Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Petronas Twin Towers  (Read 20213 times)
couleur
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30



WWW
« on: May 07, 2007, 12:09:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I shot this a few weeks ago. It was during the afternoon, and it was also about to rain infect. Is there anything I could do to make it better?

Logged

[span style='color:green']here[/span]
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #1 on: May 07, 2007, 01:14:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Technically, it looks OK.

The upper corners are too dark.  There is a white halo around parts of the building.  There is some flair in the upper center that doesn't seem to add value.

The copyright and name don't add anything to the image.  There are plenty of images of this building.  It may be that your image isn't significantly different enough from some of those to earn a copyright.  MAybe you don't own a coyright.  While the image could get stolen, would you really be harmrf?
« Last Edit: May 07, 2007, 01:15:51 PM by howiesmith » Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2007, 01:18:36 PM »
ReplyReply

The sky looks completely unnatural; the burning-in of the upper-left corner in particular is very artificial-looking and overdone. For such things, use a light brush, not a sledgehammer.
Logged

couleur
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30



WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 10, 2007, 12:42:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Technically, it looks OK.

The upper corners are too dark.  There is a white halo around parts of the building.  There is some flair in the upper center that doesn't seem to add value.

The copyright and name don't add anything to the image.  There are plenty of images of this building.  It may be that your image isn't significantly different enough from some of those to earn a copyright.  MAybe you don't own a coyright.  While the image could get stolen, would you really be harmrf?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href=\"http://couleur.deviantart.com]http://couleur.deviantart.com[/url]
Logged

[span style='color:green']here[/span]
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #4 on: May 10, 2007, 12:55:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
http://couleur.deviantart.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116813\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Too subtle for me.  I don't understand your coment.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2007, 08:13:35 AM »
ReplyReply

He's simply trying to defend his credibility as an artist by displaying his page at the deviant art web site.
Logged

Ed Foster, Jr.
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 11, 2007, 08:28:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
http://couleur.deviantart.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116813\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
couleur,
Thanks for the link to some of your work.  At such a young age, you have a lot going for you - keep pushing forward, continue learning and working on your style.  Your vision and eye are quite good.

Best of Luck,
Ed
Logged

Ed Foster, Jr.
www.edfoster.net
englishm
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 11, 2007, 09:06:08 AM »
ReplyReply

The quality of the light on the towers, owing to the fairly strong under-exposure lends an other worldly effect to the image, and the edge burn enhances the threatening feel of the impending rain.  I like this image.  I can see it being used in a corporate annual report, for example.

I don't think "natural" is necessarly an important goal in this or any photograph.  Jonathan is applying his own aesthetic ideal to Xiong's image, which is fine, and perfectly valid for Jonathan.  It may not be for Xiong.  I agree that the corner burn may be a bit overdone, but that is easily fixed.  However, I wouldn't eliminate it completely... I like the mood it creates, but I'd like to see some more detail in the upper corners.

As to copyright, every image is copyright by its creator the moment the shutter is released.  There is no need for the image to be "unique".   In any case it's hard to image another image taken from this vantage point and point of view being precisely the same as another image, in the quality  and direction of the light and the quality of the sky.  Think about how many images of the Eiffel Tower you have seen taken with a wide-angle lens looking up through the trees at the north west footing!  Each of those slightly different images is copyright by its creator.  So, Lim Wan Xiong definately owns a copyright in this image.
Logged

howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2007, 09:33:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As to copyright, every image is copyright by its creator the moment the shutter is released. There is no need for the image to be "unique".  In any case it's hard to image another image taken from this vantage point and point of view being precisely the same as another image, in the quality and direction of the light and the quality of the sky. Think about how many images of the Eiffel Tower you have seen taken with a wide-angle lens looking up through the trees at the north west footing! Each of those slightly different images is copyright by its creator. So, Lim Wan Xiong definately owns a copyright in this image.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116953\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am not a patent/copyright lawyer/expert.  But the Berne Convention and U.S. law require that a work have some original creativity to be copyrighted.  Whether this image is original enough is of course the raw material for debate.

I cannot copyright a novel by changing the name of the main character from Bill to Bob.  There was a recent decision where a photographer made an image of actors dressed and postioned like another artists staute.  The photographer was found to have violated the copyright of the sculptor as I recall.

The building may already be copyrighted.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2007, 09:35:09 AM by howiesmith » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8906


« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2007, 09:42:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I like it also. The image has strength. The composition and style is appropriate for the subject which is symbolic of Malaysia's attempt to industrialise and become a modern state.

The darkness adds to the strength and imparts a serious and sombre mood. If this was the intention, then the image is a success.
Logged
englishm
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2007, 10:44:12 AM »
ReplyReply

>>require that a work have some original creativity to be copyrighted<<

You are correct, although the test is not usually applied as rigorously as you suggest.   There is a marked difference between re-interpreting and out right copying.  Xiong holds copyright in this particular image, of that there is no doubt.

He may be prevented from using it for much other than personal enjoyment, for as you also point out he probably doesn't have a property release from the owners of the tower.  Whether or not they would choose to enforce their property rights, or whether the architects and designers would choose to enforce their copyrights in the designs is another matter.
Logged

howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2007, 11:09:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
>>require that a work have some original creativity to be copyrighted<<

You are correct, although the test is not usually applied as rigorously as you suggest.   There is a marked difference between re-interpreting and out right copying.  Xiong holds copyright in this particular image, of that there is no doubt.

He may be prevented from using it for much other than personal enjoyment, for as you also point out he probably doesn't have a property release from the owners of the tower.  Whether or not they would choose to enforce their property rights, or whether the architects and designers would choose to enforce their copyrights in the designs is another matter.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116978\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That this photographer owns a copyright to this image, I can agree with that.  My point is; so what?  The line between re-interprting and copying may be finer than you might expect.  Who would have thought a photo of some people dressed and arranged would equal copying a statue?  I guess that is what juries are for.  Also keep in mind that winning may be more than its worth.

[/B]If the image has no value other than "personal enjoyment," then is there any harm (less personal enjoyment) to this photographer if the image is used without his permission?  (I would think such use might actually enhance his personal enjoyment by knowing dome one likes it well enough to use it.)  If no, then who cares whether he "owns" the copyright of thid image or not.  Then is the "I own the copyright" info on the image really adding more value than is detracted by it's presence?

Whether you like the image or not, I don't think it has much market value.  If it does have a big market value, then it is much more likely this photographer would hear fro, other photographers, the building's owner and/or its architech.
Logged
couleur
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30



WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2007, 11:12:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Okay guys, since some people don't trust whether I hold the original work. I will post a small resolution without the copyright. It's okay, I know how it feels being ripped.
Logged

[span style='color:green']here[/span]
couleur
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30



WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2007, 11:23:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The sky looks completely unnatural; the burning-in of the upper-left corner in particular is very artificial-looking and overdone. For such things, use a light brush, not a sledgehammer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116613\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have to agree with that point. This photo was originally shot out with low contrast due to glare. So I push the levels up to increase the contrast. Here's a fresh version I shot a few weeks before.

Logged

[span style='color:green']here[/span]
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2007, 12:07:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have to agree with that point. This photo was originally shot out with low contrast due to glare. So I push the levels up to increase the contrast. Here's a fresh version I shot a few weeks before.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116986\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Two points.  First, with respect to a previous post, it is not a matter of trusting who owns the copyright.  I don't care because I have no intention of ever buying this image for any use.  My comment was simply that the copyright and signature didn't add any real value to image, especially since you may or may not own the copyright.  If every one knows you own the copyright to THIS image, then who cares if it is so marked?  If the purpose is to make the image less marketable, then any watermark would work, even a red x.  It is just my opinion watermarks rarely if ever make an image look better.

My point wasn't how did the corners get that way, but that to me they were too dark.  Even if there was a pile of old tires on fire next door and the black smoke was moving in.  Why the corners are dark doesn't matter, but are they dark.  If you love them, fine.  If everyone but me loves them, fine.

As for darkening corners, there was (is) at least one well known photographer/printer who burned all corners.  His theory was a perfectly eenly lit gray card would appear to have light corners, even though it doesn't,  Because photography is a visual art, I would agree the corners need some burning if the photographer wants the corners to look even.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2007, 12:29:47 PM by howiesmith » Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3535



WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 11, 2007, 06:04:37 PM »
ReplyReply

The first two comments regarding the image posted I found a little strange, daft irrelevent comments about copyright worthiness and not looking natural.
Silly nit picking. The image looks like a good commercial or advertising image to me. Who cares if it looks 'natural'? Bill Brandt's work wasn't exactly natural, so does that make him a bad photographer?
The more 'correct' image Couleur posted in response may be 'better' exposed, but is bland and snapshot like, [EDIT - just looked at a larger version, it's much nicer when you can see more detail] whereas the original is strong and dynamic. And however good the picture, you will always get people carping about how they don't like it. It's just personal taste. And the reasons why Jonathan doesn't like it, are exactly why I and it appears others do like it.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2007, 09:04:56 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #16 on: May 11, 2007, 06:18:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
... you will always get people carping about how they don't like it. It's just personal taste. And the reasons why Jonathan doesn't like it, are exactly why I and it appears others do like it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117026\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Or carping about how they like it.  If you like it, are you right thinking?  And if you don't, just carping?

If you think the image is improved by the copyright thingy, that's fine.  Stick one on any image you want.  I just think it is not attractive or needed.

It is just personal taste.  And yours is no better than anyone else's.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3535



WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2007, 07:34:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Or carping about how they like it.  If you like it, are you right thinking?  And if you don't, just carping?
If you are beng positive, then by definition you aren't carping. The carping was not whether one didn't like it, but the inane comments about 'correct' exposure and being worthy of copyright.

Quote
If you think the image is improved by the copyright thingy, that's fine.  Stick one on any image you want.  I just think it is not attractive or needed.
Duh! I don't think anyone expects a copyright mark to improve an image aesthetically. As it's deliberately meant to have the opposite effect. Besides it's about the only effective way to prevent images online, being stolen. Which does happen.  As for whether it's not worth nicking, the highest price ever paid for an image on Alamy is not an image one would think would be paid for at all, let alone a very large sum. The stupid remarks were regarding the worthiness of copyright, not how attractive the the mark made the image, which if you had read my post properly you would have realised.

Quote
It is just personal taste.  And yours is no better than anyone else's.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117027\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Did I say mine was better? Oh no no I didn't. I just observed we have differing tastes.  
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
couleur
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30



WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 13, 2007, 03:23:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Whether you like the image or not, I don't think it has much market value.  If it does have a big market value, then it is much more likely this photographer would hear fro, other photographers, the building's owner and/or its architech.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=116981\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Howiesmith, with full respect ,I never said I was a full time photographer in dealing with the selling prints. And I don't work for people either. This isn't a commission work or a paid job.

Photography is my passion, and this is my hobby. It doesn't need to have market value. It's just what I do that makes me happy keeps me going on.
Logged

[span style='color:green']here[/span]
James Godman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 13, 2007, 09:56:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Or carping about how they like it.  If you like it, are you right thinking?  And if you don't, just carping?

If you think the image is improved by the copyright thingy, that's fine.  Stick one on any image you want.  I just think it is not attractive or needed.

It is just personal taste.  And yours is no better than anyone else's.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117027\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Howie, let's see some of your work so that we might understand where you are coming from, and decide how much weight to give to your comments.

Thanks.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad