the Photo thread

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

But the stock library I am referring to is in Canada rather than the UK. I've spent the last 10 minutes trying to copy&paste the 'technical wiki' to give you an idea of what is verboten but it appears to be a contributor only resource.

Can you shed any more light on this one, Clapton?

[Wandering Willy]

Dujon's definitely shoved a sock down there. A baby's sock mind.

[Dujon]

What have I done this time?

[Wandering Willy]

Apologies Dujon.

I think I got my threads mixed up.

I'm losing it.

[clapton is god]

But the stock library I am referring to is in Canada rather than the UK. I've spent the last 10 minutes trying to copy&paste the 'technical wiki' to give you an idea of what is verboten but it appears to be a contributor only resource.

Can you shed any more light on this one, Clapton?

http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_copyright_list.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, now I'm back on a desktop rather than just an iPad I'll try and link to the wiki page which governs what we can't produce as a 'for sale' image. I don't know if you can access that page or not. The link runs to many pages. You may see just the first, if anything, but that should give a general feel to the way things are there. Its simply a contributor resource to give guidance on what is not acceptable. You are coming at this from a lawyers black & white perspective whilst iStock are trying to forestal any problems from any legal system anywhere in the world.

[Dujon]

Apologies Dujon.

I think I got my threads mixed up.

I'm losing it.

No worries, old son. It's pleasing to find that I'm not the only one who suffers from 'senior moments' when posting to the forum.

[Dujon]

[Clapton] I had a quick shufti at the site, although it wouldn't allow me everywhere (I didn't sign up but I keep a tight rein on scripts so I might not have allowed an important one). The little I did access opened my eyes to 'wide'. Fancy not being allowed to sell a photograph captured from a bridge if it should contain any portion of that bridge within its borders! Reading the other, few, references it appears that commercial photography is a land filled with legal mine fields. Phew!

[clapton is god]

But the stock library I am referring to is in Canada rather than the UK. I've spent the last 10 minutes trying to copy&paste the 'technical wiki' to give you an idea of what is verboten but it appears to be a contributor only resource.

Can you shed any more light on this one, Clapton?

And further to this, I just came across this thread on a microstock site I visit. Yuri Acurs, to put into context, is far and away the biggest contributor on iStock having sold well over 1 million images, probably earning above 5mil in the process. He also has his own company.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general- ... ur-advice/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hoboh]

hoboh's toy of the week

[thebish]

been away in the North Yorkshire Moors... no rain, so can't complain - but no sun either EXCEPT for early one morning when I got up to take the dog out down the lane, and experienced the most glorious (cold) misty-morning sunrise with the moors as a backdrop.. rest of the week - murky grey - so no other photos but this one...


misty morning by revnev, on Flickr

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

But the stock library I am referring to is in Canada rather than the UK. I've spent the last 10 minutes trying to copy&paste the 'technical wiki' to give you an idea of what is verboten but it appears to be a contributor only resource.

Can you shed any more light on this one, Clapton?

http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_copyright_list.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, now I'm back on a desktop rather than just an iPad I'll try and link to the wiki page which governs what we can't produce as a 'for sale' image. I don't know if you can access that page or not. The link runs to many pages. You may see just the first, if anything, but that should give a general feel to the way things are there. Its simply a contributor resource to give guidance on what is not acceptable. You are coming at this from a lawyers black & white perspective whilst iStock are trying to forestal any problems from any legal system anywhere in the world.

Interesting. The general entry on 'locations' here seems to make perfect sense:

Editorial: exterior shots are generally acceptable provided the structures featured within the shots abide by the editorial standards (i.e. copyrighted works). If access to a location is restricted or a fee is charged to visit the site, consent should be obtained prior to photographing this location. Additionally, interior shots of locations that are privately owned, where a fee is charged for entry, or access is controlled, would also require permission to be obtained.

But I don't understand how they can say the following for some buildings like Burg Eltz castle, unless it is physically impossible to take a photo of this place without standing on land owned by the owners of the castle!

Shots where the castle is the primary focus, as well as interior shots, would not be suitable as Royalty-Free

[Always hopeful]

been away in the North Yorkshire Moors... no rain, so can't complain - but no sun either EXCEPT for early one morning when I got up to take the dog out down the lane, and experienced the most glorious (cold) misty-morning sunrise with the moors as a backdrop.. rest of the week - murky grey - so no other photos but this one...


misty morning by revnev, on Flickr

Now that is a very good photograph.

[Montreal Wanderer]

been away in the North Yorkshire Moors... no rain, so can't complain - but no sun either EXCEPT for early one morning when I got up to take the dog out down the lane, and experienced the most glorious (cold) misty-morning sunrise with the moors as a backdrop.. rest of the week - murky grey - so no other photos but this one...


misty morning by revnev, on Flickr

Now that is a very good photograph.

Well, yes - it is the bish after all. Our efforts tend to pale beside his and Clapton's.

[seanworth]

Very nice shot indeed.

[TANGODANCER]

Nothing to touch mother nature for sheer splendour. Great shot and scenery. Lovely.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

But the stock library I am referring to is in Canada rather than the UK. I've spent the last 10 minutes trying to copy&paste the 'technical wiki' to give you an idea of what is verboten but it appears to be a contributor only resource.

Can you shed any more light on this one, Clapton?

And further to this, I just came across this thread on a microstock site I visit. Yuri Acurs, to put into context, is far and away the biggest contributor on iStock having sold well over 1 million images, probably earning above 5mil in the process. He also has his own company.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general- ... ur-advice/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This a separate issue entirely, but it is interesting.

In English law I am convinced that Yuri Acurs could tell the glasses manufacturer to go to hell. I wonder what the position is elsewhere.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

misty morning by revnev, on Flickr

Nice...
I find mist/fog pictures can be very deceptive, hard to capture anything but washed out whiteness or at the opposite 'where's the fog gone' disappointment; what looks good to the eye is not captured very well by the lens - of course that's using conventional film, with digital you can see what the results are and adjust accordingly. I really really must get myself a proper digital SLR.

[TANGODANCER]

Might be of interest to thebish, maybe others. Drag the handle across with your cursor to see the original and the new.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-a ... 04401.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Dujon]

Good stuff, TANGO. When I was an early to mid teenager I did a little bit of colouring of black and white images. My subjects were postcards (which at the time I collected) and were printed in a matt format - glossy prints were useless for the exercise. I used colour pencils as some kind soul had given me a decent set as a present. The exercise was enjoyable but not as easy as one might think. As an example: look at any colour photograph which includes trees and grass and then try and work out how many shades of green are visible. I still have many of the postcards but I'm not sure of the ones I desecrated in my attempts at bringing colour to them. Still, since those days, I have always tried to visualise old photographs as the photographer would have seen them.

[clapton is god]

Lovely set of photo's from the most exhilarating place to be in the Lake District. Photographer = Sean McMahon.

http://www.stridingedge.net/Walks/2013/ ... .02.13.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;