| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2009 04:39:35 PM · #376 |
| Just out of curiosity, do you sign your gallery pieces? |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 04:42:11 PM · #377 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Oh.....and just for the record, I was referring to restored cars, not rebuilt, and if you want to get hurt, go ahead and watermark someone's restored car. |
Well, since I'm not really in to getting hurt I'm gonna go ahead and thank you for the profound advice. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 04:45:01 PM · #378 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I have done nothing but learn and be appreciative of the people who have helped me.
If you chose not to see the last thread, of a few, that I've started, and tried somewhat unsuccessfully, to keep going where I have tried to extol the virtues and benefits of this resource, then your myopia is on you.
If you think for one second that I am not eternally grateful to the people who have been selflessly helpful, well, I don't even have the remotest idea how you could even come up with that. I have never expressed anything but gratitude, and my utmost admiration, for the immensely talented and patient people who have helped me. I will have no trouble finding threads to reference that if you like.
I even have this in bold letters on my profile page: "If this place doesn't do anything else, it'll make you work your @$$ off, and unless you're dead between the ears, you *WILL* learn! "
I have absolutely no clue what you mean by "the "pro-status" photographers you seem to fear".....WTF is THAT???
What fear? Of what? What do you mean pro-status?
I interact with a bunch of people just like myself, photographer-wise anyway, who like to take pictures, throw some shots into challenges, learn how to shoot and work my camera, and have fun.
Yeah, there are a few people I know of here that are what I guess you would call pro-status, but I don't really see them regularly as they are generally busy with their business.
If you want to read more into it than that, I don't know what to tell you. |
And now you choose to be coy and naive as yet another ineffective shroud veiling your hypocrisy.
Pro-status? "Outpost for professional photographers". You words, my "abbreviation".
Your opposition has to do with the possibility it may slightly change your experience here. That is all. The functionality will remain as will the forums and challenge topics and the GTGs etc etc etc. On the other hand, these changes will demonstrate to those who are concerned with the "safety" of their images that the site has implemented reasonable measures to quell their fear. Nothing more and nothing less.
How often do you hit the guard rail when driving across a bridge? Does it really need to be there and do you even notice it any more? I hope you never need it.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 04:45:23 PM · #379 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
Or more reasonable - they let people come in with cameras and take pictures of your work, so they can just print it out themselves. |
Tell you what......
C'mon up.....I believe you're about an hour and a half away.
Once you get here.....we'll have a nice lunch, on me, and then we'll take my car, burn my gas, and I'll take you 'round to the three galleries, and you can shoot my work, and you just go right ahead and see how you do with sales.
I would be really surprised if it would be worth the bother, time, and expense to you, wouldn't you?
Even saying that my stuff is just off-the-charts fabulous, if you go home, print, mat, & frame all of it, and as nicely as I've had dione, you're going to have a bucket of money wrapped up in inventory.
Now......here's the real kicker.....
I do not enlarge, mat, & frame anything that I won't hang on the wall of my home should it not sell.
You want my work, with your money in it, on your walls?
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 04:46:02 PM · #380 |
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
Just out of curiosity, do you sign your gallery pieces? |
If someone wants me to.....some have, some haven't.
Let me rephrase that before someone throws that back at me......if the customer asks the image be signed, I will......otherwise, no.
Message edited by author 2009-11-13 16:47:10.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 04:48:08 PM · #381 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
Or more reasonable - they let people come in with cameras and take pictures of your work, so they can just print it out themselves. |
Tell you what......
C'mon up.....I believe you're about an hour and a half away.
Once you get here.....we'll have a nice lunch, on me, and then we'll take my car, burn my gas, and I'll take you 'round to the three galleries, and you can shoot my work, and you just go right ahead and see how you do with sales.
I would be really surprised if it would be worth the bother, time, and expense to you, wouldn't you?
Even saying that my stuff is just off-the-charts fabulous, if you go home, print, mat, & frame all of it, and as nicely as I've had dione, you're going to have a bucket of money wrapped up in inventory.
Now......here's the real kicker.....
I do not enlarge, mat, & frame anything that I won't hang on the wall of my home should it not sell.
You want my work, with your money in it, on your walls? |
And because you feel this way about your work means everyone should feel the same way about theirs, right? |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 04:49:20 PM · #382 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
If you can see how this is in any way a reasonable comparison, I'm at a complete loss for what to say to you. |
Are they not both your photos, placed on public display? You wouldn't want one group to be freely accessible to the world without any credit or copying restrictions, yet you oppose the very same principle online. More importantly, even if you don't value your work enough to take credit for it, others may not be so willing to give up their efforts. An image needn't be precious to be worth maintaining ownership.
Message edited by author 2009-11-13 16:53:54. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 04:51:21 PM · #383 |
Originally posted by Ivo:
Your opposition has to do with the possibility it may slightly change your experience here. That is all. The functionality will remain as will the forums and challenge topics and the GTGs etc etc etc. On the other hand, these changes will demonstrate to those who are concerned with the "safety" of their images that the site has implemented reasonable measures to quell their fear. Nothing more and nothing less.
How often do you hit the guard rail when driving across a bridge? Does it really need to be there and do you even notice it any more? I hope you never need it. |
You know what? I've hit a guard rail before and been damn glad it was there......and I appreciate that my wife's car has ABS, traction control, and side airbags.
But don't tell me I *have* to have them.
That's all.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 04:55:54 PM · #384 |
Originally posted by Phil:
And because you feel this way about your work means everyone should feel the same way about theirs, right? |
Nope!
I don't give a rat's ass hwo you feel about your work, I don't care what you do with it, but I don't feel that you should demand that someone else be responsible for your security for it, either.
The only thing that I have maintained all along is that I think it stinks that all of a sudden there has been this sudden need to have this site deal with protecting images for people who don't bother to do it themselves, except the real pros, and who really don't have much reason to suddenly suspect that their work is all of a sudden become the most valuable commodity going.
Y'all carry on......I really don't care at all any more.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 04:56:31 PM · #385 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I've hit a guard rail before and been damn glad it was there......and I appreciate that my wife's car has ABS, traction control, and side airbags.
But don't tell me I *have* to have them. |
You don't. Buy a classic car and drive on unimproved roads. Shall we also eliminate the option of airbags and anti-lock brakes for those who might want them? |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 05:00:16 PM · #386 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by AJSullivan:
Or more reasonable - they let people come in with cameras and take pictures of your work, so they can just print it out themselves. |
Tell you what......
C'mon up.....I believe you're about an hour and a half away.
Once you get here.....we'll have a nice lunch, on me, and then we'll take my car, burn my gas, and I'll take you 'round to the three galleries, and you can shoot my work, and you just go right ahead and see how you do with sales.
I would be really surprised if it would be worth the bother, time, and expense to you, wouldn't you?
Even saying that my stuff is just off-the-charts fabulous, if you go home, print, mat, & frame all of it, and as nicely as I've had dione, you're going to have a bucket of money wrapped up in inventory.
Now......here's the real kicker.....
I do not enlarge, mat, & frame anything that I won't hang on the wall of my home should it not sell.
You want my work, with your money in it, on your walls? |
I'm not going to sell your images. I'm going to just not buy yours. Which means that I'm getting your product, that you invested your time, money, sweat, and leg work and all that jazz you were talking about earlier, into, and I'm taking it for free, hanging it on my wall. Hell I might even crop it a little bit to make it more my liking. Now I have your work hanging on my wall for free, while you are still out whatever money you paid into it. |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 05:01:00 PM · #387 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I think it stinks that all of a sudden there has been this sudden need to have this site deal with protecting images for people who don't bother to do it themselves... |
How would you suggest people protect challenge images for themselves? They can't legally add a watermark or their name to the entry, and they can't remove it after the fact. Copyright registration is a legal remedy, not a protection. Are you suggesting we encourage everyone NOT to enter? |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 05:02:14 PM · #388 |
| I would still love to hear a definition of "real pros" |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 05:03:08 PM · #389 |
| Jeb, I shall now refer to you as "NIMBY". ;-) |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 06:06:16 PM · #390 |
Originally posted by jebbo:
The only thing that I have maintained all along is that I think it stinks that all of a sudden there has been this sudden need to have this site deal with protecting images for people who don't bother to do it themselves, except the real pros, and who really don't have much reason to suddenly suspect that their work is all of a sudden become the most valuable commodity going. |
c'mon, dude, don't be so selective in what you read!
"all of a sudden"...they just increased the size limits on challenge entries! images at 800px and 300kb don't take much tweaking to make nice 8x10s, let alone 5x7s or 4x6s, or to be dropped onto coffee mugs, calendars, or any other imprintables. discussions about protecting images is highly relevant at this time.
as for me, even though it's never been my bent to shoot eye-candy ribboners, i sure love lookin through the challenge entries; i would HATE to see the better dpc'ers stop entering because they can no longer justify giving their stuff away...because like mama told my sistah, "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free!" |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 06:09:29 PM · #391 |
If you want to watermark your stuff so much, but we don't want watermarks in the challenges....
Just let people upload the challenge entry without a watermark and one with their own watermark (not mandatory). As soon as the challenge is finished only their watermarked version will be visible (dpc coding job). You can already watermark your own portfolio stuff. Let the people who want to watermark, watermark their own stuff, with their own watermark and make them responsible for their own watermarking. You can do it however, whenever you want.
I absolutely do not think that it is the duty of dpchallenge to watermark anything, but dpchallenge can facilitate the photographer to do it himself with his own watermark.
This way, you accept by entering a challenge, that for 7 days people can steal your watermarkless image. And after that it is your responsibility as a photographer, yours alone, to have a watermarked replacement for it.
And your portfolio stuff.
Anything else is just pure and simple laziness of the photographer, or the photographer simply doesn't care.
Is this difficult? I think not. It is just an added text layer in a 2nd save.
It clears dpc from any legal liability.
It puts all responsibility with the photographer.
The photographer can use whatever he wants as a watermark, his own design, his own idea. He keeps his creative freedom.
DPC can open this possibility for all past challenges too. Just an extra upload box.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 06:12:32 PM · #392 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I think it stinks that all of a sudden there has been this sudden need to have this site deal with protecting images for people who don't bother to do it themselves... |
How would you suggest people protect challenge images for themselves? |
They can do it themselves with my suggestion.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2009 06:17:41 PM · #393 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I think it stinks that all of a sudden there has been this sudden need to have this site deal with protecting images for people who don't bother to do it themselves... |
How would you suggest people protect challenge images for themselves? |
They can do it themselves with my suggestion. |
There have been quite a lot of extremely interesting and well-thought out suggestions. I have decided to have confidence that Langdon and the SC will work with the community to find a decent way to implement SOMEthing (now that it's been shown that quite a lot of people want SOMEthing). That'll be for the next poll though :D |
|
|
|
11/13/2009 09:28:14 PM · #394 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I don't give a rat's ass hwo you feel about your work, I don't care what you do with it, but I don't feel that you should demand that someone else be responsible for your security for it, either.
The only thing that I have maintained all along is that I think it stinks that all of a sudden there has been this sudden need to have this site deal with protecting images for people who don't bother to do it themselves, except the real pros, and who really don't have much reason to suddenly suspect that their work is all of a sudden become the most valuable commodity going. |
The only one here making demands is you. All I did was check a box. Instead of simply saying you don't want it for aesthetic reasons you're telling everyone they aren't pros and preach as to why THEY shoudn't want watermarks. You're not defending your stance at all. You're attacking with insults and you gotta know that your nasty comments in this thread alone have made people who probably couldn't care less vote for watermarks.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Y'all carry on......I really don't care at all any more. |
Sure. And this is how many times in this thread you've said that?
Message edited by author 2009-11-14 00:13:20. |
|
|
|
11/14/2009 09:20:59 PM · #395 |
Originally posted by KelvinC:
Looking at a photo with a watermark makes me want to puke. |
Well chosen words! ;-)
But I agree from the bottom of my stomach. |
|
|
|
11/14/2009 10:00:29 PM · #396 |
Originally posted by Mephisto:
Originally posted by KelvinC:
Looking at a photo with a watermark makes me want to puke. |
Well chosen words! ;-)
But I agree from the bottom of my stomach. |
really???? well chosen ??? hmmm, maybe.... maybe not.. |
|
|
|
11/14/2009 11:13:56 PM · #397 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
Originally posted by Mephisto:
Originally posted by KelvinC:
Looking at a photo with a watermark makes me want to puke. |
Well chosen words! ;-)
But I agree from the bottom of my stomach. |
really???? well chosen ??? hmmm, maybe.... maybe not.. |
hmfurgrulaaga lets get all tech-ni-cal
feelings and emotions have no place in art |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 07:57:17 PM · #398 |
I used to be for watermarking photographs, I have changed my opinion to one of doubt.
The only really effective watermark will leave the photograph completely ruined, less effective watermarks will still encourage those who are persistent. I think everyone agrees on this point.
The question is, what percentage of "theft" do we wish to attempt to eliminate at the cost of photograph quality?
Personally I think it would be nice to be able to implement a Digimarc(tm) type watermark system, invisible to the naked eye but legally verifiable. However as things go that is probably just as easy to counter.
Disadvantages of watermarks as covered previously are; giving a false sense of security, and distracting from the quality of work on DPC and by extension DPC itself.
Like a song with a repeating click every five seconds, the song itself isn't ruined, it is still there but the clicks become distracting and can ruin the enjoyment of that song. Even a single click or pop can reduce the enjoyment of a song and draw attention in the wrong direction.
So I am not crazy about watermarking on DPC.
But since when has anyone ever cared about my opinion lol. :P
-tog
|
|
|
|
01/19/2010 06:27:22 AM · #399 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
 |
Hey, that's a nice horse! Can I steal it? :) |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 08:20:35 AM · #400 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
|
Originally posted by duartix:
Hey, that's a nice horse! Can I steal it? :) |
Nope!
It's been watermarked, you'll be hung as a horsethief!.....8>)
|
|
