.30.133/flam.jpg
>> > http://68.148.30.133/flam2.jpg
>
>
> tamron 70-300 (used lens for 150 bucks) at f7.1, iso 800. Range about 3
> feet (ok ok I admit they were behind glass in the mall lol).
> :-)
> --
> www.harryphotos.com
>
>
That's quite a bit lighter lens LOL! I'm going 600mm by putting a Canon 2x
on the 300mm f/4 for birding. Song birds just won't let you get that close!
John
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 8:56:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote in message
news:gI5pe.1587057$Xk.75378@pd7tw3no...
SNIP
> What sharpening technique do you suggest?

There are several possibilities, a bit depending on your level of
expertise and willingness to invest.

> They have had unsharp mask applied for MILD sharpening (.3 radius,
> %150-200% can't remember, threshold 1), the raw converter was set
> to standard. The lens wasn't the greatest that's for sure and yea
> there
> could also be some loss from downsampling and jpeg compression.

Given the down-sampling, that's a good enough basis (for the purpose
of Web-publishing). If the down-sampling is done properly (a research
subject by itself, see
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/down_sample/dow...;
for a theoretical, and
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/down_sample/exa...; for
a practical film-to-web overview), your image will provide a very
decent basis.

Building on that, there are several possibilities (assuming properly,
for output, resampled images).

Photoshop CS2 provides an improved "Smart Sharpening" filter option,
very good for many situations. It'll allow to compensate for lens, or
overall, restoration of 'sharpness'.

Personally I use different methods, depending on what delivers the
best results for the intended purpose. It may vary between Photoshop
CS2 with some tweaks for capture sharpening, Image Analyzer
(http://meesoft.logicnet.dk/Analyzer/ for quick 'n 'dirty'
Filters|Restoration by Deconvolution|Gauss Blur with <1.0 radii
(iterative) with 8-bit/channel sources), or ImagesPlus
(http://www.mlunsold.com/) for Richardson-Lucy restoration (if
available, with custom PSF).

If you provide a functional E-mail address (e.g. in response to my
above webpages), I could send you a sharpened version of your
"flam2.jpg" (up to you, if you want to publish it on Web).

Bart
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 1:31:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:

> eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> > kombi45@yahoo.com just can't stop himself from trolling yet again:
> >
> > > I'm glad you could enlighten me without being a condescending prick.
> > > That's a very important quality to possess when attempting to inform.
> >
> > So are you or are you not "new" to this "world" of "serious digital
> > photography"?
>
> I can eventually learn what I need to know, thereby changing my status
> of newbie.

I'll take that as a "yes" then.

> I suspect you'll be a contentious jerk for perpetuity.
> Just a guess, but I bet I'm spot on.

Do you have a special, stern, look on your face while engaged in this
"serious photography"? A snobbish up-tilt to your head? "Well, I
don't do snapshots, SIR, I'll have you know that I only create fine art
images in the respectable manner of a professional!"

Or, as I suggested before, is yours just a bunch of bullshit from a
troll?
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 1:55:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:

> > I can eventually learn what I need to know, thereby changing my status
> > of newbie.
>
> I'll take that as a "yes" then.

I'll wager, sir, you "take it" in many different places.

> > I suspect you'll be a contentious jerk for perpetuity.
> > Just a guess, but I bet I'm spot on.
>
> Do you have a special, stern, look on your face while engaged in this
> "serious photography"? A snobbish up-tilt to your head? "Well, I
> don't do snapshots, SIR, I'll have you know that I only create fine art
> images in the respectable manner of a professional!"

Contentious jerk is far too demure a description of you. Several
scatological and anatomical nether-region references come to mind -
I'll let you fill in the blanks.

> Or, as I suggested before, is yours just a bunch of bullshit from a
> troll?

Polly want a cracker? I've been around birds with a broader vocabulary
than yourself.

Otherwise best regards,

Ben
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 2:56:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com pulls out the crayon's of doom:

> I've been around birds with a broader vocabulary than yourself.

The taxonomy of trolls does indeed include a species that has the
tendencies of a cockroach: they _never_ come out into the open by
choice. Poor kombi45, scurrying for cover while he can't even bring
himself to use a "bad word" (probably from his perspective it would
make his troll-hood even more obvious).

> Otherwise best regards,

You mis-spelled "plonk", you nitwit. Oh the pain, the pain!!
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 3:26:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:

> kombi45@yahoo.com pulls out the crayon's of doom:

Wow - your calling card, the clever manipulation of quotes, is equalled
only by the most adroit junior high special ed pupil.

> > I've been around birds with a broader vocabulary than yourself.
>
> The taxonomy of trolls does indeed include a species that has the
> tendencies of a cockroach: they _never_ come out into the open by
> choice. Poor kombi45, scurrying for cover while he can't even bring
> himself to use a "bad word" (probably from his perspective it would
> make his troll-hood even more obvious).

Squawk, troll, screech, sqawk, TROLL. "Scurryng for cover"? That's
funny - I'll have to remember that one next time you need another
verbal beat-down!

> > Otherwise best regards,
>
> You mis-spelled "plonk", you nitwit. Oh the pain, the pain!!

Plonking is for the weak-minded, eg - you. Anyway, let me tell you how
this thread is going to end: I will take my leave of this inanity,
thereby exposing the actual troll in the thread.

Again regards,

Ben
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 4:07:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 21:29:19 GMT, PWW <pww@-REMOVE-PhotoStockFile.com>
wrote:

>So Yes, I believe in Watermarking, and low resolution smaller images on the
>internet. And I believe in suing artists who try and make money off my sweat
>stained hard work, images.

Interesting story, thanks for that. As far as watermarking, how would
this have prevented your artist 'thief' from copying the image?

I agree that putting a full resolution image on a website is rather
pointless in most cases, but a 800x600 image - is that still too big
for you to consider it 'safe' ?

After all, once you've licensed someone to print a piece of your stock
art in a magazine or book for example, it sits as 'physically'
unprotected as it would had it been on a website all along. If you
don't believe me, take a look at some of the scans people do in
alt.binaries.amp - mostly from magazines they manage to create fairly
high resolution images. (which, BTW, from a photography perspective I
find extremely interesting as a source of studio lighting examples.)

As a matter of interest, as a stock photographer, you would, I
presume, have been able to sell the artist a license to do what he did
- had he asked up front. How much would you have charged him?

Would you do it royalty-style (such as a song-writer who gets a
percentage of all sales of a hit single) ?

I'm also a little confused as to why you can't identify the artist. If
this behavior annoys you, with the knowledge that *all* of his art
work is probably ripped-off from someone's photography, wouldn't you
be doing a service to photographers in general to nudge them in his
direction to see if they recognize any of their photos?

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 5:54:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> On 6/7/05 8:07 AM, in article h63ba11bmge3nior1ln259e9afsb3j5616@4ax.com,
> "Owamanga" <owamanganot-this-bit@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Interesting story, thanks for that. As far as watermarking, how would
> this have prevented your artist 'thief' from copying the image?

It will not, but at least it lets the artist know I am concerned about
people copying my images. Plus it will make it a lot easier to prove
"willful" infringement. And I also DO NOT want my images floating around the
internet and the watermark helps prevent that. And if it does I want my
information on it.

> I agree that putting a full resolution image on a website is rather
> pointless in most cases, but a 800x600 image - is that still too big
> for you to consider it 'safe' ?

Well yes most times it is for me, YMMV. With today's applications someone
can do a pretty decent job of up-rezzing an image that size.

> After all, once you've licensed someone to print a piece of your stock
> art in a magazine or book for example, it sits as 'physically'
> unprotected as it would had it been on a website all along. If you
> don't believe me, take a look at some of the scans people do in
> alt.binaries.amp - mostly from magazines they manage to create fairly
> high resolution images. (which, BTW, from a photography perspective I
> find extremely interesting as a source of studio lighting examples.)

Yes again but once it is a magazine or publication most real artists (ones
who make a living off being a painter, like my infringer) realize that they
take a big chance copying those images, if the photographer doesn't see them
someone else who had the magazine might notice the infringement and either
tell the photographer or the publication. Then they will really be in
trouble. Again once it is in a publication it makes it easier for the
photographer to point out the infringers had access to the image. That is
why, I believe, my infringer went to Outdoor Fine Art Shows to see if he
could pick up photos unseen by many people that he could use without much
risk.

At Fine art shows other artists also report artists who copy images out of
publications.

> As a matter of interest, as a stock photographer, you would, I
> presume, have been able to sell the artist a license to do what he did
> - had he asked up front. How much would you have charged him?

Sure and I would have been happy to. And it would have cost him a whole heck
of a lot less than it ended up costing him. But I think of what I know now
is that he did not ever want to share his credit of capturing the uniqueness
of "his" images in his paintings. So I doubt he would have ever done
something like that. Plus I would have charged him more than what he did
actually pay for the prints alone.

> Would you do it royalty-style (such as a song-writer who gets a
> percentage of all sales of a hit single) ?

That is what he wanted to at the settlement. Some up front cash and then
royalties. But he had lied about a lot of stuff already, why should I trust
his accounting later. Plus I did not want to have any dealing with him after
the settlement. So we wanted an all cash deal, plus 100 prints signed by him
as artist proofs. Which I never did anything with, because I did not want to
promote him in any way.

> I'm also a little confused as to why you can't identify the artist. If
> this behavior annoys you, with the knowledge that *all* of his art
> work is probably ripped-off from someone's photography, wouldn't you
> be doing a service to photographers in general to nudge them in his
> direction to see if they recognize any of their photos?

I don't think I said "all" but I do believe he DID use a lot of other
photographers images. I just can't say who the infringer was, and I have to
leave it at that. I don't think he does it anymore. After what we put him
through he would not be very smart to do another infringement because if the
new photographer could show he had a prior infringement case he would really
be at a huge liability risk, because it would show he knew better and did it
anyway, the courts don't like that attitude. Plus all his arguments about
his paintings not being infringements against my photographs was put down so
quickly in my case.

You have to remember, besides the costs of our settlement he also had to pay
all his attorney's fees and associated costs. Just one example; we set in
depositions with our attorney with him and his attorney for something like 6
hours or more on one day alone. If you multiply his highly rated attorney
(which he was) hourly fees for just that deposition alone, it really starts
to add up. We paid our attorney 1/3 of the settlement, I think.

The important distinction is between real Artists and part time or personal
artists. The part timers are not a real threat to me or photographers and it
would be hard to start a case against them. Its still not right but... But
that changes if a real artist intends to make hundreds, thousands or tens of
thousands of dollars from a photographers work. There are copyright
infringement attorneys who will take on such artists at the drop of a ha, if
you have a registered photograph and can show the artist infringed your
work. Most real artists know that a lot more now days and do not infringe
photographs from others.

Paul Wilson
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 5:17:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc59a1prf876grsd56sp7gdnbbhnf8osec@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:02:24 GMT, "seacrest" <seacrest9x@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:tr09a1dojp1om0sbhod7dgj3eprmpeto5l@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:59:16 GMT, "seacrest" <seacrest9x@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm an artist and
> >> >have considered it myself but I think if someone wants to copy bad
enough
> >> >they'll do it. I had someone come on my site and blatently admit she
> >made
> >> >cards from my artwork. Shame, really, when that happens.
> >>
> >> It leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, but does the possible theft by
> >> one outweigh the viewing distraction of the many? Dirty Harry, who
> >> himself stole his name from a film character seems to think so.
> >>
> >> You can probably tell, I completely disagree with graffiti-ing your
> >> own work using some feeble excuse that children might copy them.
> >>
> >> In your case, although the girl who stole your artwork is a thief, did
> >> her action damage you in any real way? Yes she profited from the
> >> crime, but were you ever going to sell your images to those same
> >> customers?
> >>
> >> Copyright theft is wrong, no two ways about it. It's also a fact of
> >> life and when it happens to you it might make you feel better to think
> >> along the lines I'm suggesting.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Owamanga!
> >> http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
> >
> >I do understand your point. No, there wasn't any real damage (in my
case).
> >Actually, I was told by my art friends I should feel flattered but I was
> >more taken aback by her admission. I got over it. :)  No sigs on my
> >artwork....however, I did consider it for a day or so.
> >
> >Btw, I'm curious--how would you feel about this:
> >
> >I had a look at your photographs on pbase. I paint and sketch Blue
Herons
> >quite frequently so they caught my eye immediately. Your pictures are
such
> >high quality but moreover, the compositions are excellent.
>
> Thank you.
>
> >Say an artist
> >decides to use one of your Herons for a painting, how would you feel?
One
> >day you walk into a gallery and find your photograph has been turned into
a
> >painting that's selling for X number of big dollars. Would you sue?
>
> Absolutely not. He's not my heron.
>
> :-)
>
> Just as I feel I should be able to take a photo of a statue and sell
> that without any concerns of infringing the sculptor's rights.
>
> I would however start selling my heron photos because their worth has
> just been massively inflated by the fact this great artwork sells for
> big bucks...
>
> So, if you feel like using an image of mine as a basis for a painting,
> go ahead. I'd love to see a photo of the end result - maybe you could
> email it to me when you are done.
>
> >I'm asking this because I know artists that are copying pictures off the
> >internet from various sources and literally painting from those
> >pictures.....and selling them.
>
> I am doing exactly that right now, and don't see a problem. I'm
> currently working on a 5 canvas 'jungle' scene in acrylics (actually
> starts as a beach on one side, transitions to jungle and ends as
> planes with elephants etc. As a reference I'm using lots of images of
> wild animals I've downloaded from the web, usenet or pbase (including
> stuff I've shot myself). No one photo will significantly be
> identifiable in the resulting painting (I can't paint that well...)
>
> Anyway, as they are destined to hang in my toddler's room, they will
> never hit the marketplace.
>
> > And in this crowded market, they'll
> >probably never get caught.
>
> As I've said, I don't see a problem. You can't really claim copyright
> on composition (some pro's do if being ghosted by another photographer
> at a wedding for example) but a shot of wildlife doing what wildlife
> does is a bit of a stretch.
>
> I'd be extremely interested to hear of any case where a painter has
> been successfully prosecuted for copyright violation. Trademark
> infringement would be easy, as would conspiracy/fraud if the work was
> an exact duplicate and attempting to be sold as an original, but
> copyright violation I just can't see happening. Maybe I'm wrong...
>
> >Oh just some thoughts...not important. And sorry, not too applicable to
> >digital camera's, either.
>
> We are allowed to drift within reason, this is still reasonably
> on-topic.
>
> --
> Owamanga!
> http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

Okay, I give, not 'your' heron, but even so, -your photograph. :) 
If I were to use any of your herons I definitely would ask permission first.
And I may!

Well, thanks for your thoughts. Seriously, this is an issue artists don't
often discuss and -rarely, if ever, with the photographers they're nabbing
pictures from.
Best of luck with your jungle project! Hope you post pictures of it, even
in stages--that would be interesting. :) 
!