The VALUE of photography... please learn about it before you make a mistake

[Russ43Phantom]

When using digital cameras today, you can get the best dynamic range (about 12 stops) when you set your camera to capture a reduced level of contrast (this is possible with the Phantom drones). This is very important with drones when the dynamic range of many captures is very high. Then, in post processing, you bring up the contrast and dynamic range as needed (you don't normally even need HDR). Using this technique, you always need to do some adjustment. To get the full range of tones in clouds also takes an adjustment. To be clear, when adjustments are done correctly you bring out what you actually see (slightly more saturation or contrast than the camera can catch and a corrected color balance). There should not be any evidence that processing was done. Over saturation, over contrast, over vignetting should be avoided. If you check out www.schundlerphoto.com you will not be aware of any post processing. The images are all processed to bring them back to what humans see.

 

[jason]

When using digital cameras today, you can get the best dynamic range (about 12 stops) when you set your camera to capture a reduced level of contrast (this is possible with the Phantom drones). This is very important with drones when the dynamic range of many captures is very high. Then, in post processing, you bring up the contrast and dynamic range as needed (you don't normally even need HDR). Using this technique, you always need to do some adjustment. To get the full range of tones in clouds also takes an adjustment. To be clear, when adjustments are done correctly you bring out what you actually see (slightly more saturation or contrast than the camera can catch and a corrected color balance). There should not be any evidence that processing was done. Over saturation, over contrast, over vignetting should be avoided. If you check out www.schundlerphoto.com you will not be aware of any post processing. The images are all processed to bring them back to what humans see.

Now tell me this photo wasn't over saturated. When is the last time you have seen the reflection of green clouds in the water. It all depends on what the artist is trying to convey or where he/she is trying to direct ones attention to.

 

[Helihover]

Good thread.

Editing is surely changing or following fads. My daughter, 17, is into photography which I think is awesome. She borrows my Nikon and we sometimes edit together. Just the other day I heard her over talking about this pic (she shoots for a local clothes retailer), I had glanced at her cell phone and seen a nasty B&W, but she was explaining to mom how she added grain. Yes added grain. Something we strive to eliminate in certain cases, she was adding.

One of the coolest UAV shots I have is super over edited, but is in one the most liked post on this forum, so go figure.

Photography is awesome!

 

[Russ43Phantom]

Now tell me this photo wasn't over saturated. When is the last time you have seen the reflection of green clouds in the water. It all depends on what the artist is trying to convey or where he/she is trying to direct ones attention to.

Those are not clouds ... that's the mud washing up from the bottom when the boat went into full reverse to stop. Also, when I give an image to a puzzle company, I give the rights to the puzzle company to process the image file in any way they would like to meet their needs for the puzzle and the puzzle box. This is a photo of the puzzle box. I believe the higher saturation gets more shopper attention ... you'll have to ask the puzzle company. I also believe that those who work with the puzzles like more saturation to help identify pieces ... again, you'll have to ask the puzzle company. Isn't it great to be able to have such flexibility!

 

[ems12a]

Then i guess you wouldn't like this long exposure either.

View attachment 79647

Nothing was added to this photthatatalkinga

Then i guess you wouldn't like this long exposure either.

View attachment 79647

Nothing was added to this photo. It's a natural long exposure shot. Looks awesome.

My personal issue is manipulating a photo by adding details, subjects, objects, your camera sensor did not capture. The subtle manipulation of a photo to correct exposure color and saturation is fine. All your doing is bringing out what the camera captured.

Again this is a personal opinion but I know a lot of photo contests are disqualifying photo's for being photoshoped.

 

[Russ43Phantom]

That's a bunch of rubbish lol.

If I take a photo of a lighthouse with a plain blue sky and add dramatic clouds I have changed what I have captured. If all I have to do is go to the beach at night and take a shot of the horizon and add a blazing sunset then I have not taken that picture that I present. If I go and take a photo of the moon and I don't like its size then I try again. Adding a moon from "stock" is just lazy! LOL

It's one thing to touch up a photo with lightroom, exposure, shadows and saturation, it's another to completely add things that you did not photograph.

I'm sorry that is not artistic that's CHEATING.

Are painters cheating when they create their own interpretation of a scene? Was Picasso cheating when he pushed his own style?

Nothing was added to this photthatatalkinga


Nothing was added to this photo. It's a natural long exposure shot. Looks awesome.

My personal issue is manipulating a photo by adding details, subjects, objects, your camera sensor did not capture. The subtle manipulation of a photo to correct exposure color and saturation is fine. All your doing is bringing out what the camera captured.

Again this is a personal opinion but I know a lot of photo contests are disqualifying photo's for being photoshoped.

I like your shots. Using a time exposure to show movement was a nice effect. I love doing this myself or sometimes I like to use time-lapse video to show the movement.

Everyone interprets adjustments with personal tastes. The only change I'd make to your images is to use the shadow slider to recover a tiny bit of detail in the blacken areas. I am not saying one way is right or wrong. I do love modern photographic tools which allow all of us to express ourselves personally.

Below is an image (which is LESS saturated when printed) which had the following issues when taken.

1. The cliff below the lighthouse was all black. The shadow slider recovered some of the detail.
2. The moon was about 30 degrees to the left ... out of the frame. My personal opinion was that cutting, pasting and adjusting the color of the moon added to the image.
3. The lighthouse itself was very dark as it was on the shady side of the moonlight. I felt it needed to be lighter ... in the print, it is less light (white) then in this screen image.
4. I felt adding a little saturation enabled more differentiation among the foreground rocks. Again, the print shows slightly less saturation, but more saturation that the raw image.

To get better color and dynamic range, I set the camera for low contrast and low saturation. Then it can be recovered in post processing.

The main concept, though, is that modern photography gives each photographer tools to create and express how they saw the scene or to make scenes nearly from scratch like a painter.
The camera, Lightroom and Photoshop are my paint brushes.

Using planning tools to forecast when the moon would be in the exact perfect position did not find a perfect time ... so I started with a plan to capture as close as I could to what I wanted. Then planned on making the appropriate changes to get my result. I'm not a reporter, or a scientist, but rather a graphic artist who likes to use photography and often, today, drone photography.

I enjoy seeing others express themselves even when they see things differently. Again, thanks for sharing your "moving cloud" shots. Very nice!

 

[Jim Roof]

> I say that inanimate objects do not have rights.

Any "object" that can be copyrighted or trademarked
has legal protection, copying it aka photo in which it is
the only element = infringement = illegal = lawsuit...
There's also invasion of privacy = the act of photographing
any "object" for which there is an expectation of privacy, e.g.,
aiming your zoom lens at someone holding their prescription
bottle with label inadvertently showing...
(doesn't require publishing photo, just taking such a photo
= reason to be arrested immediately)
More obvious example = photos in public rest room;
Hence, aerially photographing a specific private back yard
can get one arrested just for act of taking such a photo...
Whereas, IMO, photographing a cluster of many backyards
in which no single backyard is primarily featured, is NOT
invasion of privacy...?

A photograph of an object is NOT a copy of that object... unless the photograph is of another photograph OR a piece of flat art.

Copyright law clearly states that, while architecture can be copyrighted, any building can be photographed from a public space and the photographer will not be guilty of anything whatsoever. Now, there are a handful of buildings that the owners claim have TRADEMARK status. That is a dubious claim, but no photographer wants to go up against the fine people at TransAmerica in a court of law. Same for the Chrysler Building, Empire State Building, Flatiron Building and a few others.

With that in mind (and tongue in cheek), one might want to make sure their photos of a blue whale breaching does not look too much like the Pacific Life logo.

As for privacy laws... how can an 'object' have an expectation of ANYTHING, let alone privacy? Privacy laws apply to people. We have privacy rights where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. My car and house do not. Someone may photograph my house all day long and as long as they do it from a public thoroughfare they are completely within their rights. Google knows this. And, they can take a photo of my car if it is not in the garage. They will blur out the tag because that could reveal something about me that I might want to keep private.

The most important thing that I am saying is that it is a mistake to think that a photograph of something is a COPY of it. IF that is the case, then I am going to more car shows and start my own collection for the price of a memory card.

 

[jason]

Are painters cheating when they create their own interpretation of a scene? Was Picasso cheating when he pushed his own style?


I like your shots. Using a time exposure to show movement was a nice effect. I love doing this myself or sometimes I like to use time-lapse video to show the movement.

Everyone interprets adjustments with personal tastes. The only change I'd make to your images is to use the shadow slider to recover a tiny bit of detail in the blacken areas. I am not saying one way is right or wrong. I do love modern photographic tools which allow all of us to express ourselves personally.

Below is an image (which is LESS saturated when printed) which had the following issues when taken.

1. The cliff below the lighthouse was all black. The shadow slider recovered some of the detail.
2. The moon was about 30 degrees to the left ... out of the frame. My personal opinion was that cutting, pasting and adjusting the color of the moon added to the image.
3. The lighthouse itself was very dark as it was on the shady side of the moonlight. I felt it needed to be lighter ... in the print, it is less light (white) then in this screen image.
4. I felt adding a little saturation enabled more differentiation among the foreground rocks. Again, the print shows slightly less saturation, but more saturation that the raw image.

To get better color and dynamic range, I set the camera for low contrast and low saturation. Then it can be recovered in post processing.

The main concept, though, is that modern photography gives each photographer tools to create and express how they saw the scene or to make scenes nearly from scratch like a painter.
The camera, Lightroom and Photoshop are my paint brushes.

Using planning tools to forecast when the moon would be in the exact perfect position did not find a perfect time ... so I started with a plan to capture as close as I could to what I wanted. Then planned on making the appropriate changes to get my result. I'm not a reporter, or a scientist, but rather a graphic artist who likes to use photography and often, today, drone photography.

I enjoy seeing others express themselves even when they see things differently. Again, thanks for sharing your "moving cloud" shots. Very nice!

View attachment 79656

Your photo of the moon rising was well composed.

This is the original test shot before doing a long exposure for 6 minutes. Editing was done in lightroom, photoshop and camera raw.

 

[jason]

Nothing was added to this photthatatalkinga


Nothing was added to this photo. It's a natural long exposure shot. Looks awesome.

My personal issue is manipulating a photo by adding details, subjects, objects, your camera sensor did not capture. The subtle manipulation of a photo to correct exposure color and saturation is fine. All your doing is bringing out what the camera captured.

Again this is a personal opinion but I know a lot of photo contests are disqualifying photo's for being photoshoped.

Doing composites can be allot of fun to do. Doing long exposure panoramic photo then turning it into video. There countless thing that can be done with photos and there is money in it but not as much as shooting video stockfootage and letting the right agency handle your portfolio. When i say the right agency i mean one that lets the contributor set his/her prices for their work and split the sales 50/50.

 

[jason]

A photograph of an object is NOT a copy of that object... unless the photograph is of another photograph OR a piece of flat art.

Copyright law clearly states that, while architecture can be copyrighted, any building can be photographed from a public space and the photographer will not be guilty of anything whatsoever. Now, there are a handful of buildings that the owners claim have TRADEMARK status. That is a dubious claim, but no photographer wants to go up against the fine people at TransAmerica in a court of law. Same for the Chrysler Building, Empire State Building, Flatiron Building and a few others.

With that in mind (and tongue in cheek), one might want to make sure their photos of a blue whale breaching does not look too much like the Pacific Life logo.

As for privacy laws... how can an 'object' have an expectation of ANYTHING, let alone privacy? Privacy laws apply to people. We have privacy rights where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. My car and house do not. Someone may photograph my house all day long and as long as they do it from a public thoroughfare they are completely within their rights. Google knows this. And, they can take a photo of my car if it is not in the garage. They will blur out the tag because that could reveal something about me that I might want to keep private.

The most important thing that I am saying is that it is a mistake to think that a photograph of something is a COPY of it. IF that is the case, then I am going to more car shows and start my own collection for the price of a memory card.

That can be a catch 22. Google lost a lawsuit when sued by a woman on her front porch as the Google car rolled down the street taking photos for Google Earth. Guess it all depends on how the law views it. Some of my best selling footage are of sidewalk cafes shot at night.

 

[Jim Roof]

That can be a catch 22. Google lost a lawsuit when sued by a woman on her front porch as the Google car rolled down the street taking photos for Google Earth. Guess it all depends on how the law views it. Some of my best selling footage are of sidewalk cafes shot at night.

There was a case that Google lost, but I believe it was because the image was taken from a private drive. Not sure if that is the one you are referencing. As I understand the law, NOBODY has a reasonable expectation of privacy when they sit on their front porch that is visible from a public road.

 

[elsenor]

There was a case that Google lost, but I believe it was because the image was taken from a private drive. Not sure if that is the one you are referencing. As I understand the law, NOBODY has a reasonable expectation of privacy when they sit on their front porch that is visible from a public road.

Without complicating the facts or changing anything, that is correct (lawyer here).
And as a side note, I've had some interesting (enlightening?) conversations with people about drones and me flying, photographing, and filming in public areas, particularly when they reference permissions and a right to privacy. Maybe most people are ignorant to it, but you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places (or "right to privacy"). What I sometimes want to say is, "If i were really wanting to capture you in a photo or video, I'd bring my 70-200 (or bigger) and you'd never even see me!" But I'm trying to simmer the pot, not stir it

 

[mikemal]

I agree 100% with the residential real estate market. There was NEVER anything there for me and others like me. Never.

There will always be those that try the DIY route. And they rarely get the results from their marketing that they hope for. For more investigative or documentary assignments then just buy a camera and learn how to use it. But if you are looking for something that stands out among the crowd, that will be an exercise in futility at best and potentially resulting in photos that do more harm than good.

Here is my web site - www.jimroofcreative.net

Anyone who really wants to can do what I do. That's the way I feel. But it amazes me at how few seem to motivated to make that happen.

Your work is brilliant, Jim. Maybe you could go into teaching?

 

[Stew-2]

Then i guess you wouldn't like this long exposure either.

View attachment 79647

Actually that is a great image!

Are painters cheating when they create their own interpretation of a scene? Was Picasso cheating when he pushed his own style?

The main concept, though, is that modern photography gives each photographer tools to create and express how they saw the scene or to make scenes nearly from scratch like a painter.
The camera, Lightroom and Photoshop are my paint brushes.

Russ43Phantom's post made it a little more clear what I was trying to say earlier... In my mind photographs that are manipulated beyond a certain point become art. A photograph (in my mind) is simply a captured image, if your spending more than a few minutes adjusting brightness or cropping then you are creating art. To restate that another way, if you spend hours in post on a photo, I would look at your work as art, not as a photograph, and likewise consider you an artist not a photographer.

Below is an extreme example of a photo that I would look at and appreciate as art and think you had great photoshop skills, but if someone said "Look at the great picture I took!" I would think to myself geez, how much of that is even still the original photo? It looks like a painting or drawing. I apologize for getting the thread off course on this tangent.

Image credit: HDR | Educating Photographers, One Pixel at a Time™

 

[jason]

There was a case that Google lost, but I believe it was because the image was taken from a private drive. Not sure if that is the one you are referencing. As I understand the law, NOBODY has a reasonable expectation of privacy when they sit on their front porch that is visible from a public road.

The Google Earth law suit was back in Oct,31,2014 in Montreal, Canada and was over what they didn't blur out. Here is the article:
Montreal Woman Wins Google Suit Over Her Breast's Appearance On Street View
I fully agree with you that nobody has a reasonable expectation to privacy in public in fact i carry an article on photographers rights when out shooting.

 

[John Decker]

Jim, I went to your website. You have little to worry about. If someone wants a Lamborghini they're not going to be happy with a VW beetle. If they want a car, they'll take either. You, sir, sell Lamborghinis.

 

[skellyrocker]

Getting back to the original point. I can't see how anyone would feel good about getting paid $20 for some shots. In the UK you have £130 in CAA fees per year plus about £500 in insurance. Take into account that you don't just rock up and start flying, but have to do a pre-deployment survey and check, a site survey and risk assessment, issue NOTAMs (unlikely) before you even start your pre-flight checks. Then there is post processing, flight and maintenance log administration, invoicing etc. All this takes time and costs money. I reckon I could fit in 4-6 flights a day (depending on distance) so that would be $120 a day! Is that a business? I don't think so!

 

[Fruxen]

Well it's certainly something to think about, interesting topic on the matter of practically giving away your photos for free. There are a lot of good and valid points.

On the other hand, one could argue that the same thing could be said about the worktime as "customer support" given on this forum, and other forums. People invest hours and hours making tutorials, analysing images and data, and helping each other for absolutely free. But the people actually working on DJI customer support for a living naturally expect to be paid for doing exactly same thing, answering the same questions etc.

In a way I have a full time dayjob, then have a part time job as an consultant based on years of experience on a very wide range of topics. Some of my advice, a least the occational deep knowledge ones on (non-drone) topics ,is borderline professional and could not be answered by just anyone. Could be considered to have a value. Now if I could give that advice away AND get enough money to buy a pizza, I would be happy. On my workplace, I would be offended. I'm not giving any answers here to OP or anyone, it's interesting to think about...

 

[Jim Roof]

The Google Earth law suit was back in Oct,31,2014 in Montreal, Canada and was over what they didn't blur out. Here is the article:
Montreal Woman Wins Google Suit Over Her Breast's Appearance On Street View
I fully agree with you that nobody has a reasonable expectation to privacy in public in fact i carry an article on photographers rights when out shooting.

Well, that does change things.

1. It was settled in a Canadian court
2. It was not her face that was the problem, but the fact that she was unknowingly (I assume) exposing a breast
3. And her settlement was for a tad over 2 thousand dollars, from a small claims case

Not exactly the kind of things that shifted the tectonic plates of legal precedent.

 

[Jim Roof]

Without complicating the facts or changing anything, that is correct (lawyer here).
And as a side note, I've had some interesting (enlightening?) conversations with people about drones and me flying, photographing, and filming in public areas, particularly when they reference permissions and a right to privacy. Maybe most people are ignorant to it, but you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places (or "right to privacy"). What I sometimes want to say is, "If i were really wanting to capture you in a photo or video, I'd bring my 70-200 (or bigger) and you'd never even see me!" But I'm trying to simmer the pot, not stir it

This is a true story...

In 2002 I was contracted to photograph an office building near a cluster of government buildings in DeKalb County, GA. The building I was shooting was the Juvenile Justice Building. I was not shooting digital at the time, so I got out my 20 pound tripod and assembled a Sinar F2 4x5 camera, attached my Schneider 75mm Super Angulon, composed the shot, then a cloud covered the sun.

I sat in the parking lot of that building on that Sunday afternoon for at least 90 minutes waiting for the light to return. As I waited, a police car came zooming into the lot and the office started to pepper me with question after question. He told me "You might be gathering information for a terrorist attack".

Biting just a small part of my tongue, I offered "You know, if I was a terrorist trying to get information about this building I would not be doing it on a day when I am the only human with 100 yards of the building. I also would not be using 35 pounds of camera and tripod. And, I would not have waited an hour and a half for the light to be right for the shot."

Just how long a hike have people's critical thinking skills taken?