| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/27/2006 12:42:04 PM · #51 |
I am assuming the issue is with having the actual images in the thread rather than a link to them.
If that is the point, then there may be one. Yes, it's educational, but if the photographer, or his/her representative, asked langdon to remove them, they probably would be removed.
If it were simply a link to the work, there wouldn't be a situation or problem. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 12:46:54 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Just because it meets the letter of the law, doesn't necessarily mean it meets the spirit of the law or even common courtesy. A photographer’s work linked just to strengthen a certain side of an argument (which is does well) doesn’t meet, IMO, a truly educational use at all.
edit for grammer |
Now you are just looking for something to argue about I am afraid. There is nothing wrong with Bear's usage of those images here. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 12:51:03 PM · #53 |
| One could always compete at a level of editing of THEIR approval/choosing. It actually poses a higher challenge to get your shot as close to what you want straight from the camera as you can with minimal post editing. If someone doesn't have expert editing skills, just sit back and enjoy the show. There are plenty of other realms in which we can compete. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 01:15:26 PM · #54 |
| What this boils down to is fear. Fear that your straight out of the camera shot won't be as impressive any more, fear that the rest of the world is passing you by as you cling to your minimal editing skills, fear that you'll lose to a freak'n line art entry. That's it in a nutshell. Try raising your game up a notch and you can start by stop shooting the same exact things in the same exact way over and over and these fears will all go away. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 01:15:50 PM · #55 |
There are many kinds of photographic skills. I doubt if any photographic technique is better, or more worthy than any other - Allowance of advanced dpc is finally shedding some of the 19th century perceptions of photography which has plagued this site. Including & sanctioning (thankfully, at least for some challenges) the option to utilize some advanced technique and image making possibilities is welcome by me. Photography history is important to the site - it is only ignorance to make exclusions, for reasons of personal preference. Granted that we are not all Jerry Uelsmann or a Roy Lichtenstein - at least now we recognize some more experimental potential and the ability to leap beyond Monet or Stieglitz.
Message edited by author 2006-12-27 13:47:23. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 01:16:26 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by karmat:
I am assuming the issue is with having the actual images in the thread rather than a link to them.
|
That was my point exactly. Why couldn't bearmusic talk about Jerry Uelsmann's work and provide a link instead of just posting the images.
That same "educational effect" is still present with a link, but the artwork is not shown in the forum. The link opens another window to site that hopefully has the right to display the work, and as a result the question of a photographer’s rights would never be violated. Also the website showing the work is fully displayed with all the benefits of a proper presentation (and yes resulting advertising, etc).
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 01:27:54 PM · #57 |
your list of favorites must be 1000 pages long ;}
Originally posted by mk:
Yeah! And we haven't even gotten to the ethics of hotlinking yet! ;) |
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 01:32:13 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by karmat:
I am assuming the issue is with having the actual images in the thread rather than a link to them.
If that is the point, then there may be one. Yes, it's educational, but if the photographer, or his/her representative, asked langdon to remove them, they probably would be removed.
If it were simply a link to the work, there wouldn't be a situation or problem. |
On the other side of the coin, some people don't WANT direct linking to their sites, for reasons of bandwidth conservation. And a link in the post (something I usually use) would not have had, in this case, as much effect as just posting the images. The use of which, I repeat, is in this case covered by the copyright laws. period. We went over this in GREAT DETAIL on the poetry website, including taking advice of counsel, when a handful of members there raised the exact same issue when we quoted sections of poems, and entire poems, for purposes of critique or exemplification of technique.
And bear in mind that these are low-resolution images, of no practical use to anyone, that any person could download for his/her own self simply by using Google Images and typing "jerry Uelsmann"; they are two of the first half dozen that pop up.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 01:40:53 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
On the other side of the coin, some people don't WANT direct linking to their sites, for reasons of bandwidth conservation. |
I think you're confused about what direct linking means in regards to what people don't want. They want a text link, not for you to pull images from their host into your own threads and essentially mooch off their bandwidth. There's more info in the link I posted earlier if you're still confused. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 01:42:13 PM · #60 |
in my limited knowledge, having them here taxes their bandwidth anyway (hot linking).
at least by giving a link, there is traffic driven to the site. if it is a commercial type site, i would think they would want the traffic.
not arguing that what you did was wrong, just that hyperfocal does indeed have a valid point
eta: mk beat me to it. :)
Message edited by author 2006-12-27 13:43:16. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 01:44:45 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
On the other side of the coin, some people don't WANT direct linking to their sites, for reasons of bandwidth conservation. |
I think you're confused about what direct linking means in regards to what people don't want. They want a text link, not for you to pull images from their host into your own threads and essentially mooch off their bandwidth. There's more info in the link I posted earlier if you're still confused. |
Yeah, you're right, I pulled a brain-freeze. The images are still linked, not hosted by DPC.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 01:51:00 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by yanko:
What this boils down to is fear. Fear that your straight out of the camera shot won't be as impressive any more, fear that the rest of the world is passing you by as you cling to your minimal editing skills, fear that you'll lose to a freak'n line art entry. That's it in a nutshell. Try raising your game up a notch and you can start by stop shooting the same exact things in the same exact way over and over and these fears will all go away. |
Very nice.
You know, not everyone thinks that making a montage or some fantasy composite graphic/image (call it what you want) from multiple photos is photography. I would call it digital art. Not everyone cares to be photoshop junkies. I know, I know, then don't enter, don't vote, etc, etc...
The only thing I fear about the new "Expert" challenges is that it will take DPC down a slippery slope and turn it into a place where photoshop reigns and photography is second fiddle. It isn't about "raising your game up a notch" in photography skills... |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 01:53:11 PM · #63 |
Since we are discussing hot linking, has anyone tried this?
I'm surprised nobody has said that hot linking is like gay marriage.
Now I'm off to go through all the threads that have violated the hot linking rule, starting with my own. Feel free to change the subject.
...oops, I said I was going to sit down and shut up. :/ |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 01:54:07 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
The only thing I fear about the new "Expert" challenges is that it will take DPC down a slippery slope and turn it into a place where photoshop reigns and photography is second fiddle. |
Nobody panicing about DPC spiralling into some kind of DeviantArt website has as yet demonstrated how this will come to be, when a photograph is still required for "Expert" editing, when Basic rules still apply to basic challenges, and when other rulesets have been promised that are even more basic than Basic. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 01:55:35 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Since we are discussing hot linking, has anyone tried this? |
Apples and sausage? :O |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 01:59:11 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'm surprised nobody has said that hot linking is like gay marriage.
|
Actually, I was going to say that hot linking is like legalizing marijuana.
Liza |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 01:59:21 PM · #67 |
Just to bypass the argument altogether, I have removed the Uelsmann images and provided instead direct links to two images at their commercial sites. I had to change out one of the images because it was buried n a page and hard to find that way. Peace on Earth, and enjoy the ads!
R.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 02:00:42 PM · #68 |
Making the image into a link is a good compromise. It's still taking some of the source site's bandwidth, but at least they get a link back from DPC in return...
Somthing like this:
[url = www.blah.com][img] www.blah.com/image.jpg [/img][/url]
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 02:01:07 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by elru21:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'm surprised nobody has said that hot linking is like gay marriage.
|
Actually, I was going to say that hot linking is like legalizing marijuana.
Liza |
:) For the record, I am in favor of the medicinal use of hot linking. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 02:03:49 PM · #70 |
it's illegal? hmm i better get on burning up the evidence ;}
Originally posted by elru21:
Actually, I was going to say that hot linking is like legalizing marijuana. |
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 02:42:52 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by elru21:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'm surprised nobody has said that hot linking is like gay marriage.
|
Actually, I was going to say that hot linking is like legalizing marijuana.
Liza |
I am from Holland, so it's ok for me to hotlink right?
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 02:44:07 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by elru21:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'm surprised nobody has said that hot linking is like gay marriage.
|
Actually, I was going to say that hot linking is like legalizing marijuana.
Liza |
I am from Holland, so it's ok for me to hotlink right? |
 |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 02:46:52 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
The only thing I fear about the new "Expert" challenges is that it will take DPC down a slippery slope and turn it into a place where photoshop reigns and photography is second fiddle. It isn't about "raising your game up a notch" in photography skills... |
The "expert editing" rules do not apply to the regular weekly challenges right? I think they never will either.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2006 02:53:26 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
The only thing I fear about the new "Expert" challenges is that it will take DPC down a slippery slope and turn it into a place where photoshop reigns and photography is second fiddle. |
Nobody panicing about DPC spiralling into some kind of DeviantArt website has as yet demonstrated how this will come to be, when a photograph is still required for "Expert" editing, when Basic rules still apply to basic challenges, and when other rulesets have been promised that are even more basic than Basic. |
Ok - no panic (yet). :D I overreacted to yanko's post earlier (having a moody week - sorry).
As for DeviantArt, I've been there once or twice quite some time ago following a link. If I remember correctly, they're still images of some sort, yes? I mean they have a photographic base of some sort.
The new "Expert" rules do require a photo, yes, but they also allow for more than one, all of which can be combined to create some digital melding of photo soup. That sounds like DeviantArt or Worth1000 in many ways - yes/no?
Yes, we still have "Basic" rules (challenges) - hopefully for a long time to come. Have yet to see the more restricted ruleset for "Barebones Basic" so it's hard to comment on how that will impact things.
Nothing mentioned about "Advanced" rules (challenges) in your post. For me personally, I think "Advanced" rules are sufficient in maintaining photographic integrity, while still allowing some artistic (creative) license to the photographer.
I guess in the long run what I worry about is the "Expert" challenges becoming so popular that DPC shifts too much in that direction and that the overall interest in Basic and Advanced challenges falls off to the point that those still interested in them gradually move away from this site. |
|
|
|
12/27/2006 03:09:49 PM · #75 |
Sometimes it feels nice to feel like we completely understand something. This lil' community here at DPC is one of those things. It is often easy to enter 2 challenges a week by taking 2 pictures. Adding the Expert editting type stuff has potential to both excite and scare people since a whole new realm of imagery is encountered. The lil' planet I created for the last Expert challenge was just me using some of the stuff i heard about in the forums. DPC is simply listening to their members. I just look forward to what these pros can come up with in future challenges.
Remember, this is a for-profit web site and they are waging their bets that this might acquire more paying members. I probably sound like a jerk saying that but I don't thinnk many people will be turned off enough to now renew memberships - but i definitely see both sides on this one - but when it comes down to it, I just like looking at what creative minds are generating. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/29/2024 11:41:42 PM EDT.
