carolstorey wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone has ever photographed the El Santuario de Chimayo pilgrimage in New Mexico. I plan on being there and am looking for places to shoot the pilgrimage. Any suggestions are appreciated.
Excellent question. I have always wanted to photograph the Pilgrimage myself. I think that the area is vast enough that you can shoot from numerous locations. While there, you will want to go to Abiquiu too. Looking forward to viewing your images. I’m envious. Good luck and have a great time.
burkphoto wrote:
Nice work! Great all around. Bresson took that same tactic of planting himself, observing, and waiting for the moment to happen.
I have tried just waiting for something to happen as I perched myself in one spot. However, I found that when I go to where the action is, it’s much more productive for me. I have attached some of my “wandering” images. The Foggy Morning Run was shot with a digital rig. All others shot on B/W film.
SX2002 wrote:
I know it has no legal clout but if ever there is a dispute about who took the photo, my name is down as the artist and the copyright holder in the Exif data.
I know this can be removed if anyone has the data but I can still always prove that the original was taken by me.
I once found one of my pics on Wikipedia and was listed as England's wildlife pic of the month. It was obviously "stolen" by someone on this site several years ago.
As soon as I sent them the original, it was removed in a matter of seconds.
I know it has no legal clout but if ever there is ... (
show quote)
I found one of my images (attached) being used to sell products on E Bay. I notified the user that he was unauthorized to steal and use my image. He didn’t care. Once I notified E Bay of the theft, it was taken down fairly quickly.
AzPicLady wrote:
To be legal, it must include the year.
I have heard conflicting information on that. I’ll look into it.
The Date. (From a copyright website)
The copyright date is perhaps greatest trap for the unwary. One of the purposes of the copyright date, under U.S. copyright law, is to assist members of the public in identifying which works are now in the public domain. To do this, a member of the public would take the copyright date appearing in the notice, add to it the number of years of the copyright term, and thereby arrive at a conclusion as to when the copyright would have expired. But what if the material contained in the work was developed in different years? Do you use the oldest date and deprive yourself of those extra few years of copyright protection? Do you use the present date and risk misleading the public that the entire work is protected by copyright starting from that year and ending at the end of copyright term? Such incorrect statements of fact in a copyright notice could lead a court to conclude that no copyright exists in the work as a result.
So what do you do when a work is created or revised over many years? If only one year is to appear in a notice, it should be the oldest year, associated with the oldest of the matter in the work. In other words, if one must err it should be in the direction of omitting newer years, not older years. Another approach is to put a range of years. For example, if the oldest matter in the work dates from 1998 and if the newest matter dates from 2000, the notice might say Copyright 1999 to 2000 followed by the name of the copyright owner.
SX2002 wrote:
Nikon don't have a date, just the artist and copyright owners name...
Setting a date in Nikon’s is done under the copyright function.
Architect1776 wrote:
If there were a local lab.
Many do not have that luxury.
Curious, why wander streets?
Is there that much variety or perhaps a large city.
Sounds like fun if a large city with plenty of unique features and architecture.
You are very lucky.
A few of my street snaps.
View my photos at:
https://www.spiritvisionphotography.com/Street-LifeSPV
I still love the process of threading a roll of Delta 400 into the F3 and wandering the streets. I usually have a deep yellow or orange filter on the lens. I then drop it off at the lab for souping and high res scanning.
therwol wrote:
Yes. Canon 5Diii. He has posted many images taken with it. Look at the equipment he lists under his posts. It includes a film camera. He manages the UHH film section. When he makes remarks about needing the latest and greatest to be a good photographer, he is being sarcastic. He doesn't believe that.
Good to hear. I’m up to my neck in film gear. 🙄