Where do we draw the line?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dudley Hanks, Apr 14, 2008.

  1. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Dudley Hanks, Apr 14, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dudley Hanks

    Rob Morley Guest

    In article <w4AMj.23120$KP5.20125@edtnps89>, Dudley Hanks
    says...
    > Crop lines, that is...
    >
    > http://www.geocities.com/hanks.dudley/Dima.html
    >

    I'd take it in pretty close - lose most of the top half and nearly a
    quarter off each end. In visual terms that's about a tail's width to
    the left of her paws, right of her tail and above her ears. In numbers
    on the 574 x 431 original that's 141,194 to 452,431
    Nice doggy.
    Rob Morley, Apr 14, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Rob Morley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <w4AMj.23120$KP5.20125@edtnps89>, Dudley Hanks
    > says...
    >> Crop lines, that is...
    >>
    >> http://www.geocities.com/hanks.dudley/Dima.html
    >>

    > I'd take it in pretty close - lose most of the top half and nearly a
    > quarter off each end. In visual terms that's about a tail's width to
    > the left of her paws, right of her tail and above her ears. In numbers
    > on the 574 x 431 original that's 141,194 to 452,431
    > Nice doggy.


    Thanks, Rob. I'll crop it like you suggested and post it as well. I'm
    hoping to get a few other suggestions and then ask for a vote on the various
    croppings.

    As for the pic itself, is there anything else that needs attention? Too
    busy? Bad pose? Other?

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Apr 14, 2008
    #3
  4. Dudley Hanks

    Rob Morley Guest

    In article <WFAMj.23693$KP5.4814@edtnps89>, Dudley Hanks
    says...

    > As for the pic itself, is there anything else that needs attention? Too
    > busy? Bad pose? Other?
    >

    Great pose. A couple of bits of conifer around her ears are catching
    the light and are a bit distracting, but could easily be darkened.
    Rob Morley, Apr 14, 2008
    #4
  5. Dudley Hanks

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Dudley Hanks <> wrote:
    >Crop lines, that is...
    >
    >http://www.geocities.com/hanks.dudley/Dima.html


    If you move the doggy away from the tree by a several feet then you
    can use a wide aperture to throw the tree out of focus and make it
    clear that the dog is the subject of the photo. I'd also get down
    lower to get rid of the ground.

    But YMMV.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Apr 14, 2008
    #5
  6. Dudley Hanks

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:21:00 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    <> wrote:

    >Crop lines, that is...
    >
    >http://www.geocities.com/hanks.dudley/Dima.html
    >


    Kinda depends on what you are trying to present. Are you presenting
    an image of Dima, or presenting a composition with Dima in the image?

    There's an interesting pyramid of the lighter fir (pun intended)
    behind Dima, but - in my opinion - it leads the eye away from the dog.
    It's like a big arrow directing the eye to go upwards.

    If your intent is present an image of Dima, then I'd crop it
    horizontally lose the trees. Put Dima's tags on a vertical line about
    a third of the way from the left of image.
    http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/dima.jpg

    Overall, your composition is too balanced for my taste. Static.


    --

    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Apr 14, 2008
    #6
  7. Dudley Hanks

    Paul Furman Guest

    tony cooper wrote:
    > On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:21:00 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Crop lines, that is...
    >>
    >> http://www.geocities.com/hanks.dudley/Dima.html
    >>

    >
    > Kinda depends on what you are trying to present. Are you presenting
    > an image of Dima, or presenting a composition with Dima in the image?
    >
    > There's an interesting pyramid of the lighter fir (pun intended)
    > behind Dima, but - in my opinion - it leads the eye away from the dog.
    > It's like a big arrow directing the eye to go upwards.
    >
    > If your intent is present an image of Dima, then I'd crop it
    > horizontally lose the trees. Put Dima's tags on a vertical line about
    > a third of the way from the left of image.
    > http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/dima.jpg


    Yep, I did something very similar. Still ample proportion of woods in
    the background. I cropped to remove all the white sky but it could work
    with some sky on one side. I also agree about cloning out the bright
    spots in the background near her ear.

    Fantastic shot of obviously a great friend.
    Paul Furman, Apr 14, 2008
    #7
  8. Dudley Hanks

    Alienjones Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Dudley Hanks wrote:
    | Crop lines, that is...
    |
    | http://www.geocities.com/hanks.dudley/Dima.html
    |
    | Thanks,
    | Dudley
    |
    |

    Shepard dogs are a compelling image alone, with no distractions. I think
    a very tight crop of the dog's face, ears and possibly chest with all
    (any) background left in a a focus zone so blurred that nothing is
    distinguishable.

    Portrait orientation and it would portray (as portraits are supposed to
    do) the object of attention and not the distraction of a background that
    can be recognized. If you use a flash pointed vertically with a
    "Specular highlight" card on it, you will also add some life to the
    dog's eyes, not normally available under daylight conditions.

    Some of my portraits may help reinforce my suggestions:
    http://www.douglasjames.com.au/portfolio/Portraits/

    Take note of the copyright covering my images if you intend to take any
    of them without asking first ...and simply don't!

    - --

    from Douglas,
    If my PGP key is missing, the
    post is a forgery. Ignore it.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

    iD8DBQFIAvYUhuxzk5D6V14RAu67AJ9StHnMWXZCvRrzMujwj0s6uPcpcACfRBNe
    jZWAbBcPrU/YDhW1qWZsuMA=
    =D9Wv
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Alienjones, Apr 14, 2008
    #8
  9. "Alienjones" <> wrote in message
    news:ftushp$tg$...
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > Dudley Hanks wrote:
    > | Crop lines, that is...
    > |
    > | http://www.geocities.com/hanks.dudley/Dima.html
    > |
    > | Thanks,
    > | Dudley
    > |
    > |
    >
    > Shepard dogs are a compelling image alone, with no distractions. I think
    > a very tight crop of the dog's face, ears and possibly chest with all
    > (any) background left in a a focus zone so blurred that nothing is
    > distinguishable.
    >
    > Portrait orientation and it would portray (as portraits are supposed to
    > do) the object of attention and not the distraction of a background that
    > can be recognized. If you use a flash pointed vertically with a
    > "Specular highlight" card on it, you will also add some life to the
    > dog's eyes, not normally available under daylight conditions.
    >
    > Some of my portraits may help reinforce my suggestions:
    > http://www.douglasjames.com.au/portfolio/Portraits/
    >
    > Take note of the copyright covering my images if you intend to take any
    > of them without asking first ...and simply don't!
    >
    > - --
    >
    > from Douglas,
    > If my PGP key is missing, the
    > post is a forgery. Ignore it.
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    > Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
    >
    > iD8DBQFIAvYUhuxzk5D6V14RAu67AJ9StHnMWXZCvRrzMujwj0s6uPcpcACfRBNe
    > jZWAbBcPrU/YDhW1qWZsuMA=
    > =D9Wv
    > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



    OK so I'm going out on a limb here and offering the "Master" some critique,
    and in all honesty not to be vindictive but just some observations and maybe
    Doug can tell us the reasoning behind these particular shots, I'm always
    willing to learn :)

    1638: why is the hair blown messily across the face, wouldn't it be better
    to be blowing behind the head?
    grouptree: only one person is actually looking at the camera in this shot,
    the rest look like they want to be somewhere else.
    lady1: shiny nose, shiny chin, shiny forehead.
    sports: neither subject is in focus.
    4546: shiny nose, shiny forehead, shiny cheek and hairstyle like she just
    got out of bed.

    don't get me wrong Doug some of them are quite nice portraits but I though a
    portrait was supposed to flatter the subject, not highlight the flaws.

    I await the inevitable tirade :)

    --
    "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
    Don Hirschberg
    Atheist Chaplain, Apr 14, 2008
    #9
  10. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Alienjones" <> wrote in message
    news:ftushp$tg$...
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > Dudley Hanks wrote:
    > | Crop lines, that is...
    > |
    > | http://www.geocities.com/hanks.dudley/Dima.html
    > |
    > | Thanks,
    > | Dudley
    > |
    > |
    >
    > Shepard dogs are a compelling image alone, with no distractions. I think
    > a very tight crop of the dog's face, ears and possibly chest with all
    > (any) background left in a a focus zone so blurred that nothing is
    > distinguishable.


    But, Dima isn't a typical shepherd; she is a guide dog, and she is dying of
    cancer. She has devoted her life to guiding me through a crazy world that
    cares little about the safety or convenience of blind persons, and she has
    done it gracefully, eagerly, and vivaciously. To capture her as a closely
    cropped shepehrd where her teeth would probably be the most noticeable
    characteristic, would convey the wrong image.

    Her doamain was the world, and she occupied a unique position halfway
    between the animal kingdom and the realm of human affairs. I want her
    picture to be a tribute, not just a portrait.

    >
    > Portrait orientation and it would portray (as portraits are supposed to
    > do) the object of attention and not the distraction of a background that
    > can be recognized. If you use a flash pointed vertically with a
    > "Specular highlight" card on it, you will also add some life to the
    > dog's eyes, not normally available under daylight conditions.
    >


    I used two flashes for this shot, perhaps the image reduction obviates the
    twinkle in her eye, but I'm sure it will be visible in the final print, if I
    decide to mount this one on my wall.

    > Some of my portraits may help reinforce my suggestions:
    > http://www.douglasjames.com.au/portfolio/Portraits/


    Unfortunately, I have enough trouble viewing my own images where I know what
    I've shot; viewing someone elses work, where I have no idea of what is in
    the frame, is all but impossible for me. But, thanks, anyway.

    >
    > Take note of the copyright covering my images if you intend to take any
    > of them without asking first ...and simply don't!


    Now, Douglas, is that really called for? Isn't the copyright notice on your
    site sufficient protection on its own?

    Besides, I don't at present derive any photographically generated income,
    and, if I did, only images I have shot myself would be worth anything,
    either to me or my customers. Moreover, given that I have only about 2%
    vision, wouldn't it be a bit obvious I've stolen someone else's work if I
    were to present a technically perfect photograph as part of my collection?

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Apr 14, 2008
    #10
  11. Dudley Hanks

    Pete D Guest

    "Atheist Chaplain" <> wrote in message
    news:WWCMj.1537$...
    > "Alienjones" <> wrote in message
    > news:ftushp$tg$...
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >> | Crop lines, that is...
    >> |
    >> | http://www.geocities.com/hanks.dudley/Dima.html
    >> |
    >> | Thanks,
    >> | Dudley
    >> |
    >> |
    >>
    >> Shepard dogs are a compelling image alone, with no distractions. I think
    >> a very tight crop of the dog's face, ears and possibly chest with all
    >> (any) background left in a a focus zone so blurred that nothing is
    >> distinguishable.
    >>
    >> Portrait orientation and it would portray (as portraits are supposed to
    >> do) the object of attention and not the distraction of a background that
    >> can be recognized. If you use a flash pointed vertically with a
    >> "Specular highlight" card on it, you will also add some life to the
    >> dog's eyes, not normally available under daylight conditions.
    >>
    >> Some of my portraits may help reinforce my suggestions:
    >> http://www.douglasjames.com.au/portfolio/Portraits/
    >>
    >> Take note of the copyright covering my images if you intend to take any
    >> of them without asking first ...and simply don't!
    >>
    >> - --
    >>
    >> from Douglas,
    >> If my PGP key is missing, the
    >> post is a forgery. Ignore it.
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
    >>
    >> iD8DBQFIAvYUhuxzk5D6V14RAu67AJ9StHnMWXZCvRrzMujwj0s6uPcpcACfRBNe
    >> jZWAbBcPrU/YDhW1qWZsuMA=
    >> =D9Wv
    >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    >
    >
    > OK so I'm going out on a limb here and offering the "Master" some
    > critique, and in all honesty not to be vindictive but just some
    > observations and maybe Doug can tell us the reasoning behind these
    > particular shots, I'm always willing to learn :)
    >
    > 1638: why is the hair blown messily across the face, wouldn't it be better
    > to be blowing behind the head?
    > grouptree: only one person is actually looking at the camera in this shot,
    > the rest look like they want to be somewhere else.
    > lady1: shiny nose, shiny chin, shiny forehead.
    > sports: neither subject is in focus.
    > 4546: shiny nose, shiny forehead, shiny cheek and hairstyle like she just
    > got out of bed.
    >
    > don't get me wrong Doug some of them are quite nice portraits but I though
    > a portrait was supposed to flatter the subject, not highlight the flaws.
    >
    > I await the inevitable tirade :)
    >
    > --
    > "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
    > Don Hirschberg


    ROFL, is he still trying to show those old images as his best work,
    hilarious but good for him.
    Pete D, Apr 14, 2008
    #11
  12. Dudley Hanks

    Guest

    On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:34:55 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "Dudley Hanks"
    <> wrote:

    >I want her
    >picture to be a tribute, not just a portrait.


    You might also consider a situation which triggers remembrance of your many
    times together.
    , Apr 14, 2008
    #12
  13. Dudley Hanks

    Alienjones Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Dudley Hanks wrote:

    |
    | Now, Douglas, is that really called for? Isn't the copyright notice
    on your
    | site sufficient protection on its own?
    |
    | Besides, I don't at present derive any photographically generated income,
    | and, if I did, only images I have shot myself would be worth anything,
    | either to me or my customers. Moreover, given that I have only about 2%
    | vision, wouldn't it be a bit obvious I've stolen someone else's work if I
    | were to present a technically perfect photograph as part of my collection?
    |
    | Take Care,
    | Dudley
    |
    |

    Apparently Dudley People like some of those who offered you advise have
    no regard for the copyright or other people. One such person is Paul
    Furman who pretended to offer you advise on composition of your picture.

    He took some of my images, without my permission, illegally altered them
    without my consent and attempted to discredit my findings of an example
    of two different cameras, with thousands of dollars price difference not
    producing all that different a quality image with the altered images.

    Despite legal action being commenced today against his host, he figured
    he'd leave the evidence in place with just the index image removed. So
    yes... Reminding people reading this thread that my images are copyright
    and that I will pursue my intellectual property rights in protecting
    myself against such idiots is very timely.

    I don't for a single moment suggest you are in the same gutter as he is.
    The warning was timely for the other idiots inhabiting these photo
    groups who think nothing is illegal on Usenet.
    - --

    from Douglas,
    If my PGP key is missing, the
    post is a forgery. Ignore it.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

    iD8DBQFIAzYdhuxzk5D6V14RAls4AKCTVwRxNpoxSHZCsMiPjQShYQp90ACdEnW+
    QB3qOE1ZKZpMS+tDJJTlzks=
    =81+5
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Alienjones, Apr 14, 2008
    #13
  14. Dudley Hanks

    Zot Guest

    Atheist Chaplain wrote,on my timestamp of 14/04/2008 4:35 PM:

    >
    > OK so I'm going out on a limb here and offering the "Master" some critique,
    > and in all honesty not to be vindictive but just some observations and maybe
    > Doug can tell us the reasoning behind these particular shots, I'm always
    > willing to learn :)
    >
    > 1638: why is the hair blown messily across the face, wouldn't it be better
    > to be blowing behind the head?
    > grouptree: only one person is actually looking at the camera in this shot,
    > the rest look like they want to be somewhere else.
    > lady1: shiny nose, shiny chin, shiny forehead.
    > sports: neither subject is in focus.
    > 4546: shiny nose, shiny forehead, shiny cheek and hairstyle like she just
    > got out of bed.
    >
    > don't get me wrong Doug some of them are quite nice portraits but I though a
    > portrait was supposed to flatter the subject, not highlight the flaws.
    >
    > I await the inevitable tirade :)
    >



    Fair comments. But let me say
    over the years I've seen much worse
    from so-called "wedding photographers".
    A *lot* worse...

    What baffles me is what the heck
    is that sports photo doing in
    a Portraits section...
    Perhaps Doug would be able to move
    it somewhere else? It ain't make
    sense, if you pardon the weird
    'nglish.

    As for it being out of focus,
    I think the front subject is just
    blurred by movement: not a problem in a
    sports photo. Not *all* subjects in
    *all* photos need to be pinsharp in
    order for a photo to convey a feeling.

    In fact when it comes to sports, I'd
    rather see something that suggests movement.

    Dunno if you agree with that or not,
    just my $0.02.
    Zot, Apr 14, 2008
    #14
  15. "Zot" <> wrote in message
    news:ftvkde$hge$...
    > Atheist Chaplain wrote,on my timestamp of 14/04/2008 4:35 PM:
    >
    >>
    >> OK so I'm going out on a limb here and offering the "Master" some
    >> critique, and in all honesty not to be vindictive but just some
    >> observations and maybe Doug can tell us the reasoning behind these
    >> particular shots, I'm always willing to learn :)
    >>
    >> 1638: why is the hair blown messily across the face, wouldn't it be
    >> better to be blowing behind the head?
    >> grouptree: only one person is actually looking at the camera in this
    >> shot, the rest look like they want to be somewhere else.
    >> lady1: shiny nose, shiny chin, shiny forehead.
    >> sports: neither subject is in focus.
    >> 4546: shiny nose, shiny forehead, shiny cheek and hairstyle like she just
    >> got out of bed.
    >>
    >> don't get me wrong Doug some of them are quite nice portraits but I
    >> though a portrait was supposed to flatter the subject, not highlight the
    >> flaws.
    >>
    >> I await the inevitable tirade :)
    >>

    >
    >
    > Fair comments. But let me say
    > over the years I've seen much worse
    > from so-called "wedding photographers".
    > A *lot* worse...
    >
    > What baffles me is what the heck
    > is that sports photo doing in
    > a Portraits section...
    > Perhaps Doug would be able to move
    > it somewhere else? It ain't make
    > sense, if you pardon the weird
    > 'nglish.
    >
    > As for it being out of focus,
    > I think the front subject is just
    > blurred by movement: not a problem in a
    > sports photo. Not *all* subjects in
    > *all* photos need to be pinsharp in
    > order for a photo to convey a feeling.
    >
    > In fact when it comes to sports, I'd
    > rather see something that suggests movement.
    >
    > Dunno if you agree with that or not,
    > just my $0.02.


    you might be right about the movement blur, but when you look at *good*
    sports photography the subject can be doing 40 knots on skis behind a boat
    and still be pin sharp, and the scene conveys the sense of motion very well.
    one would expect a photographer of Doug's self proclaimed reputation and
    stature to at least get something a elemental as focus and composition
    correct :)
    having said that, Doug is a wedding photographer after all :)
    --
    God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?
    Atheist Chaplain, Apr 14, 2008
    #15
  16. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Alienjones" <> wrote in message
    news:ftvci1$ld8$...
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >
    > |
    > | Now, Douglas, is that really called for? Isn't the copyright notice
    > on your
    > | site sufficient protection on its own?
    > |
    > | Besides, I don't at present derive any photographically generated
    > income,
    > | and, if I did, only images I have shot myself would be worth anything,
    > | either to me or my customers. Moreover, given that I have only about 2%
    > | vision, wouldn't it be a bit obvious I've stolen someone else's work if
    > I
    > | were to present a technically perfect photograph as part of my
    > collection?
    > |
    > | Take Care,
    > | Dudley
    > |
    > |
    >
    > Apparently Dudley People like some of those who offered you advise have
    > no regard for the copyright or other people. One such person is Paul
    > Furman who pretended to offer you advise on composition of your picture.
    >
    > He took some of my images, without my permission, illegally altered them
    > without my consent and attempted to discredit my findings of an example
    > of two different cameras, with thousands of dollars price difference not
    > producing all that different a quality image with the altered images.
    >
    > Despite legal action being commenced today against his host, he figured
    > he'd leave the evidence in place with just the index image removed. So
    > yes... Reminding people reading this thread that my images are copyright
    > and that I will pursue my intellectual property rights in protecting
    > myself against such idiots is very timely.
    >
    > I don't for a single moment suggest you are in the same gutter as he is.
    > The warning was timely for the other idiots inhabiting these photo
    > groups who think nothing is illegal on Usenet.
    > - --
    >
    > from Douglas,
    > If my PGP key is missing, the
    > post is a forgery. Ignore it.
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    > Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
    >
    > iD8DBQFIAzYdhuxzk5D6V14RAls4AKCTVwRxNpoxSHZCsMiPjQShYQp90ACdEnW+
    > QB3qOE1ZKZpMS+tDJJTlzks=
    > =81+5
    > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


    Well, Douglas, I'm not sure how many times you "have commenced legal action
    today" against Paul, but I'm getting a bit tired of hearing that phrase.

    I've followed that thread, and I'm rather disappointed you are trying to use
    my thread to dredge it up again.

    If you decide to post articles expressing your views / opinions / findings
    on the internet, then you might want to be aware that not everyone will
    agree with you. Some people might even want to disprove your findings if
    they hold alternative opinions. It's the way the world works.

    If you wish to launch legal action against Paul and spend hundreds of
    thousands of dollars to soothe your ego, fine, it's up to you. But, be a
    man about it and leave it up to your lawyers.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Apr 14, 2008
    #16
  17. Dudley Hanks

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:47:09 -0700, "Frank ess" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >
    >Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >> "Alienjones" <> wrote in message
    >> news:ftushp$tg$...
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
    >>>> Crop lines, that is...
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.geocities.com/hanks.dudley/Dima.html
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks,
    >>>> Dudley
    >>>>

    >
    >[ ... ]
    >
    >My quick selections are at:
    >http://www.fototime.com/inv/E680732CA59D9AD
    >
    >The portrait-style seems nice, but trite; the "Tribute" includes some
    >background that may be distracting to some; the only thing that really
    >bothered me was the dark object behind the dog's right ear. I did a
    >little non-meticulous cloning there; a better, more fastidious
    >craftsman might make it even better.
    >
    >I didn't mind the tree pointing up and away from the dog. I see it as
    >a not-so-subtle metaphor, something of a consoling apparition
    >regarding the dog's and your circumstances.


    This observation is why I posted my earlier comment about what Dudley
    is trying to do; provide an image of his dog, or provide a composition
    that includes an image of the dog. If you view it from the
    "composition that includes an image of the dog", then the symbolic
    arrow - formed by the trees - pointing to the heavens over a dog that
    is terminally ill becomes a vital part of the composition. If it's
    intended as an image of his dog, then I feel the trees become a
    distraction.


    --

    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Apr 14, 2008
    #17
  18. Dudley Hanks

    Alienjones Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Cynicor wrote:
    | Alienjones wrote:
    |> Apparently Dudley People like some of those who offered you advise have
    |> no regard for the copyright or other people. One such person is Paul
    |> Furman who pretended to offer you advise on composition of your picture.
    |>
    |> He took some of my images, without my permission, illegally altered them
    |> without my consent and attempted to discredit my findings of an example
    |> of two different cameras, with thousands of dollars price difference not
    |> producing all that different a quality image with the altered images.
    |
    | Which law states that he can't take your image, alter it, and redisplay
    | it for non-commercial purposes?


    The DMC Act specifically forbids use of a person's Intellectual Property
    in another person's copyright work... It's called Plagiarism. Paul
    Furman used my images in a web page he clearly copyrighted in his own
    name with no reference or courtesy note as to where he got the images
    from. That is illegal.

    I also have copyright protection from people who would use my copyright
    work in a way that may insult, harass or defame me. Paul Furman sought
    to take my images, alter them in a way that made my opinion and findings
    ~ *seem* to be wrong and sought to discredit me with them. That is illegal.

    Fair use of copyright material specifically excluded the uses Paul
    Furman put my images to.

    - --

    from Douglas,
    If my PGP key is missing, the
    post is a forgery. Ignore it.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

    iD8DBQFIA8Dlhuxzk5D6V14RAkEwAJ9RA/WYFXsdOlAz0xH9jbv2MjPxYQCgnzuj
    kodhnURnX/jeYSebDPulS84=
    =SkpT
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Alienjones, Apr 14, 2008
    #18
  19. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    >>> Apparently Dudley People like some of those who offered you advise have
    >>> no regard for the copyright or other people. One such person is Paul
    >>> Furman who pretended to offer you advise on


    Just curious, but, how does someone "pretend" to offer advice? Either one
    offers it or one doesn't. It can be good advice, or it can be bad advice.
    The recipient can choose to accept or reject the advice. But it escapes me
    how one can "pretend" to offer it.

    As for Paul's advice, he really did offer me some advice. I can vouch for
    that. It was both accepted and found to be sound. In fact, I tend to view
    Paul as one of the more knowledgeable photographers I've met, and I will be
    glad to listen to him anytime -- especially when he chooses to spend a
    portion of his valuable time on matters which are more important to me than
    to himself.

    composition of your picture.
    >>> He took some of my images, without my permission,
    >>> illegally altered them
    >>> without my consent and attempted to discredit my findings of an example
    >>> of two different cameras, with thousands of dollars price difference not
    >>> producing all that different a quality image with the altered images.

    >>
    >>Which law states that he can't take your image, alter it, and redisplay
    >>it for non-commercial purposes?

    >
    > Copyright law does not require it be for non-commercial
    > purposes.
    >
    > However, for editorial or critical review purposes
    > (commercial or otherwise), the law in the US includes
    > "Fair Use" provisions.
    >
    > Paul Furman's use of the images appears to be very
    > staunchly within the limits of Fair Use under US law.
    >
    > --

    By the way, Douglas, have you checked your National Copyright Legislation?

    Apparently, it contains provisions for "Fair Dealings," provisions which are
    very similar to the "Fair Use" provisions contained in US copyright
    legislation. It seems that the Australian government thinks that, when
    material is used for "review or criticism," "research or study" or "news
    reporting" it should be exempt from normal copyright provisions.


    If you don't believe me, check:

    INFORMATION SHEET G079v04, last revised January 2007

    You can find it at:
    http://www.copyright.org.au


    But, in order to be as helpful as possible, I tracked down a couple of
    quotes you might be interested in reading:


    The "fair dealing" exceptions to infringement
    A person can make a "fair dealing" with copyright material for any of the
    following
    purposes:
    ..
    research or study;
    ..
    criticism or review;
    ..
    parody or satire;
    ..
    reporting news; or
    ..
    professional advice by a lawyer, patent attorney or trade marks attorney.
    I'm sure a good lawyer could make a case for Paul's use of the material in
    each of the above instances, with the exception of the last area.


    Next quote:

    In general, a person or organisation can only rely on a fair dealing defence
    for
    his, her or its own use of copyright
    material. For example, it would not be regarded as a fair dealing for
    criticism or
    review to reproduce a collection of
    photographs and invite other people to critique the photographs. Rather, the
    person
    making the reproduction must
    themselves be making the criticism or review.

    Once again, it appears that Paul's use of the material meets the criteria
    which your own government has set forth.


    If you really have started legal action against Paul, you might want to hire
    a separate lawyer to ascertain whether your other lawyer is taking you to
    the proverbial cleaners by prosecuting a case destined to fail.

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Apr 14, 2008
    #19
  20. Dudley Hanks

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "Alienjones" <> wrote in message
    news:fu0f8b$ep5$...
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > Cynicor wrote:
    > | Alienjones wrote:
    > |> Apparently Dudley People like some of those who offered you advise have
    > |> no regard for the copyright or other people. One such person is Paul
    > |> Furman who pretended to offer you advise on composition of your
    > picture.
    > |>
    > |> He took some of my images, without my permission, illegally altered
    > them
    > |> without my consent and attempted to discredit my findings of an example
    > |> of two different cameras, with thousands of dollars price difference
    > not
    > |> producing all that different a quality image with the altered images.
    > |
    > | Which law states that he can't take your image, alter it, and redisplay
    > | it for non-commercial purposes?
    >
    >
    > The DMC Act specifically forbids use of a person's Intellectual Property
    > in another person's copyright work... It's called Plagiarism. Paul
    > Furman used my images in a web page he clearly copyrighted in his own
    > name with no reference or courtesy note as to where he got the images
    > from. That is illegal.


    Perhaps, he was trying to spare you the embarrassment of having your work
    proven inaccurate?

    >
    > I also have copyright protection from people who would use my copyright
    > work in a way that may insult, harass or defame me.


    How did he insult or defame you if he didn't publicly give you credit for
    the material? You can't really have it both ways...

    Paul Furman sought
    > to take my images, alter them in a way that made my opinion and findings
    > ~ *seem* to be wrong and sought to discredit me with them. That is
    > illegal.


    It seems to me that he was just trying to prove that there really is a
    substantial difference between cheap poin-and-shoot cameras and more
    expensive DSLRs. If you find his opinion inaccurate, why don't you refute
    his refutation? That is what usually occurs in the academic world when
    contentious issues are batted back-and-forth.

    >
    > Fair use of copyright material specifically excluded the uses Paul
    > Furman put my images to.


    No it doesn't, see my last post...

    Take Care,
    Dudley
    Dudley Hanks, Apr 14, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. mapmaker

    Can't draw new maps

    mapmaker, Oct 22, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    375
    Leonidas Jones
    Oct 22, 2004
  2. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    587
  3. J

    Corel Draw 11 & Windows XP

    J, Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,266
  4. Trent C

    COREL DRAW pdf PRINTING problem

    Trent C, Feb 18, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,526
    Bebop & Rocksteady
    Feb 18, 2004
  5. Unclaimed Mysteries

    Where do you draw the line?

    Unclaimed Mysteries, May 23, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    53
    Views:
    1,010
    David Dyer-Bennet
    May 25, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page