Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: Enda Cavanagh on June 27, 2012, 11:14:07 am
-
Hi everyone
Here is an image I took at Ballintoy Port in County Antrim, Northern Ireland. Ballintoy is situated in one of the most picturesque parts of North Antrim between the Giants Causeway and Carrick-a-Rede rope bridge and looks out to Rathlin Island and beyond to Scotland. The light was beautiful that evening and I managed to get several images I was happy with.
I captured the image using my H3D 39 back on my digitar wide DS with a 35mm xl Schneider and a 3 stop ND to slow things down.
(http://www.endacavanagh.com/Enda's%20Images/Images%20for%20Luminous%20Landscape/Stone%20arch,%20Ballintoy%20Port%20at%20sunset%201.jpg)
You can view it in a larger size on my website by clicking here (http://www.endacavanagh.com/landscapes/ballintoy_port_antrim_northern_ireland)
You should click "View larger Image" above the top left of the image to see it in a nice big size for those of you with 24" monitors or bigger.
-
Always glad to see your images Enda, but this doesn't fit on my laptop screen. Any chance of a smaller version? With a smaller watermark? Scott
-
Hi Scott. Just for you I reduced the size of the image :)
The watermark has to stay. I even found one cheeky bugger last week in the States who was selling one of my images!! There was even an option to download a high res version. He had swiped it from my website at 750 pixels wide....with a watermark on it. He reduced it down to about 400 pixels wide, removed the watermark sufficiently that you couldn't really see it and put it on his site!!!
Content aware beware. By the way to all photographers, Google has a fantastic tool now. Forget about software and exif data to tack your images. Now all you have to do is upload a photo. Doesn't matter about image size, title, exif data, whatever. It actually recognizes the features in the image and finds any copy of it that it can. I found a ton of images on different sites which were used without my permission. It can'f find them if they are flickr, Facebook or if they are in flash but still it's a great tool.
One photographer was joking with me about my image. He shoots amongst others fine art nude images. I screen grabbed an image from his site. I uploaded and did a google image search and found it on an escort agency website in Australia. Once I told him his photo was used to promote prostitution, that shut him up ;D
-
Hi Scott. Just for you I reduced the size of the image :)
The watermark has to stay.
Thanks, Enda! In your position I would probably also watermark extensively. Too bad this needed.
Nice X-shaped composition, nice tight sun. My only niggle is that the elements are relatively bright considering that they are back-lighted. But you know that. :)
Scott
-
Ya I know Scott. I would much prefer not to include watermarked images. I really would. I thought initially having them at 750 pixel wide would prevent them from been used but unfortunately that wasn't the case. Anyone using them in blogs are what ever is no problem whatsoever as long as I'm credited. (mind you some cheeky buggers who wrote blogs claimed they took them!) When I did a Google search I found everyone from a car rental company to a Palates company both using images. I told them it's no problem to have them but there is a licensing fee. Of course neither wanted to pay a cent. They took them down and you should see the rubbish that was put up.
This is my image that the car rental company used initially. They even removed the watermarks!! http://www.endacavanagh.com/architecture/terminal_2_at_dublin_airport_dublin_ireland (http://www.endacavanagh.com/architecture/terminal_2_at_dublin_airport_dublin_ireland)
This is the masterpiece they replaced it with!!http://www.carhire.ie/dublinairportdesk.php (http://www.carhire.ie/dublinairportdesk.php)
-
Nice X-shaped composition, nice tight sun. My only niggle is that the elements are relatively bright considering that they are back-lighted. But you know that. :)
Scott
Ya I know Scott, you love your silhouettes. But which is closer to what the human eye can see?? :D
-
I found everyone from a car rental company to a Palates company both using images. I told them it's no problem to have them but there is a licensing fee. Of course neither wanted to pay a cent.
Talking about this at lunch, someone was discussed who in these cases simply sends a bill, and it usually gets paid.
So they said.
-
Ya I'm sure sometimes it works and sometimes not. The guy in the states I just threatened him with legal action (what action I have no idea ;D) and he took it down. He was simply committing fraud. He didn't have a high res. file.
Any company that grabbed the images for their own marketing I phoned and said they can use them for a fee and they just took them down instead. I left it at that.
-
Ya I'm sure sometimes it works and sometimes not. The guy in the states I just threatened him with legal action (what action I have no idea ;D) and he took it down. He was simply committing fraud. He didn't have a high res. file.
Any company that grabbed the images for their own marketing I phoned and said they can use them for a fee and they just took them down instead. I left it at that.
However that maybe, I'd still send an invoice to any end users as they still owe for the usage, regardless of how short a time. It may not get paid, but it will be a shot across the bow.
My experience in this has been, that the "right-clicker" is in the marketing side while the payment people are sitting a little closer to the legal side. It may touch a nerve and get them talking. The brighter blubs in the management should realize that this also starts a history file, should you or anyone decide to take action.
-
Unauthorized use is a big problem for any of us who post any image on the internet. Most photographer web sites are smorgasbords of tasty images ripe for theft. If you sell stock photography you are getting ripped off everyday by someone stealing and removing whatever watermarks are used on those stock sites. Google image search will let you identify some of the illegal use but it's often difficult to really tell which is proper use and which isn't. That's because most of the stock sites have what's called "partner" relationships with other stock image sellers, most of whom resell those images on their own sites, collect the fee and, hopefully, return a portion to the original site for sharing with the photographer. This is not a transparant transaction. We need to rely on the honesty of the original stock site and their diligence in policing those relationships.
Actual thefts by end-users seem to be growing, many of whom use the images for their own use with or without removing the watermarks depending on their PS skills. Photography blogs are full of frustrated photographers all atwitter by finding someone ignoring their copyright. 99% of their attempts to do much about it fail. So if you are upset by finding unauthorized uses of your images, join the crowd. In time you will learn to live with this unfortunate fact of life and not waste a lot of time trying to enforce your copyright.
-
I even found one cheeky bugger last week in the States who was selling one of my images!! There was even an option to download a high res version. He had swiped it from my website at 750 pixels wide....with a watermark on it. He reduced it down to about 400 pixels wide, removed the watermark sufficiently that you couldn't really see it and put it on his site!!!
Unlike a US citizen, you don’t have to register your photos with the US Copyright Office to file a lawsuit against someone in the US for any infringement. But if you don’t register your images, then you are not eligible for statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.
...
When entitled to statutory damages, you may be awarded up to $150,000 per work for willful infringements. ... Legal fees and costs also may be recovered from the infringer.
...
Because lawyers and lawsuits are expensive, it rarely is worth filing a lawsuit when you are eligible only for actual damages. It dramatically increases the incentive to pursue an infringement when statutory damages are available.
...
Once you register your images with the US Copyright Office, you likely will find it worth the time and effort to prosecute infringements that occur in the US.
US Copyright Tips For International Photographers (http://blog.photoshelter.com/2010/09/us-copyright-tips-for-international-photographers/)
-
Ya I know Scott, you love your silhouettes. But which is closer to what the human eye can see??
At dusk we'll only see shades of black and white, but the camera will still record colours.
-
That's funny Isaac because I'm pretty sure the sunset appeared orange at the time and I'm pretty sure I could see the rocks quite clearly including the green algae on the rocks. I must have super human vision.
-
As I expect you know, it isn't dusk until the sun goes below the horizon.
Also, it isn't unusual for people (yes, me too) to be both sure and plain wrong :-)
-
I was going to mention that. (the 1st bit ;))
-
It wasn't yet dusk, but I think sdwilsonsct was slightly concerned about the surfaces which face away from the setting sun and don't even have much indirect light.
On those dark surfaces, the camera will still record colour, but at lowered light levels we'll progressively see less colour and more gray.
-
wow I can not believe you had issues with people stealing your images
I have had numerous people try to re-create my images but never steal. I must not be good enough for that ;)
Either way very nice work
-
... My only niggle is that the elements are relatively bright considering that they are back-lighted...
+1
In addition, there are three other related issues: contrast, saturation, and white balance of back-lighted or shaded areas. Contrast and saturation tend to be less pronounced there. White balance also differs. This applies regardless of whether one is using a gradual ND filter or manual blending in post processing. There is a standard "shade" white balance in most processors for a reason.
What it means for your image, Enda, is that I would lower the contrast and saturation a bit and then experiment with a different white balance for the shaded area. When it comes to the sky, I kind of dislike that muddy orange you got (probably a result of the ND filter) and would also try to play with different hue and saturation levels for orange.
Back to playing with the shaded area. When experimenting with different WB settings, I would try two distinct approaches: one would be the "shade" WB, in which case it would kind of blend in with the overall warm feeling of the sunset. The other approach, in general, though not sure if specifically for this image, would be to accentuate the contrast between the warmth of the sunset and the coldness/bluishness of the shade by making the shade even more blue.
-
I'm going to open a can of worms here that seems to be always hovering in the background of many of the posts on this forum...
Much of the the criticism of your image, Enda, revolves around the difference between nature as it actually exists (or, at least how the critics perceive it) compared with how you, the photographer (dare I say artist) chooses to portray it.
There is no doubt that your images are grounded in realism as they so beautifully portray landscapes with such detail and drama. However, ss it your intention to re-create scenes exactly the way they exist (or how others expect them to be)? Or do you prefer to use "artistic licence" when making a photograph? Or a bit of both?
[Edit - spelling error]
-
Terry, my approach is related to the concept of "believability," however contentious it might be in itself. Thus, neither a replica of "scenes exactly the way they exist" (btw, who can possibly know that... even our memory can not recall it fully), nor total artistic license (which might include, say, a purple grass, or kangaroos in Himalaya, or, god forbid - or not - naked ladies ;)). Rather something in between, based on the laws of human perception, resulting in a pleasing, yet believable, enhancement of "reality" that, at the same time, carries the artist's message across.
-
Its very sad to see people steal fine photos. Its worse that legal system options are always fruitless
and costly. Having spent well over $10 Million US. for various legal matters, I can assure everyone here
that the last place you want to be is in a courtroom chasing some alleged infringer. in the end,
you will always get nothing but another bill from your attorney.
I have an excellent solution. Its not high tech, and its not hard to figure out. Basically, its quite simple.
Never post your most important pics at any size to the Internet. Accept that anything posted to the Internet
is economically unprotectable, and therefore defacto public domain, and thats it.
Watermarks, thats cute. 20th century thinking. They are about as effective as Japanese tsunami walls....
This is good advise from a pro. I appreciate the pro advise i read about fine photography here, and I hope
I never have to type letters regarding the correct path to take re legal things again. // James
-
However, is it your intention to re-create scenes exactly the way they exist (or how others expect them to be)? Or do you prefer to use "artistic licence" when making a photograph? Or a bit of both?
Or close to what the human eye can see?
Ya I know Scott, you love your silhouettes. But which is closer to what the human eye can see??
-
I can assure everyone here that the last place you want to be is in a courtroom chasing some alleged infringer. in the end, you will always get nothing but another bill from your attorney.
Here's a different experience --
I've yet to actually have a copyright infringement case get to court, but I have settled out of court many times. Why? I try to register all my copyright with the Library of Congress. When the apposing council finds out that the infringement is of a registered copyright, the attorneys tell their clients to settle or else face punitive damages plus attorneys fees (which can be far more than actual damages).
-
To be honest guys I think you have to take it on a case by case basis with grabbed images. I think this site in the States was really dubious. I mean he was "selling" some pretty iconic pictures. His Google page rank was 0 which doesn't say much about the size of his empire. He took it off the site as soon as I sent a pretty stern email. I think in the circumstance it was about the best outcome.
In relation to not putting posting my best stuff. Well I post my best images on my website. It is my online gallery after all. I sell my images and they have to be my best images otherwise I wouldn't be rolling around in cash like I am now. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaa right. :D
-
That seems sensible to me.
What I learned from the discussions back in April is that, even though we're going to take it on a case by case basis, we still need to be prepared - and one of the basic steps is to register your valuable photos with the US Copyright Office, because that presents abusers with the threat that they will have to pay statutory damages plus costs.
-
Thanks for the feedback Slobodan.
Always good to get another pair of eyes to look at the image.
I've played around with the image. I increased the brightness and contrast of the sky, darkened the shadow areas and cooled the water on the right a tad. Here's the 2nd version.
(http://www.endacavanagh.com/Enda's%20Images/Images%20for%20Luminous%20Landscape/Stone%20arch,%20Ballintoy%20Port%20at%20sunset%201a.jpg)
-
I like it better.
-
Sometimes it's good to have a break from looking at a photo. Slobodan. You were completely right about the color tones of the shadow areas. They were just to warm. I cooled them down an image a good bit bar for the sunlit areas on the left. I also removed the 2 branches of seaweed. I found them distracting.
(http://www.endacavanagh.com/Enda's%20Images/Images%20for%20Luminous%20Landscape/Ballintoy-Port_1020365g.jpg)