LACMA

[Andres Bonilla]

Los Angeles museum, part of the new buildings.

[wolfnowl]

Interesting perspective.  I could do without the grill on the air intake, but for practical purposes it has to stay and cropping it out would throw off the balance of the image.

Mike.

[popnfresh]

The shapes are very graphic and I think overall it works better in B&W. I took the liberty and did a quick and dirty conversion.

[stamper]

If someone posts an image to a forum and another person downloads it and manipulates it then is it a breech of copyright laws? Just wondering because I am not sure about this kind of thing.

[John R Smith]

If someone posts an image to a forum and another person downloads it and manipulates it then is it a breech of copyright laws? Just wondering because I am not sure about this kind of thing.

Nobody here is manipulating an image for their own use or to use it in any commercial sense. This area of the LL Forum, as I see it, is a kind of workshop space where we come together to discuss our work and, as a community, suggest options for alternative treatments or approaches to the subject. If you post a picture here, it is in the expectation that it will be analysed, criticised constructively, and perhaps re-edited by others to illustrate a point. All this is fine, and fair treatment in a critique context. I certainly would not be offended if somebody made an alternative crop or other edit of one my pictures - I might even learn something 

John

[Riaan van Wyk]

Anders, I lean towards the B/W take on this.

[stamper]

Nobody here is manipulating an image for their own use or to use it in any commercial sense. This area of the LL Forum, as I see it, is a kind of workshop space where we come together to discuss our work and, as a community, suggest options for alternative treatments or approaches to the subject. If you post a picture here, it is in the expectation that it will be analysed, criticised constructively, and perhaps re-edited by others to illustrate a point. All this is fine, and fair treatment in a critique context. I certainly would not be offended if somebody made an alternative crop or other edit of one my pictures - I might even learn something 

John

John I accept what you state but the question remains is it a breach of copyright law to download - without the owner's consent - and manipulate it? If I downloaded a colour version of one of your images and converted it to B&W and posted it on another thread could you definitely state it was yours? I haven't seen anywhere on the site that downloading and manipulating is OK.

[Rob C]

I would agree with stamper's tentative stance: no copying without permission seems about right. Apart from anything else, it smacks to me of a sort of superior arrogance that doesn't charm me at all.

Maybe that's another reason I post in other threads.

Rob C

[John R Smith]

I would agree with stamper's tentative stance: no copying without permission seems about right. Apart from anything else, it smacks to me of a sort of superior arrogance that doesn't charm me at all.

Maybe that's another reason I post in other threads.

Rob C

Well, we are rather hi-jacking another poor devil's thread, here, aren't we. My apologies, Andres. But in the time I have been here, it has been the norm in the critique section that one might make a re-edit of a picture in order to illustrate an alternative approach. However, if it were the general feeling that this should no longer be the case, then I am sure that we could all agree to such a change.

PS I have started another thread to continue this discussion.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=51917.0

John

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I find the colors quite lovely. and the whole thing nearly, but nicely, abstract. B&W appears a bit washed-out.

[fredjeang]

I find the colors quite lovely. and the whole thing nearly, but nicely, abstract. B&W appears a bit washed-out.

So do I, this is IMO a color image. I think the perspectives could have been corrected.

[Andres Bonilla]

Interesting perspective.  I could do without the grill on the air intake, but for practical purposes it has to stay and cropping it out would throw off the balance of the image.

Mike.

Thank you sir! I kind of like the grill because it changed the lines a bit and also showed that it was a practical element in the building that was made artistic in its placement and form.

[Andres Bonilla]

The shapes are very graphic and I think overall it works better in B&W. I took the liberty and did a quick and dirty conversion.

 I love to see diffrent variations of my photos done by other photographers, this one I like except that some of the areas lookd a bit washed out. I am sure they could be fixed in PS.

[Andres Bonilla]

Anders, I lean towards the B/W take on this.

Yes it is a nice variation but what attracted me to this location was the contrast of the blue sky and the orange red of the foreground, the whiteish building, I thought, was a nice division between the two colors.

[Andres Bonilla]

Well, we are rather hi-jacking another poor devil's thread, here, aren't we. My apologies, Andres. But in the time I have been here, it has been the norm in the critique section that one might make a re-edit of a picture in order to illustrate an alternative approach. However, if it were the general feeling that this should no longer be the case, then I am sure that we could all agree to such a change.

PS I have started another thread to continue this discussion.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=51917.0

John

Well this poor devil does not mind the input of other photographers on my work. I even posted a while a go a B/W photo and I invited the forum to play with it in its original color version. But I see why some people would be worried that a doctored or converted shot of theirs would ended up in another site as someone else's original shot.

[Andres Bonilla]

I find the colors quite lovely. and the whole thing nearly, but nicely, abstract. B&W appears a bit washed-out.

Thanks, maybe a B/W with more contrast and better whites but the poster did say it was a quick conversion to illustrate his point.

[Andres Bonilla]

So do I, this is IMO a color image. I think the perspectives could have been corrected.

Thanks, you mean the horizontal perspective?

[popnfresh]

Well, we are rather hi-jacking another poor devil's thread, here, aren't we. My apologies, Andres. But in the time I have been here, it has been the norm in the critique section that one might make a re-edit of a picture in order to illustrate an alternative approach. However, if it were the general feeling that this should no longer be the case, then I am sure that we could all agree to such a change.

Excuse me, but this is the critique forum. If I manipulate an image under discussion to illustrate a point I'm trying to make I think it's perfectly appropriate to do so. It's not in ANY way "hi-jacking" the OP's thread.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Excuse me, but this is the critique forum. If I manipulate an image under discussion to illustrate a point I'm trying to make I think it's perfectly appropriate to do so. It's not in ANY way "hi-jacking" the OP's thread.

I think John's comment about hi-jacking was meant for stamper and Rob, not you. Me think.

[popnfresh]

I think John's comment about hi-jacking was meant for stamper and Rob, not you. Me think.

But it was my B&W conversion that started this mess.