adobe.photography
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography?hl=en
adobe.photography@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* So is the photography forum dead or grasping for its last breath? - 4
messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/df98f10b5350a14c?hl=en
* Be VERY Afraid … - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/cf82f66e37b5ce25?hl=en
* Where were you? (part four) - 9 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/ab8c6a7a2987240a?hl=en
* Canon > Nikon D3 > Sell All & Switch - 8 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/0f2b645b7ef778d9?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: So is the photography forum dead or grasping for its last breath?
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/df98f10b5350a14c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 22 2009 10:36 pm
From: Silkrooster@adobeforums.com
You know there is nothing stopping Adobe from disabling attachments for a particular forum. The photography forum could stay as a image by link only forum. Requiring you to use another service provider like we do now.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 10:58 am
From: Allen_Wicks@adobeforums.com
...anything that gets posted on the new forum, regardless of whether it's
posted directly or through a link to an outside server, automatically
has the non-exclusive copyright assigned to Adobe, and since there is
no place to effectively cross that out, you either participate knowing
that you're being taken advantage of or you move on to a less oppressive
regime.
I fully agree with Ramón ("Only effective for intimidating the gullible"). Just because an Adobe writes something by no means makes it legally enforceable. The idea that Adobe could appropriate someone's image just because it was linked to on a public Adobe forum is preposterous.
Abobe legal knows that, and I doubt if Adobe would be dumb enough to intentionally steal an image for any substantive usage. Abobe legal is just adding ammunition for their deep legal team to bury potential litigants with. A disgusting practice, but it is what the Adobes of the world do; even blanks ammunition can bury those with less deep legal resources.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 11:37 am
From: Allen_Wicks@adobeforums.com
Do vegetarians have any non-vegetarian friends?
Yes. As a consequence I eat quite excellent vegetarian fare several times a week. :)
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 1:14 pm
From: Lawrence_Hudetz@adobeforums.com
Yeah, and even that which appears iron-clad can be reversed in a summary Judgement with no recourse.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Be VERY Afraid …
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/cf82f66e37b5ce25?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 1:31 am
From: Kath_Howard3@adobeforums.com
Don't judge Sandee by that, I have one of her InDesign books and it's absolutely excellent.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 2:57 am
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
Sandee is an excellent writer with exceptional knowledge about the applications she writes about haven't seen her here before but perhaps once.
It is not totally off base but the issue goes a little further then that the purpose of these clauses is not to probably use the images in most cases. In most cases is an important phrase. The point is they can if they want according to them, Adobe. Even with a copyright and they have the right to alter it.
Alter it is the problem, if you alter it you are responsible for what you do if someone else alters it in a way you think is inappropriate and anyone connected tot he photographic subject may think is in appropriate and you give Adobe the license to do so then you are responsible for that alteration and any lawsuit that might ensue.
Highly unfair stance to take given the nature of the Forum free exchange of ideas concept.
Which is now no longer free speech with all of your rights that go along with free speech.
It is control and not protection of Adobe's rights to show the images on the web.
Quite the contrary if that is what they intend they would have worded it that way as to protect them from misuse of images, grant them the right to display the images on the forum accept responsibility for any misuse of the images by third parties by holding Adobe harmless etc.
But that is not even addressed instead Adobe says no forget about holding us harmless, they I believe have that clause already, but we now want license to misuse the images ourselves if we wish, we don't care what anyone else does we are held harmless, so now we want to join with anyone especially institutions who dod not want to pay for usage and we want to be able to say hey, if some group like that uses the image, they do not have to give you permission we do as a sublicense. As far as we are concern you are an agent of Adobe please give Adobe credit for the use of the image.
Corporations have been trying for decades upon decades to circumvent the copyright laws and not pay the artists proper fees for the use.
Just think about it they get a hold of an image and people relate to it and associate it with a service or product they then make sometimes 100's of millions of dollars and they pay the photographer any where from $6, like in the case of some of stock houses, to say $5,000. They run the image over and over in ads sometimes for years on end and the they now are making Billions off of it and the photographer gets between $6 and $5,000 and to add injury to insult they scream bloody murder that they have to pay at all.
Sometimes I photograph buildings, in case you guys do not understand the numbers, that cost a billion dollars to build or more, Their idea of a photography fee is $125, they do not say so, but deep down in side that is what they think and then they think if you do not own $100,000 in equipment and have three assistance you're not even worth the that.
Fortunately at least they understand their concepts are fantasies numbers do not add up.
But the idea that they can get it for nothing is a very big deal with them and the unfortunate truth is that they are hostile toward people who have talents that they do not possess.
You often hear the expression my photos were better then the professionals. Not too often is that anywhere near the truth except in their delusional minds, which brings us back to Adobe's problem that this is somehow their property and their creation and by virtue of just saying so.
that is simply not true we use their software but we pay for it in one way or another but if it is a legal license they got their money's worth, some of you might not understand that but trust me on this one.
So why should they not also earn the right to it by either paying for it or offering another type of compensation if they use your property for to sell their software and we all agree it would have to be a pretty good image for them to do so one they think would move the boxes off the shelves. DSo there is no excuse for not paying.
Why put the photographer in a position where they can be hurt by your actions. Why not just discuss the possibility to at least be able to pay acceptable market rates of the time why even bring up the possibility and just contact the owner of the image and discuss it when the issue arises. Why bring these issues into the mix in the first place.
The only reason I can think of is that there is an idea that they do intend to use such images and there are some folk who are trying to live out this fantasy of power and control
and they have now shown how out of control they themselves have become.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I rest my case.
Yeah same to all of you! Especially you Todie!
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 4:25 am
From: Laurentiu_G_Todie@adobeforums.com
I hear you
but the copyright ensures that no alterations can be made without permission : )
you were correct when you said that [random] statements don't change the Law;
be consistent!
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 4:29 am
From: Lawrence_Hudetz@adobeforums.com
The only thing harder than trying to get a good fee from an architect is trying to get a good fee from a landscape architect. They get stiffed worse than the building architects.
There is little money left over for these things. That's reason number 1 and reason number 99 that I don't shoot architectural any more. Oh, I do vernacular architecture, and that's for myself.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where were you? (part four)
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/ab8c6a7a2987240a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 2:20 am
From: Ramona_Dear@adobeforums.com
it was work ... and difficult too! BUT ... they have made a new fan out of me! :) I was PUMPED!
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 2:27 am
From: Ramona_Dear@adobeforums.com
<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1XkKaiWnTkvhY7iEMauMKPJTVP5I>
I noticed this guy has some publicity on yahoo today ...! He was BIG!
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 3:29 am
From: Ramona_Dear@adobeforums.com
oh yea ... I got some awesome shots of the freak'n ROPES!
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 4:19 am
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
Ramona
this might be your calling not just boxing but perhaps sports like basketball and football as well.
I would suggest golf but I think you might hate that one.
Good work.
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 4:55 am
From: Ramona_Dear@adobeforums.com
Football??? ... no way! LOL! I've seen how those guys get pounded!
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 4:55 am
From: Ramona_Dear@adobeforums.com
Roy Jones Jr. dominated the fight! The other guy was staggering and bleeding, but wouldn't go down ... the ref called the fight. and Thank Goodness he did -- at least the guy can recover to fight again, but if they had kept fighting ... ?? I have never been to a fight before but this guy (Roy) was so fast with his punches that I don't think there is a fast enough shutter-speed or ISO to beat it! ha ha! I was astounded!
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 7:21 am
From: Ramona_Dear@adobeforums.com
<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1pVE0KfkTrBg8fam0eEAZerapAUXQn>
Here's the other guy ... photo was too fuzzy for me ... but clearly shows his disappointment.
I shot at floor level and tried to use the floor for support ... well, the dang floor bounced!! If I get the chance to shoot another, I will bring a monopod for sure!! Still photographers are allowed to be "under the rope" ... which literally meant we could lay on the floor and shoot at rope level ... but who the hell would WANT to?? especially during one of the "full contact" fights.
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 7:29 am
From: Ramona_Dear@adobeforums.com
<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1AoFC6415ddFhipYFce6utQwePBY1>
my attempt at slowing down my shutter speed ... then FORGOT about it for the next 20thousand frames!!!!!
like I said earlier ... I found this assignment quite difficult! But I am eager to shoot another cause NEXT time I'll be ready! ;)
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 7:35 am
From: Ramona_Dear@adobeforums.com
<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1Y8q3rBcbBbqpoNJR9n9oFr3FU0p1>
... sorta like being on the front row of church with a spit-splattering preacher!! ... too close! :)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon > Nikon D3 > Sell All & Switch
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/0f2b645b7ef778d9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 2:38 am
From: PShock@adobeforums.com
I may not do anything, but I am very impressed with some of the images
I've seen.
And that's because of the camera, huh? Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the person driving the camera, could it?
I've asked you this before ... what, precisely are looking to improve upon? Where is your current gear letting you down? All of your comments seem to center around sharpness. Can you not get sharp images?
You have excellent equipment. Learn to use it to its potential!
No, no, macman ... you don't understand. Learning is no fun - it's much more exciting to believe new equipment will make you a better photographer so you want to need to buy all the latest toys.
(despite the sarcasm, most photographers ARE gearheads. I've certainly been guilty of talking myself into purchases because of a want and not of a "need". Goes with the territory...)
But the most important thing to understand is that the only "expert" to believe in here is that WZ guy. You know, the guy who succinctly explained that Nikon lenses magically circumvent the laws of physics. Lol ...
-phil
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 6:07 am
From: LRK@adobeforums.com
I guess I'd better explain. I just hope you will actually read with as much thought as I put into expressing what comes from my heart.
Photography is not a hobby for me. It is part of my business. And whereas is not my primary source of income, it does provide income and could provide more if I took all the jobs that came my way.
I would not upgrade at all if I didn't want the ability to produce larger prints in the future. In our area people spend a lot of money to buy large prints, primarily on canvas. Being able to sell big makes a huge difference in the cost of a print.
I know that some of you have little respect for me as a photographer. And I don't tout myself as being that great. But for some reason others do like my work. Why? Because I do strive for excellence in the finished product.
No matter how big or how small a job, I try to produce the best work I can, within my limitations of course.
The 5D is a wonderful camera, and has served me well. If Canon comes out with a replacement that offers the same capabilities regarding low light shooting and the same quality as the D3, this will make me very happy.
But, instead of trying to compete with the D3, Canon chose to add video to the most recent upgrade. Those of you who followed my other thread know how much I wanted to see an image that came close to the D3 output. It never happened.
Phil, I doubt you will ever believe in me as a photographer, and I don't blame you. You and I are worlds apart. But if you knew me on a professional level, not as a photographer so much, but as a creative who works very had, I do think you would gain at least a little respect. Then again, maybe not.
Now, hopefully I will stay away from this thread long enough to focus on my work today. ;-)
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 6:14 am
From: LRK@adobeforums.com
No, no, macman ... you don't understand. Learning is no fun - it's much
more exciting to believe new equipment will make you a better photographer
so you want, er ... need to buy all the latest toys.
Phil, This statement proves without a doubt, that you don't know me at all. Do you know that you can come across as mean and shortsighted at times?
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 6:38 am
From: Ramona_Dear@adobeforums.com
The D3 is the BOMB!! ... sell everything! :)
... and if it weren't for LRK and her expertise, my step daughter would not have had a photo of her and her dad coming down the aisle in her wedding. I've been a professional photographer for over 25 years ... but digital was a whole new ball-game for me.
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 6:49 am
From: LRK@adobeforums.com
... and if it weren't for LRK and her expertise, my step daughter would
not have had a photo of her and her dad coming down the aisle in her wedding.
I've been a professional photographer for over 25 years ... but digital
was a whole new ball-game for me.
Ramona, Bless you for posting this. I had to stop and think for a moment because I had forgotten about it.
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 8:26 am
From: Allen_Wicks@adobeforums.com
I am seriously considering selling every piece of my Canon equipment in
order to pay for a D3 with one good lens.
IMO you are a D700 person and Canon will probably have a camera competitive with the D700 before long. As to "good lens" that is what some of us have been advising since your Rebel...
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 10:19 am
From: Allen_Wicks@adobeforums.com
Also note that when establishing a limited new top quality lens selection, lenses like superwide PC or the 14-24mm or even the 17-35mm are probably initially less appropriate than the 24-70mm for what I perceive as your needs.
In that wide-normal-mild tele range zoom is particularly useful, but when choosing lenses do not fail to consider the value of fast prime lenses for superwide and for tele.
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 11:00 am
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
I think Linda has learnt some things about buying and selling equipment and she will do alright with the exchange and I think she will probably also want to hook up with someone that has a Canon 5D Mark II just to compare with a comparable lens.
Before renting network and ask to try it out and I think it is a good idea to see this photographers studio. Here it is just talk but once you see that is a much better picture.
You'll make the right decision.
I think you will have fun visiting your different contacts' studios and the networking opportunities are good as well.
No matter what you do you will learn something first hand which works best for you.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "adobe.photography"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to adobe.photography+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment