Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »
 1 
 on: Today at 12:48:19 PM 
Started by trevarthan - Last post by trevarthan
You need to be more precise. What logos and trade marks in fine art and landscape photography? Are they prominent or incidental? Selling a photo to whom, for what purpose?

The purpose would be a wall hanging in a home (or business, I suppose). I don't know the difference between prominent or incidental, but I suppose we could use this photo as an example:

The Sky is Awake ... by Trevarthan, on Flickr

I took this. That's my daughter. The Tennessee Aquarium is in the background, and I know that this photo is fine for stock, because I have a model release signed by myself for my daughter, and the front of the aquarium is blurred.

However, what if I reshot this photo, removing my daughter and bringing everything into sharp focus with a nice sunset sky? I'm pretty sure there is some sort of advertisement on the aquarium in the background. Is that a problem?

Similarly, I know from trying to submit this photo for stock, that fountains are often considered art, despite being public landmarks:
Chattanooga Riverfront Fountains by Trevarthan, on Flickr

Could I get in trouble trying to sell this photo as fine art (assuming I retook it in a way that didn't suck, technically - it's pretty soft and weak as is)?

 2 
 on: Today at 12:40:33 PM 
Started by Isaac - Last post by Isaac
As a minimum, I've come to see it as a free will (to post or not to post)

That's exactly the point.

 3 
 on: Today at 12:35:46 PM 
Started by Isaac - Last post by Isaac
At least the f/8 is right.

With IBIS the 1/50th can be right too.

 4 
 on: Today at 12:30:37 PM 
Started by trevarthan - Last post by Slobodan Blagojevic
... Afaik, the "rules" for Stock Photography are set by the buyers.  The same condition applies to Fine Art.

The rules are set by law, not buyers.

 5 
 on: Today at 12:29:50 PM 
Started by MGH - Last post by Isaac
Understanding that the photo has been taken, we're sensibly reluctant to suggest other photos that could have been taken - but you'll take photos in the mountains again.

I think there are several different pictures in that scene, each of which would have been better as a separate photo:

- there's a vertical near & far with the boulder and across the lake to the central peak

- there's probably a partial reflections in the lake horizontal

- there's the snow patch as foreground

They're going to be better as separate pictures, rather than parts of one picture pulling in different directions.

(Yesterday I was 2 miles back down the trail before I realized I should have photographed the head wall of the pass we'd just hiked-up. Oh we'll, next time.)

 6 
 on: Today at 12:29:06 PM 
Started by trevarthan - Last post by Slobodan Blagojevic
You need to be more precise. What logos and trade marks in fine art and landscape photography? Are they prominent or incidental? Selling a photo to whom, for what purpose?

 7 
 on: Today at 12:23:15 PM 
Started by bcooter - Last post by calindustries
Part of recent portrait assignment project...

 8 
 on: Today at 12:18:16 PM 
Started by pcgpcg - Last post by Slobodan Blagojevic
You can de-emphasize it (darken) by a GND filter in post, for instance.

 9 
 on: Today at 12:17:39 PM 
Started by BartvanderWolf - Last post by Jack Hogan
I'm making good progress I think, I've found the Gaussian filter combined with an EWA -distort Resize, to produce no halos in linear light space but is also a bit soft, as expected. However, due to it being so well behaved, it does allow to add a decent amount of sharpening without creating excessive halos. There are some, but not all that visible in normal 100 zoom web conditions, and they are symmetrical (Nicolas will like that).

The down-sampling with standard sharpening code in Windows Batch script dialect would then become something like:
Code:
convert ( "input.png" -depth 16 -set colorspace sRGB -colorspace RGB ) ^
 -filter Gaussian -distort Resize 800x800 ^
 -set colorspace RGB -colorspace sRGB ^
 -define convolve:scale=^130%%,100 -morphology Convolve DoG:0,0,0.5413815663895142 ^
 "output.png"

The Point Spread Function of the unsharpened (rather soft) version predicts zero haloing (but also a soft image), remove the -convolve code line for that. The Point Spread Function of the sharpened version (see code) predicts some haloing, depending on how the details align with the pixel grid, but generally creates very decent/crisp results with an amount of 130% High-pass filtering. Boosting the amount further will do even more detail enhancement, but may also lead to more clipping (something I try to find a remedy for). Sharpening will also make some aliasing more visible, but that will probably not be too visible in common non-synthetic images.

Hi Bart,

I am a bit out of my league here thinking in the frequency domain, but it seems like a bit of a pity to choose a well-behaved-yet-weaker filter to perform the initial filtering because it's well behaved, and then apply a stronger poorly behaved one in the reconstruction phase to make up for it. 

Does ImageMagick allow to perform some form of decent real deconvolution (such as LR) in-line?   If so, wouldn't it be better to use a gaussian deconvolution operator in the -define line instead of DoG to undo the gaussian filtering?  Or perhaps in addition to a weaker DoG?

As you may have guessed I am allergic to artificially amplified acutance (and alliteration) Smiley

Jack



 10 
 on: Today at 12:16:45 PM 
Started by trevarthan - Last post by trevarthan
Your references are lost on me. I was born in 1981 with no formal art education. I'm a boring software engineer by trade. I just have a fascination with light, which seems to lend itself to photography.

Anyway, that's precisely what I'm asking. Does anything go? Or can I get in trouble, legally, for selling a photo of something someone else owns?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »
Ad
Ad
Ad