Jump to content

Robert

Verified
  • Content Count

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Robert

  1. What's wrong with your 5D III? I'm still using the original 6D and it's still as excellent as when I bought it. Might consider upgrading if a mirrorless version comes along offering some genuine advantages, but otherwise plan to continue using the 6D until it dies a natural death. I find investing in lenses is usually a better use of money, although a Canon mirrorless might bring a new system with it, so it might be worth holding out even on those.
  2. I had a vague recollection of a recent case where a museum lost its claim to copyright over its photos of out-of-copyright paintings it owned on that basis. I can't find it now, but there is lots online supporting this argument on the basis of the UK legislation.
  3. There was a case recently which decided that a slavish copy does not have its own copyright as a photo, but it can still infringe the copyright of the original work. Agreed, Alamy goes further than the law suggests, but that's because there are so many untested grey areas that they don't want to pay the lawyers' fees to test them in court when threatened by artists' lawyers (DACS being particularly aggressive).
  4. Some confusion over copyright here. A 2D depiction (i.e. head on photo) of a 2D work of fine art (e.g. painting) is potentially a copyright breach, depending what use is made of the photo. Use in an article of artistic criticism, for example, is fine. But putting the photo on a website or selling it may not be ok. Taking it at an angle with a view of the surroundings is more of a grey area, but still potentially in breach, as the legislation is unclear. If a small element in a scene rather than the main interest, it's unlikely to be in breach. The test is the purpose of the photo - does it use the artwork to make money, which the artist could conceivably be entitled to? Sculptures, buildings and works of "artistic craftsmanship" in publicly accessible places are exempt from this - not from copyright altogether (e.g. you could not sell a copy of the sculpture), but from copyright infringement through photography. As someone noted above, copyright lasts 70 years from the death of the artist, so beyond that it's fine. Within that, you would need a property release. Proviso - I'm not a lawyer, I just read the law - and this is UK law - French law for example, gives copyright entitlement in photos of buildings to their architects.
  5. It can depend which country, but generally, no. Tick the relevant box on the image manager and don't tick the RF box.
  6. They look fine to me. Some are quite niche subjects so buyers will be rare. Others more mainstream, but then are they the best images out there on those subjects? Search for yourself to see the competition and work out how to be better than them.
  7. I found this out a while ago, as I also make a DACS claim. I don't remember ever being given a choice about it. Apparently you can still claim for non-Alamy images, as I do. However, it's not clear from the contract whether Alamy thinks it owns any rights to DACS payments for images that may be on sale with them, but not sold through them; the contract seems to suggest it does. If offered the choice, I would opt out.
  8. I've been stopped by police quite a few times. I generally think that since they have to record the stop, I must be helping them to balance out their figures so they don't look as if they're profiling by race. (This occurred to me after I was stopped in an area of tower blocks almost entirely populated by black and other ethnic minorities, notably very many Muslims). I do wonder what attitude they would take to me if I happened to have dark skin, however.
  9. I use the copyspace tags, but have not had one single view that used that as a search term, so I don't think there's much point.
  10. I do - as Wim says, IPS display (Dell XPS) and calibration. But problems arise with differing environments - e.g. if I'm in a sunny position I give up trying as it throws your perception of the display off completely. Other things to be careful of - power saving settings when on battery (check advanced options to switch off any power saving on the display, as it affects brightness and contrast); display settings (it took me ages to discover that a default setting for 'vivid', I think on the Intel graphics control, which was artificially boosting some colours).
  11. I back up files and Lightroom catalogue to an external HD with another identical HD, which I keep in a different location, and sync them regularly with Microsoft SyncToy. Hard drives can often die randomly, so the back up needs its own back up, and this also solves the problem of fire or theft.
  12. I agree, it looks natural. However the crop shows some compression/colour space artefacts in the form of purple blotches.
  13. I've had this on exporting to JPEG (and if subtle enough Alamy do seem to allow it through). But not in RAW. It suggests that your camera is compressing the RAW file, something that is known in other Sonys. However it could be a software/colour space issue. What software are you using? Check what the working colour space is; ProPhoto is usually recommended for editing and is used in Lightroom (although Adobe RGB would show the effects on the output file better). Then take steps to reduce banding by keeping the sky colour within the available gamut - back off saturation, tweak white balance, tweak the HSL sliders until it looks more natural. You can also add colour to smooth out the bands, or a small amount of local fine grain to 'dither' the colour across them.
  14. It is calibrated with one of those dongle things that hangs down over the screen, yes. There's a new idea for keywording it anyhow. Too far off topic now though aren't we?
  15. Which is not at all a bad thing for the purpose for which you made the image, of course. It is, however, upside-down.
  16. It really is glowing on my monitor.
  17. But that is (a) beautiful, unlike the over-saturated potato/apple above; and (b) a response to an artistic tradition, unlike 99% of Alamy images; and (c) produced with concern for the deeper potential meanings of the image, rather than its mere functionality (as illustration, advertisement, etc.). All of which tend to be (though not always or exclusively) features of "art".
  18. If I were you I would donate them to an archive. Firstly, these are probably still within copyright, which will depend on the law and any agreements in place when they were taken. Do you know who the photographers were? And when they died? Copyright usually lasts 70 years from the death of the artist. Alternatively there may have been an agreement (or customary assumption) with the military or individual customers to transfer copyright to them. So while the negatives are yours, the images are not, and you are unlikely to be able to monetise them legally. Secondly, the only people who could feasibly want to have scans of these images are descendants of those depicted, or perhaps historians interested in tracing images of particular people. Not likely to be a lucrative market, and much better looked after by an institution with the facilities to catalogue the names. So I would look for a suitable institution (e.g. a military museum) with a publicly accessible archive collection and offer to donate them, or offer them for sale with a very low price to cover basic costs of transport etc.
  19. Taken 2011 in Boston, uploaded last week (bad weather has led me to reprocess old images instead of taking new ones ...).
  20. Probably not. From Amateur Photographic review: "Image quality ... [is] fine if you look at the picture as a whole, but doesn’t stand up to close examination of the pixels."
  21. You make my point well! The 15-85mm is an expensive lens however, even used, and with a Canon 1000D and kit lens I assume the OP is on a tight budget; for the price of that lens, s/he could buy two or three small primes - say, 24, 50 and 85. Less versatile but the image quality would be far higher for an equivalent price.
  22. No idea about Tamron, I'm afraid, I've never had one. Look at online reviews.
  23. My experience of a similar low-budget Canon with that particular lens (both original and more recent versions): the camera is capable of taking superb images, but the lens lets it down. I bought the EFS 17-55 f2.8; currently reprocessing some old images with this lens and it really is excellent. If this is too expensive, I would look instead at small prime lenses, as even the cheapest of these is far better than the kit lens (e.g. EFS 24mm or EF 50mm). Only problem is there doesn't seem to be a wide prime, so it's more limiting. Another advantage with primes is that buying second hand is more reliable, as there's fewer moving parts in the lens, so less to go wrong (although both of the above are cheap when new).
  24. Agree with Jill. J7ETYA is very nice, but recaption/keyword to reflect the fact that it's just 8 red balloons in the sky - could be used to illustrate celebration as well as memorial. You can use the further information box to put the news caption in. Architecture - above all, look for good light; KDMMTN is a nice composition but very flat in tone. Beyond that, it's an architectural convention to straighten verticals, either when taking the shot (wide angle) or after (Lightroom etc.), except for extreme angles and when the composition is better if you don't. (Although as far as pure sales are concerned, corrected verticals don't seem to make much difference either way).
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.