Posts for: rmalarz
Mar 20, 2018 16:54:30 #
From the story, it would appear that neither of them were responsible gun owners. They were, however, responsible for their injuries.
--Bob
--Bob
dirtpusher wrote:
http://addictinginfo.com/2018/03/19/responsible-gun-owner-shoots-both-himself-and-friend-with-one-bullet-utah-gun-show/
Mar 20, 2018 16:50:26 #
Bruce, if you scientifically test your camera and determine where its upper limits are you can then use that knowledge to determine your exposure. 98% of my photographs are done in manual mode. I know my camera and its limits. I place the bright values appropriately and never chimp. I know what adjustments I'll make in PS prior to even pressing the shutter release. I'd suggest working with your camera so you know its limits and how minor adjustments affect the captured image file. Once you are conversant with your camera's capabilities, you'll see an improvement in your photographs.
The situation is that it takes a bit of effort and work. Don't take shortcuts.
--Bob
The situation is that it takes a bit of effort and work. Don't take shortcuts.
--Bob
Brucej67 wrote:
It would be nice if you could see something like the graph in camera before you take the photo instead of taking the photo and chimping.
Mar 20, 2018 15:07:37 #
SharpShooter is correct. Every time one of these companies does this sort of thing, it weakens photographer's rights to their photographs. If the situation is not handled as it happens, more and more of these companies will be using more and more of our work free. It will get to the point that the problem is too big to try to solve. It's best when it's still manageable.
If the case is strong enough, contingency is a good way to go. The more money the lawyer gets you, the more he gets himself.
--Bob
If the case is strong enough, contingency is a good way to go. The more money the lawyer gets you, the more he gets himself.
--Bob
SharpShooter wrote:
All of the above are true.
BUT enforcing your rights could be VERY expensive.
If you don't enforce your right you might lose your rights.
Unless you're President, enforcing your rights might be difficult and as were seeing possibly impossible, even by throwing millions of dollars at a problem. Good luck!
SS
BUT enforcing your rights could be VERY expensive.
If you don't enforce your right you might lose your rights.
Unless you're President, enforcing your rights might be difficult and as were seeing possibly impossible, even by throwing millions of dollars at a problem. Good luck!
SS
Mar 20, 2018 14:58:15 #
ROTFLMAO!!! I needed these today. Thanks.
Cheers and beers,
Bob
Cheers and beers,
Bob
Graham Thirkill wrote:
Little known and useless facts br br If you yelle... (show quote)
Mar 20, 2018 14:54:26 #
Will, yes, I do consider it an issue. It may actually involve two issues. The first is that you took the image and therefore own it. Anyone using that image, obviously to make money needs to pay your a licensing fee. That is unless you wish to sell the image outright, which I don't recommend. Licensing will net you more money, over time.
Secondly, the may be an issue part. If the house is that unique, the owners may have a manner in which they have registered it and thus you may owe them money if you make any money from your photograph. Generally, if you can see something from a public right of way, you are free to photograph it. Note the use of generally. There are buildings that are registered or trade marked. Those may carry certain restrictions.
Your best bet is to contact the folks who are using your photograph and request a cease and desist action. If they don't, then contact an attorney and explain the situation. Make sure it's one that specializes in copyright law. They will generally consult with you for 30 minutes free of charge and determine if further action can be taken. If so, a contingency basis is a good way to go. However, make sure that it is a flat contingency basis and doesn't include any additional service charges above the percentage they want.
Just make sure it is beyond a doubt your photograph.
--Bob
Secondly, the may be an issue part. If the house is that unique, the owners may have a manner in which they have registered it and thus you may owe them money if you make any money from your photograph. Generally, if you can see something from a public right of way, you are free to photograph it. Note the use of generally. There are buildings that are registered or trade marked. Those may carry certain restrictions.
Your best bet is to contact the folks who are using your photograph and request a cease and desist action. If they don't, then contact an attorney and explain the situation. Make sure it's one that specializes in copyright law. They will generally consult with you for 30 minutes free of charge and determine if further action can be taken. If so, a contingency basis is a good way to go. However, make sure that it is a flat contingency basis and doesn't include any additional service charges above the percentage they want.
Just make sure it is beyond a doubt your photograph.
--Bob
will47 wrote:
A while back while out driving around I noticed an unusual house with an unusual color scheme, took a photo, a posted it on Flickr. Today when viewing flickr I was notified that my photo was being used by a company called Schemecolor (schemecolor.com). No one asked me to use this photo. I don't consider this to be a big deal, but....I was just wondering if something like this would be a copyrite issue? Thanks.
Mar 20, 2018 14:42:10 #
Because it's the vernal equinox. There are those of us who know the secret.
--Bob
--Bob
WendiW wrote:
Why he need no shoes?
Mar 20, 2018 09:22:15 #
In a perfect world, yes. However, my attorney fixes things like that and makes it a perfect world, when it needs adjustment. So far, adjustments have a 100% success rate.
--Bob
--Bob
Chas 69 wrote:
So in a perfect world you would be getting payed for the use of your photo to market a product..
Mar 20, 2018 09:09:06 #
Thanks for the thumbs, Dave. They are appreciated.
--Bob
--Bob
DaveC1 wrote:
Mar 20, 2018 07:39:50 #
You took good advantage of that nice day. Thanks for posting these.
--Bob
--Bob
chevman wrote:
A nice day or two last week.
Mar 20, 2018 07:34:35 #
The absolutely best way to protect your photos from being used anywhere on the web is don't post any of them on the web. It's really that simple.
--Bob
--Bob
Chas 69 wrote:
Hello,
What is the best way to protect photos on this site to keep them from being used all over the web?
What is the best way to protect photos on this site to keep them from being used all over the web?
Mar 20, 2018 07:33:18 #
Auto mode removed you to a position slightly above being a tripod. The only difference is the tripod can't trip the shutter.
--Bob
--Bob
chippy wrote:
We pay mega bucks for the latest camera with more ... (show quote)
Mar 20, 2018 07:31:46 #
Epson. That's the only suggestion I'd make. Along with Silverfast scanning software. Pick the scanner that is suitable for your requirements and that's all you need. I've been using an Expson Perfection 3200 for the last 17 years. I'll be using it later this evening to scan some film I shot this last weekend.
--Bob
--Bob
Keldon wrote:
I have several thousand slides that I'd like to digitize. Who has what scanner? - how fast/slow is it? How convenient to operate?
Would it be better just to send them out somewhere to have it done instead? I do have time on my hands.
Thanks for any suggestions offered.
Would it be better just to send them out somewhere to have it done instead? I do have time on my hands.
Thanks for any suggestions offered.
Mar 19, 2018 23:56:54 #
Very cool, Jeff. Those are some great photos of some very cool farm equipment.
--Bob
--Bob
pixbyjnjphotos wrote:
Went to the antique tractor and farm equipment show in Apache Junction, AZ about 10 days ago. It is a relatively small show but always interesting. There were a significant number of old tractors, cars, trucks, and farm implements there. Here are a few to feast your eyes on. Spent some time putting new backgrounds behind the tractors. The implement images were just cropped and jazzed up a bit using Paintshop Pro with the NIK HDR plugin.
Mar 19, 2018 23:45:42 #
To each his own. I prefer the .xmp files. If I want to try some different processing on a photo, I simply copy it to another directory and it's the same file that came from the camera. I find the sidecar files quite useful.
--Bob
--Bob
russelray wrote:
Sidecar files irritated me, and that was the #1 reason I went all in with DNG. If you save your edits to the DNG file via ACR, then DNG will have those edits. Same with all the programs I use. If I choose to save the edits to the DNG from any program, the edits are there next time I open the DNG.
Mar 19, 2018 23:43:13 #
James, rgmichel, and d2b2, thank you very much for the visit and comments. It's waste water reclamation. They have several stages that it goes through and this is only one, but the most visually impressive of the bunch. From here it's pumped through pipes to the nearby parks for irrigation. It's actually quite clean by the time it leaves here.
--Bob
--Bob