Watermarks

[Martin Kristiansen]

Right, Slobodan. Unless you're making photographs for pay, copyright adheres to the creator. But the problem Eric's pointing to is that even though you own the copyright, and put a copyright notice in the IPTC core; even though you've registered the copyright, if somebody rips off your photograph you need to go to court to prove you own it, and even if you win in court you may not recover even what you paid in attorney fees.

Yes. I sign my prints too. But that's not the same thing.

But for an amateur who's not making photographs for money, a watermark is an over-the-top, chest-thumping absurdity.

Wow! We agree on something. That’s either good or an indication I should up my medication😛

[RSL]

The whole art is about chest-thumping. With the exception of Vivian Maier, perhaps.

Not really, Slobodan. Real photographic art, and especially street, is the same thing as poetry. The point is to attempt to transfer to somebody else, possibly lot of somebody elses, a basic and important human experience.

Yes, I know, a lot of photographers, especially on LuLa, are  chest-thumpers. I could name names, but I'll avoid the kind of opprobrium that would result from that. We REALLY could have some arguments with chest-thumpers.

[RSL]

Wow! We agree on something. That’s either good or an indication I should up my medication😛

I knew we could do that, Martin. Go easy on the "medication."

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Substitute “narcissism” with “chest-thumping” and...

[Rob C]

It's obvious who uses those overprinted names and initials etc. and it really does ruin some pictures.

If somebody is going to rip you off, they still can; did anyone here forget Photoshop? It may be a brief nuisance to the thief but that's about all.

Just use a credit line as in a magazine, outwith the picture area. Of course it can be trimmed off, but anything can be doctored.

Not so sure it's even about chest-thumping; I think people share images online in a place such as this because they hope there may be some conversation stemming from those snaps. Not critique, but conversation and perhaps shared emotional concerns.

But hey, that's just the worn remnants of a misspent life talking, where it was essential that your snaps have an effect.

:-

[petermfiore]

Every art piece in a gallery is signed. What is your point?

Actually in much of the NYC art world it’s considered vulgar.

Peter

[Rob C]

Actually in much of the NYC art world it’s considered vulgar.

Peter

Which is where I kinda came in: the hands-on arts are one thing, but photography, especially where it has stopped being possible to help deliver the wet birth, is a something lesser else...

Unfortunately, it was the only way I was good enough to make images, and so I had to accept that.

I'm delighted my Demascene moment on that dismal church step featured David Bailey and not Rubens!

I once knew a little ditty about him - Rubens:

When Rubens painted la femme
It was money for jam:
Oodles of goddesses
Without bodices.

Wait: maybe it was Rubens after all, and not DB in my mental Damascus!

:-)

[rabanito]

Which is where I kinda came in: the hands-on arts are one thing, but photography, especially where it has stopped being possible to help deliver the wet birth, is a something lesser else...

I beg to differ a little. They use different media and of course ARE different. In my mind something like a symphony orchestra or a violin solo. And it could well be that the soloist is of first quality and the symphony sounds horrible.
I think there are excellent images around in photography and there are many excellent artists which, as you say, are not good painters nor violinists nor cooks but can express themselves through photography.
We are lucky that they can do it through this medium, so we have the chance of seeing what the artist has to say, which is what really matters :-)
But perhaps this is a different topic.

[Rob C]

I beg to differ a little. They use different media and of course ARE different. In my mind something like a symphony orchestra or a violin solo. And it could well be that the soloist is of first quality and the symphony sounds horrible.
I think there are excellent images around in photography and there are many excellent artists which, as you say, are not good painters nor violinists nor cooks but can express themselves through photography.
We are lucky that they can do it through this medium, so we have the chance of seeing what the artist has to say, which is what really matters :-)
But perhaps this is a different topic.

I'm also fond of radishes, but then again, I love some photographers a great deal and can look at their work every day without getting bored.

There's no denying that some photographers are also artists, and that their way of expressing their art comes as a photograph; that said, I still think it an inferior medium for self-expression because, simply put, very little of it moves me very strongly. Yes, I can gaze at some photos and think them wonderful, and wish that I'd shot them, but hey, just let me hears some of that rock 'n' roll music, then my feet start to go and something far more powerful than pictures grabs my being. It's just a matter of which medium is the more powerful. I can't think of a single photograph that has moved me to tears, but music can and has.

I have a picture of my wife, all that remain since her death years ago; a simple identification headshot that I made for her International Driving Licence in 1979 or thereabouts. It's the one thing I'd risk my life to retrieve were the apartment to go on fire, which could be silly, because I already have the only other copy of it in my wallet.

Perhaps photography fails to hold the same level of respect because it's just too easy, especially today. Fluke happens a lot with photography, not so much with painting.

Rob

[stamper]

Sometimes the signature is better than the image on show. Personally I find them distracting.

[rabanito]

I'm also fond of radishes, but then again, I love some photographers a great deal and can look at their work every day without getting bored.

There's no denying that some photographers are also artists, and that their way of expressing their art comes as a photograph;
that said, I still think it an inferior medium for self-expression because, simply put, very little of it moves me very strongly.
Yes, I can gaze at some photos and think them wonderful, and wish that I'd shot them, but hey, just let me hears some of that rock 'n' roll music,
then my feet start to go and something far more powerful than pictures grabs my being. It's just a matter of which medium is the more powerful.
I can't think of a single photograph that has moved me to tears, but music can and has.

I have a picture of my wife, all that remain since her death years ago; a simple identification headshot that I made for her International Driving Licence in 1979 or thereabouts. It's the one thing I'd risk my life to retrieve were the apartment to go on fire, which could be silly, because I already have the only other copy of it in my wallet.

Perhaps photography fails to hold the same level of respect because it's just too easy, especially today. Fluke happens a lot with photography, not so much with painting.

Rob

He-he. Radishes are great...

But back to the point, I don't think that there is something like superior or inferior media.
There are  people with something to say and people with less to say. That is for me what counts.
You can be the best painter in the world, technically speaking, but if your vision is poor, so will be your work. If your vision is great AND  you use the appropriate media, so will be your art.
I'm not going into music vs graphic arts, they operate on different aspects of our soul and IMHO are not comparable.
I personally, as an uneducated amateur, prefer two hours company of a gorgeous woman than two hours in front of a Rembrandt
But that's just me :-)
And I prefer two hours with a Rembrandt than two hours of Rock 'n' Roll by the High School Band around the corner.
For me it is not that much the medium but the artist and his performance.
And photography is not that easy. I know people who take a pencil and make wonderful things with it. For them this is easy. Give me a pencil and I have pains to make a useful signature.
It SEEMS  easy because so many people shoot pictures. Mostly rubbish.
For a great photographer it is probably easy. Like magic.
For one like me, it is not easy. I work many hours until I get what i want, if i get it at all :-(
So it is not the medium really but whoever is using it which is superior or inferior.

Sorry if I made it too long :-)
Rabanito

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I personally... prefer two hours company of a gorgeous woman than two hours in front of a Rembrandt...

Even if in the friend zone? 

[Rob C]

He-he. Radishes are great...

1. But back to the point, I don't think that there is something like superior or inferior media.
2. There are  people with something to say and people with less to say. That is for me what counts.
You can be the best painter in the world, technically speaking, but if your vision is poor, so will be your work. If your vision is great AND  you use the appropriate media, so will be your art.
I'm not going into music vs graphic arts, they operate on different aspects of our soul and IMHO are not comparable.
3. I personally, as an uneducated amateur, prefer two hours company of a gorgeous woman than two hours in front of a Rembrandt
But that's just me :-)
4. And I prefer two hours with a Rembrandt than two hours of Rock 'n' Roll by the High School Band around the corner.
For me it is not that much the medium but the artist and his performance.
5. And photography is not that easy. I know people who take a pencil and make wonderful things with it. For them this is easy. Give me a pencil and I have pains to make a useful signature.
6. It SEEMS  easy because so many people shoot pictures. Mostly rubbish.
For a great photographer it is probably easy. Like magic.
For one like me, it is not easy. I work many hours until I get what i want, if i get it at all :-(
7. So it is not the medium really but whoever is using it which is superior or inferior.

8. Sorry if I made it too long :-)
Rabanito

1. I believe that there probably is if we are speaking abut the art world, and certainly is if about the advertising art world.

2.That applies to all art worlds; some people, such as Dali, for example, are able to combine both qualities. Where would that, clinically speaking, leave Van Gogh?

3. It all depends on what the gorgeous woman is about to say to you. That can make or break those two hours. It also depends on who's paying.

4. Me too! Having seen Chuck live, the rest doesn't exist.

5. That was one reason I took up the camera instead; much easier to do it well.

6. You are absolutely right; it's always a victory of native talent over teaching.

7. That is certainly true of all the arts.

8. People adding to the flow of debate are to be welcomed!

[rabanito]

Even if in the friend zone? 

friendzone? Not in my dictionary :-)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

friendzone? Not in my dictionary :-)

As in not familiar with the word (concept) or you are such an irresistible ladies' man that being relegated to a friend zone is impossible to happen to you

[rabanito]

As in not familiar with the word (concept) or you are such an irresistible ladies' man that being relegated to a friend zone is impossible to happen to you

I googled it.
Just bragging ;-)

[Rob C]

Even if in the friend zone? 

That strikes me as more a theoretical space than a real one. Does anyone have the time or interest to develop such an item on a voluntary, non-business level? I can't think of a single such vacancy being filled, apart from friends of my wife, who were her friends and if I had to be there, just accidental background noises off. 

Left to my own devices, I see no role for them to play.

But then, that depends on being realistic and not expecting any so-called mercy favours. Which late in life represent problems rather than opportunities. One of the last things one needs is to fall into any sort of moral debt. Life can be complicated enough dealing with the results of one's own actions without adding to the list by inviting external ones on top of that.

Frankly, I find my own time too quick in the passing to accommodate all the things that I should be giving my full attention.

YMMV, of course.

:-)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Rob, you strike me as the second one in this thread in need to google what “friend zone” means 😉

[Rob C]

Rob, you strike me as the second one in this thread in need to google what “friend zone” means 😉

Why Google? It's self-explanatory: conversation but no sex.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Why Google? It's self-explanatory: conversation but no sex.

Not for the lack of trying hoping