Patrick Cooper

My patch up job worked. I dragged the 'good' sections from the old version to the new version, aligned them carefully in place and then merged the layers. It looks pretty seamless now (when zoomed in or out.)

Yes one can certainly see it that way. There is certainly a parallel here. And the drawing itself was drawn from a frame of super 8 movie film that was shot by myself. Regardless, I think it's wise to be cautious with this sort of thing which is why I want a form to cover myself...just in case. Apparently, a traditional property release (the kind we're usually familiar with in stock) is not required. Instead, I believe I need a form that shows that I have acquired the necessary rights from the artist. Would anyone know a good online source where I could obtain such a form?

I did take a photograph of it but it looks a bit rough and unrefined. Plus it's only the outline (there is no detail.) The plan was to trace the shape digitally and then fill with black. The guy I hired for the job managed to do so with Bezier curves. And the photograph was provided to him so that he could trace the shape.

Actually, Ive just had another look at 33% and 50% zoom with reading glasses on and I can just make out a slight bump on the line on each side of the circle with the line a fraction lower on the left and right. It is extremely slight. So I doubt it's a display issue. Hmmm....I suppose one solution could be to simply select and cut out the good segments from the earlier version (where the wavy line is consistent) and drag them on to the later version and carefully align them. Like a basic path up job (covering over the inconsistent bits.)

I actually wonder if the pixels have really moved or if it's a display issue. Then again, if it's a display issue, why is it only viewable in later versions of the image and not in the first version? It is indeed a mystery.

Yes not surprisingly, there is stair stepping at those magnifications. Though it's also clear in the second image that some of the pixels in that diagonal line have moved. They are in a different position compared to the first image. After the point where the circle intersects with the line, the pixels are lower (on the right side of the image.)

Fairly recently, I was working on a project with Bezier curves. I drew a curvey line, filled it with black and then drew a circle and filled that with yellow and deleted the paths of both elements. You can see a zoomed in crop of the right part of the image here. Later on, I filled the white background with orange. Then after that, I dragged another object on to the image. However, zooming into the completed image, it looks like the pixels in that wavy line have shifted. By coincidence, they have shifted at the point where the circle meets the line. And a similar thing has also occurred on the left side of the image (at the point where the other side of the circle meets the wavy line) What could be causing this? And how do I prevent it from happening again? I was working with Tiff files by the way. Saving different versions as Tiffs as I made different changes. And just now, I did a test. With the first file, I filled in the white background with orange temporarily and the pixels in the line remained the same. I did absolutely nothing to that diagonal line. The pixels shifted by themselves. So I'm wondering what caused this. With the second file on display, I did three things. 1. I filled the background colour with orange. 2. I cropped the image below the diagonal line. 3. I dragged an element from another image on to this image and moved it around and rescaled it. I positioned it above the diagonal line. So would any of these things have likely caused the pixels to move? I'm using Photoshop CS4 by the way. I admit this is really bizarre and Ive never experienced anything like this before.

Unfortunately, I don't have a proper written agreement as such. In an e-mail response, the artist simply said that he agreed to all my requests concerning the artwork. Though of course that's not very specific. Though in a later e-mail, he mentioned that he's okay with me having full rights to the artwork. So no signed contract or anything like that. Don't know if those e-mails will be sufficient if there's some kind of dispute later down the track.

Fairly recently, I paid someone to produce a digital artwork for me that was based on a lead pencil drawing that I had made on paper. He basically traced my scanned drawing with Bezier curves. It was agreed that the rights to the digital artwork belonged to me. I am considering submitting the artwork to stock agencies like Alamy. A moderator on a microstock forum recommended that I submit a property release along with the artwork. I guess I would use the same kind of form here? Out of curiosity, with the property release, would the artist I employed sign as the artist / photographer and I would sign as the property owner? Not 100% sure about how to go about this in this situation. Previously, whenever I have submitted work to stock agencies, the images are created by me 100%. So this is certainly something new for me.

Sorry for replying to such an old post but I didn't realise that you had replied to mine. I knew from experience that the light readings I got from the Canon A1 on that particular day didn't seem right. The camera was suggesting aperture values considerably larger than what I would have expected. To be honest, I was expecting a much smaller aperture setting to be indicated. And by the way, I was reading from a mid tone, not dark coloured subject matter. But I had never owned a camera with a defective meter before. So although the readings seemed really wrong to me and illogical, I was so used to trusting the meter and not questioning it - especially when aiming it at a mid tone. In hindsight, I should have trusted my instincts and knowledge, not the camera meter.

Thankyou, I didn't think to check the optional tab. Is there a contact e-mail address for CR?

Just wondering how you can disable a photo from the image database so that it's no longer for sale? I have taken a number of photos at a local event and submitted them to Alamy where they are currently available for sale. Unfortunately, I found out not too long ago that photographs taken on the grounds within the event area cannot be used for commercial gain (making money.) So I would like to remove them to avoid any potential legal hassles (even though he chances of getting in trouble would be pretty slim.) Better to be safe than sorry. Ive removed most of the keywords and the description from the first of the photos but the image in question is still marked as being on sale. I can't see a 'disable' or 'delete' option anywhere.

Thanks Paulette. I looked at the Account balance before. Though what worried me a little is that it indicated: "Total payments to you: $0.00." Does this mean that I haven't met the minimum payout level yet?

Thankyou Joseph for clearing that up. Supposedly, this latest sale is for 'books and magazines' so I wonder how long it takes for those kinds of clients to pay up. By the way, I haven't uploaded to Alamy for ages. Maybe I should start submitting again!

Thankyou for your reply. Yes, this particular image is non-exclusive so 40% to me. I selected the 'Download Sales Report' but it's mostly blank. It includes headings like 'Date Clear', 'Total Sale' and 'Date Paid' etc but there are no details of such. Just blank fields below. Additionally, would anyone know why my balance is still $10 after two sales?