Topic: Recent Format Agnostic Professional Works (Read 283626 times)

ACH DIGITAL · « **Reply #400 on:** September 09, 2015, 09:27:52 pm »

BC these are amazing!

Rob C · « **Reply #401 on:** September 10, 2015, 10:06:57 am »

BC

I really think you have a wonderful way with seated ladies; of the many shots of yours that I've seen, there's something about the sitting position that you seem to do especially well. Not a reference having anything to do with the high quality of all your other work, just that for me, these work out to be the most memorable. Maybe it's that they are the most natural for a model to be able to strike. There just isn't the tension that standing up and having to do something always provokes - very appealing.

Great stuff.

Rob C

JoeKitchen · « **Reply #402 on:** September 10, 2015, 10:59:41 am »

Quote from: bcooter on September 07, 2015, 09:26:58 pm

The research continues, but basically the team believes he embedded our website information and any combinations of our name someone could think of and attached it to his site. Running a profiler uncovered it.

I actually hired a second tech company to be sure and to document it. Both had a reply that the only people that do this are _ _ _ _.

Now to take action.

IMO

BC

Well that sucks.

I would be kind of interested in what action you take, because I am not sure if you can take any legal action at all, other then calling him up. Is website metadata copyrightable? If so, how many actually take the time to register their website's metadata with the Library of Congress?

By the way, nice pics BC.

Rob C · « **Reply #403 on:** September 12, 2015, 04:08:19 am »

Ooops! Post deleted; just noticed the thread is for recent FAPW!

Rob C

Manoli · « **Reply #404 on:** September 12, 2015, 11:19:54 am »

Quote from: bcooter on September 12, 2015, 08:46:44 am

And there are remedies from filing a dmca takedown notice, which Google takes seriously, to contacting goggle directly...

Coots,

DMCA is US copyright law.
Where is your web site hosted and is it replicated in the EU ?

M

Edit:
PS This could run on, perhaps worth starting a new thread?

Manoli · « **Reply #405 on:** September 12, 2015, 12:35:46 pm »

Quote from: bcooter on September 12, 2015, 11:48:02 am

Your right, i didn't want to hijack this thread so I'll wait for another thread.

No, I didn't mean to suggest you were hijacking anything!
But I suspect this topic is going to generate a lot of interest, and even more questions, so why don't you repost your earlier 'background' posts in a new thread - 'cos it ain't going to die down ...

M

Rob C · « **Reply #406 on:** September 12, 2015, 12:40:15 pm »

Quote from: bcooter on September 12, 2015, 11:48:02 am

Manoli,

Your right, i didn't want to hijack this thread so I'll wait for another thread.

But our site and company is US based, though also the work is copyrighted under EU laws.

Rob C,

Hey man don't take your image down. I've always believed this site is a place to share and learn and honestly your image looks as modern, actually more relevant, than 99% of what I see anywhere.

CB started this thread to keep people on the MF section from yelling and lets face it your film images are format agnostic.

Keep posting with good information. I know I appreciate it.

Thanks

BC

Thanks, and how could a sane man refuse after that!

;-)

Rob C

Nikon F, 2.8/35mm, probably Ilford HP3.

To rewrite the original info: using a 35mm lens relatively close up was supposed to induce a mild distortion at the top and bottom edges. Quite why we all thought it cool back then, I'm not sure. Perhaps we followed the music, where distortion was also big news...

Chris Barrett · « **Reply #407 on:** September 13, 2015, 08:45:16 am »

Film is a format, digital is a format... 'Format Agnostic' means no restrictions.

Post on!

razrblck · « **Reply #408 on:** September 13, 2015, 10:09:15 am »

I'm all up for more quality pictures, so keep 'em coming even if you have to dig up stuff from the last century!

Rob C · « **Reply #409 on:** September 13, 2015, 01:09:25 pm »

Quote from: razrblck on September 13, 2015, 10:09:15 am

I'm all up for more quality pictures, so keep 'em coming even if you have to dig up stuff from the last century!

To fit in with the 'professional' part, that's the only route available for me, even though it involves dangerous time travel...

;-)

Rob C

Rob C · « **Reply #410 on:** September 17, 2015, 09:33:03 am »

This was from a Hewden/Stuart Group calendar shot in the Bahamas.

(The model's Georgie; she was in one of Patrick Lichfield's Unipart calendars; I often used the same girls after him; if they could do it with him, then I felt there wasn't a valid reason they couldn't do it with me, too. You need to give yourself these added challenges in life or you might fall into being smug, from whence it's the always very near dump!)

It's a small part of a 64 ASA Kodachrome Pro on Nikon F or F2. I'm pretty sure it was the 3.5/135 Nikkor.

Rob C

P.S. The blurry caption glitch has been fixed; thanks, guys!

P.P.S. Struck me that there was a lot of life going on before af...

Justinr · « **Reply #411 on:** September 17, 2015, 01:13:59 pm »

Quote from: bcooter on September 12, 2015, 08:46:44 am

Without being accusatory, I've learned a great deal in the last week.

Yes metadata is yours and copyrightable with case history to back it up.

Though from what I've been told and let me repeat that what I've been told by the hosting companies this "possibly" isn't a case of taking metadata, this type of behavior comes from essentially a plug in with a page link that hooks to the word press document where someone places in everything that a search engine could possibly pick up.

Like for example, Joe Kitchen photo, Joe Kitchen photography, Kitchen Film, The Photography Of Joe Kitchen etc. etc. etc.

Then an seo "optimization firm" (I use this last term loosely) boosts your number of relevant hits through a number of tricks to raise your google ranking. Obviously it's designed to target Google as our issue doesn't show up on bing, yahoo, etc.

And there are remedies from filing a dmca takedown notice, which Google takes seriously, to contacting goggle directly.

Actually it seems to me thaat Google is a target as much as our studios and if this type of behavior runs unchecked, then Google becomes irrelevant.

Imagine typing in Apple and the top result comes up Apple Computers but is actually hooked to Samsung.

If this goes unchecked than search engines become marginalized.

In regards to further action, that's up to the IP lawyers you employ.

What I've learned is the common thought is protection of your name, your business isn only available to the big guys like Apple, or Ford, but that's far from the truth.

What it takes to get a remedy takes some time, research and the willingness to stay with an issue until you get an honest resolve, for all parties.

IMO

BC

Not wanting to go through the details which I think I have posted here in the past I think it pretty obvious that it's SEO that is irrelevant because of the big G.

Rob C · « **Reply #412 on:** September 19, 2015, 05:28:21 am »

Okay, another calendar Kodachrome, again tight crop, with a Mallorcan setting which you can't see in the crop.

In contrast with many other people, I have found that using Kodachrome 64 Pro as a source for later b/w conversions works well. I'm not sure that I'd have been totally willing to have used it intentionally as a starting point for b/w work, but nonetheless it has provided me with some material I like.

I've tried models with the original 135 Velvia 50, which everyone said was hopeless for skin, but I had to make my own mistake because, living here on the island, I could get E6 done easily enough but Kodachrome had to go to Lausanne (Madrid was terrible IMO) and that meant weeks... Anyway, vox pop was right, and it was too amberish (reminded me of Kodachrome through a warming filter which I tried on the odd overcast day and hated: it didn't look natural at all).

Making b/whites from Velvia worked, but the contrast was a bit too high for my taste.

Rob C

Aren't women wonderful?

ACH DIGITAL · « **Reply #413 on:** September 19, 2015, 06:27:46 pm »

Christmas in September. Already working for holidays.
Sony A7R+ Kipon Tilt Shift + Pentax 645 120mm Macro, Nikon G 85mm 1.8, Nikon G 60mm Macro.

ACH

razrblck · « **Reply #414 on:** September 20, 2015, 05:46:10 am »

I shouldn't watch this thread one hour before lunch!

Rob C · « **Reply #415 on:** September 20, 2015, 06:07:15 am »

Quote from: razrblck on September 20, 2015, 05:46:10 am

I shouldn't watch this thread one hour before lunch!

Even worse when you know you're going to have to get up and make it!

Rob C

ACH DIGITAL · « **Reply #416 on:** September 20, 2015, 11:10:27 am »

JoeKitchen · « **Reply #417 on:** September 28, 2015, 12:56:31 pm »

Antonio, love the first one and last one. The 2nd, I am not sure red food in a red cup is good; the food tends to get lost. The third one, well I am sure that is as appetizing as you can make that look, what ever it is.

Have a couple Manhattans!

ACH DIGITAL · « **Reply #418 on:** September 28, 2015, 01:28:56 pm »

Joe, the red bowl is papaya sweet.

I'll like your Manhattans shot, I'll like to try them. :

JoeKitchen · « **Reply #419 on:** September 28, 2015, 02:15:42 pm »

Thanks Antonio. Manhattans are my drink!, well, actually, Distrito Federals are my drink but they look exactly like Manhattans and more people know what a Manhattan is, so ...

I am finding product work to be quite interesting and a nice change.

Here's about $125 worth of towels I'll be returning in a couple of days.

Author Topic: Recent Format Agnostic Professional Works (Read 283626 times)