TABan Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 This was a pleasant surprise this week. Licensed for a 2016 calendar and bringing in the highest fee in quite some time. Thanks Alamy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Very generous to show us this Todd, and congratulations on the sale, but a thought . . . there are currently only three images of this fountain taken at this or similar angle on the whole of Alamy . . . and many now know it has sold quite well . . . it will be interesting to see if more instances of this view spring up over the next few months. I hope not, but apparently this is a common occurence at other places. Will Alamy be different? EDIT: ooh, looks like I may have upset one of the anonymous would-be-plagiarisers into dishing out a fine red-arrow . . . how sweet :-) dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 I'd almost consider it a professional discourtesy to do that. Unless I was in the area, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TABan Posted December 19, 2013 Author Share Posted December 19, 2013 Very generous to show us this Todd, and congratulations on the sale, but a thought . . . there are currently only three images of this fountain taken at this or similar angle on the whole of Alamy . . . and many now know it has sold quite well . . . it will be interesting to see if more instances of this view spring up over the next few months. I hope not, but apparently this is a common occurence at other places. Will Alamy be different? dd That's interesting. It looks like Most people concentrate on the water jet that occasionally shoots across the river. It's probably inevitable, so I won't fret over it. And they'll have to wait until spring for it to be turned back on. Maybe they'll forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 I have several multiple-sellers both here and elsewhere . . . I simply never identify them as such publicly. It's a lesson I learned some years ago, having a compatriot who had one of her truly huge-sellers copied by several others and submitted to (and accepted by) the same agency that carried the original image. In your case, I hope they'll forget too Todd dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TABan Posted December 19, 2013 Author Share Posted December 19, 2013 I have several multiple-sellers both here and elsewhere . . . I simply never identify them as such publicly. It's a lesson I learned some years ago, having a compatriot who had one of her truly huge-sellers copied by several others and submitted to (and accepted by) the same agency that carried the original image. In your case, I hope they'll forget too Oh, I have multiple sellers and they're not easily copied since some involve certain VIPs in specific moments and others are set up model shots. Those I don't share. I'm not that concerned about a public fountain anyone can shoot. Especially since I can easily return at different times of day to round out the lighting when the thing is running again. I live here and my rank when it comes to this stuff isn't half bad. Look at how many photos of the Cloud Gate sculpture are on Alamy and elsewhere and yet I still license mine both on Alamy and elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_A_Dobbs Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Bump! Post deleted by Admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Lawrence Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Pleased to hear of your sale. Now to the image. As it is primarily an architectural shot ever thought of using Photoshop to verticalise the verticals ? Pardy12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TABan Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 Pleased to hear of your sale. Now to the image. As it is primarily an architectural shot ever thought of using Photoshop to verticalise the verticals ? Pardy12 Didn't seem to matter to the customer, did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Lawrence Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 This illustrates the lowering of standards now accepted in photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Baigent Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 There is a time to correct converging verticals, where needed, and a time to use them for impact. I say that as a user of TSE lenses and with a mainly architectural client base. In the image above the fountain is the main part of the image not the buildings behind, I would have corrected them but it does not bother me that they have not been corrected. Just my 2p worth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kilpatrick Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Brian, we end up with a rather sterile world if every bit of natural lens perspective is architecturally corrected. Some clients prefer not to see verticals straightened and actually avoid that look, preferring the lean/convergence seen because it echoes what is seen in film and video, where any such camera angles always result in convergence and it is never corrected. You may also remember the debates 20-30 years ago about cutting the top off heads because TV (even in its 4:3 old shape) did so; there are still photographers who will never close in on a horizontal slice of face the way HDTV does, but they are in a minority. Same with corrected verticals. I tend to go for corrected verticals and always go for level horizons (I work with type on traditional pages, and I know how bad slight angles look next to columns/rules etc). Others do not. There's room for both and it does not indicate any lowering of standards, just a broadending of taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TABan Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 I've been shooting stock for almost twenty years. I've worked at an agency as a photo researcher. It has nothing to do with lowering standards. Mark is correct, the buildings aren't the focus of the image and dont need to be corrected. Another thought. I wager that if you were to look at calendars going back several decades, you'd find plenty of cityscape images with converging verticals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 This illustrates the lowering of standards now accepted in photography. Criticising another Alamy photographer's work, in a public forum, looks like a "lowering of standards" to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheila Smart Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 This illustrates the lowering of standards now accepted in photography. Ouch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Lawrence Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Just trying to be helpful. I accept all the comment raised, but still try to make sure my verticals are vertical, so there ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Baigent Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 > so there ! Well that made me grin :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I have noting to say about this, I just wanted to see my face in all three areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbolton Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 hahaha!! check out this picture by Brian... DH143M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Baigent Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 I have noting to say about this, I just wanted to see my face in all three areas. That reminds me, my white beard needs a trim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TABan Posted January 29, 2014 Author Share Posted January 29, 2014 hahaha!! check out this picture by Brian... DH143M Good catch. Hindsight being what it is, I wish I'd thought of this and said nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Lawrence Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Hi Mark, When you discover a camera that will correct the verticals in a single image of Big Ben and The Statue of Queen Boadicea, let me know and I'll buy one. The image you refer to has been shot hundreds if not thousands of times and I have yet to see one without converging verticals. ha ha ha , what's funny Mark ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 The image you refer to has been shot hundreds if not thousands of times and I have yet to see one without converging verticals. Not only that, but because the shot is taken looking upwards at quite a significant angle, IMO it would look totally wrong if it didn't have converging verticals. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Really? I thought those London buildings were shaped like that. Have you ever been to Pisa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Really? I thought those London buildings were shaped like that. Have you ever been to Pisa? I believe every tower in Venice is heading the same way . . . dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.