The point here is not that the image is listed, but that the Google site
says that the images *might* be copyrighted,
when it should say that they *are* copyrighted (or some such thing).
However, it just might be the case that the images on a given site are not
privately owned images but images
Maybe it's just my general punchiness at having only slept about 14 hours
this week, but I think it's damn funny that Anthony, who won't touch his
computer configuration for fear of disrupting a known state, finds it odd
that professional photographers will limit risk when going on assignment by
While I do not always agree with Anthony or his reasoning, I think that he
raises some good questions here that merely a yes answer while sufficient is
not very helpful. I for one am curious and would like further elaboration
on what sort of client would license or buy a thumbnail image or a web
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Harvey writes:
In a word, yes.to both questions.
Interesting. I am surprised that anyone would be willing to pay for a thumbnail
image. Web-resolution images are easier to understand, but even if that is a
source of revenue, why would putting them in a
Since we shoot mostly famous rock roll personalities and sell a lot of stock
imagery, we find that our
images have a relatively short shelf life, and a propensity to be lifted by those who
would rather not pay us
our rightful fees.
However, whenever such unapproved usages are found out by us,
Hi everybody,
sorry for the long-winded subject. My inbox file crashed some days ago,
but I remember this issue to have been dealt with in a previous thread.
However, I think it is so serious that I found it worth starting a
thread on its own. So, here we go:
When I bought my LS-30, I first
John Rylatt wrote:
Hi All,
FYI, I am in the US.
Re the Polaroid 4000, I had a friend do a scan of a K64 test slide that I purchased
many
years ago. This slide has a black fabric background. A ball of white wool in front
of the
backgound exhibited a flare effect not present on the
Laurie writes:
However, it just might be the case that the
images on a given site are not privately
owned images but images in the public
domain ...
Virtually nothing is in the public domain, and I agree with those who object to
the phrasing of the search engine's warning. Saying that an
Harvey writes:
I cannot/will not get into a discussion of business
practices, but suffice it to say, that the fees
generated from licensing web images are more than
worth our time and effort.
Then you are most likely a fortunate exception to the rule.
Again, I maintain that saying that an
There is a factual error in the review.
The reason they couldn't see any difference in resolution between the
Minolta Dual Dimage II (which they indicate has a resolution of 2438
dpi), and the Nikon rated at 2900 dpi, (as they mention in the body of
the article) is because the Minolta Dual
Pat writes:
... I think it's damn funny that Anthony, who won't
touch his computer configuration for fear of disrupting
a known state, finds it odd that professional
photographers will limit risk when going on assignment
by bringing along film from trusted sources, and
processed at
Harvey writes:
I, for one, do not think it's in our best interest
to revert to the old way of doing business, with
lower fees.
Of course not, if you make more money with the new system. But is it really
ethical to do work just once, and then expect to be paid for it forever? Nobody
else
Just how effective are the dust removal programs that one can use with the
SS 4000? I do not work in anything like a pristine environment, and, much
to my surprise, have discovered that my slides, as sharp and perfectly
exposed as they are, are covered with all sorts of dust, scratches and junk.
There are also some airplane trays that are
magnetic so they do not rattle (the ones in first
class typically that fold down into the arm rest),
and they can effect magnetic media also.
This is incorrect; it is a longstanding hoax.
I'm sorry, Anthony, but your claim of a hoax is
Austin writes:
Anthony, you did not read what I wrote. I said
you are, obviously, right. Doesn't that close
the discussion?
I read what you wrote, but it appeared to be sarcasm.
What does that matter? If someone says you are right, why continue the
argument, unless your only
Sounds like the old debate between condenser vs. diffusion
enlargers. Collimated light from condensers picks up more dust than
diffuse illumination. Would the 2 types of scanners have contrast traits
with silver BW films in a similar pattern? That would be more contrast
from the collimated
I didn't say that foreign labs are inferior. I said the 'home' lab is a
known quantity. I didn't say that the film bought on location was inferior,
I said it's condition wasn't known, whereas film brought along out of a
purchase made locally is a controlled variable. Yes, risk is introduced by
Using Ls 4000 with dirty film
To Barbara and Martin
My suggestion is:
Download the demo or buy Silverfast software. Easiest way to use
Silverfast with dirty film is auto sharpening settings together with the
cleaning settings. Import end is that you choose and set
your size of the picture
Plenty of groups do work once and get paid forever. For example: inventors
who license their patent, actors who earn residuals, songwriters, authors. I
think anyone in a creative field basically has that benefit.
- Original Message -
From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Harvey
There is a factual error in the review.
The reason they couldn't see any difference in resolution between the
Minolta Dual Dimage II (which they indicate has a resolution of 2438
dpi), and the Nikon rated at 2900 dpi, (as they mention in the body of
the article) is because the Minolta Dual
Will be offline for a couple of days taking a mini vacation after PMA here
in Los Angeles. Couple of days in Ensenada MX.
See you soon!
David
Just thought I'd throw in my two cents on this one. I just bought a Nikon
LS-4000 to replace my Polaroid Sprintscan 4000. I made the switch purely to
get the roll film adapter. In hindsight, since it sounds like the SS4000
Plus might have the adapter that will be backwards compatible, I guess
There is a factual error in the review.
The reason they couldn't see any difference in resolution between the
Minolta Dual Dimage II (which they indicate has a resolution of 2438
dpi), and the Nikon rated at 2900 dpi, (as they mention in the body of
the article) is because the Minolta Dual
Austin writes:
What does that matter?
If it is sarcasm, it can be disregarded.
Pat writes:
... the greater risk to magnetic sensitive
media (e.g. hard drives) is caused by the often
unshielded motors in the conveyor belt system.
In general, any magnetic field not strong enough to actively attract the hard
drive is not strong enough to harm it.
To David, All:
The recent MacWorld scanner review with its close results,
raises the question of which scanner's software will support the new
Unix-based Mac OS X. Perhaps David and others can comment on which
software packages will become OS X native. I'm shopping for a 4000
dpi
Austin writes:
I'm sorry, Anthony, but your claim of a hoax
is false. Now, you're an expert on airline trays?
No, but after talking to Airbus and the IATA about this very hoax, I was able to
confirm that it is baseless. The original hoax was a circulating Internet story
about two people
Pat writes:
Plenty of groups do work once and get paid
forever. For example: inventors who license their
patent, actors who earn residuals, songwriters,
authors. I think anyone in a creative field
basically has that benefit.
Yes ... but why?
Austin writes:
What does that matter?
If it is sarcasm, it can be disregarded.
Why?
Austin writes:
I'm sorry, Anthony, but your claim of a hoax
is false. Now, you're an expert on airline trays?
No, but after talking to Airbus and the IATA about this very
hoax, I was able to
confirm that it is baseless.
Oh. Only Airbus and the IATA know anything about this. Whom at
who's
That should have been whose, sorry ;-)
Tom,
I find your comments intriguing. Could I ask a few questions? I find
that when I sharpen using Photoshop tools, there is oftentimes an artificial
dark or light line (sharpening artifact) that appears at the juxtaposition
or boundary of a dark and light area. This causes me to spend a
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Pat writes:
Plenty of groups do work once and get paid
forever. For example: inventors who license their
patent, actors who earn residuals, songwriters,
authors. I think anyone in a creative field
basically has that benefit.
Yes ... but why?
Because
Virtually nothing is in the public domain, and I agree with those who
object to
the phrasing of the search engine's warning. Saying that an image might
be
copyrighted implies that copyright protection is the exception to the
rule,
when in fact, essentially everything is copyrighted, unless it is
While I understand your concerns, while I agree with your position on the
benefits of public education, and while I accept your point of view about
licensing as one of many legitimate positions on the subject of professional
fees, I do not see a copyright admonishment on a search engine or any
And it's not the 'thumbnails' that we worry about getting lifted, it's the
larger images on our website
Maybe you should not have larger images that are downloadable on your web
site; and if you do, they certainly should not be high resolution images.
Obviously, the search engine can only
It is an urban legend. Visit this link for the details:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bllaptop.htm
Now, can we get back to scanning and put this pissing contest to bed.
Tom
Austin writes:
I'm sorry, Anthony, but your claim of a hoax
is false. Now, you're an expert on
Brian,
Honestly, it is too soon for me to answer than question. The scanning I've
done with it so far has been low-res web scanning. I certainly haven't
noticed the boundary problems you described. I have not, however, scanned
for printing at full resolution. Once I do that, I'll let post more
Austin writes:
Why?
Because sarcasm is not seriously intended to generate a rebuttal, by definition.
On 9/9/01 9:35 PM, Brian D. Plikaytis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom,
I find your comments intriguing. Could I ask a few questions? I find
that when I sharpen using Photoshop tools, there is oftentimes an artificial
dark or light line (sharpening artifact) that appears at the juxtaposition
Hello,
I have a Mac G4 silver with OS 9.2.1 and Microtek scsi and firewire 8700 flatbed
scanner; I just got the latest version of Vuescan BUT I do not see from the list of
the supported scanner models, from the Vuescan menu the Microtek 8700..; in fact
when I ask the software for a
But is it really
ethical to do work just once, and then expect to be paid for it forever?
Nobody
else has that privilege.
It's called licensing. The music industry, film industry, and software
industry, are based upon it, to name just a few.
Todd
on 9/9/01 1:51 AM, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
If there
are other reasons why someone would want to license a thumbnail image or a
web resolution image in contrast to a high resolution and/or larger sized
image, I would be interested in increasing my awareness.
Banner ads.
Todd
Isn't this boundary the halo that USM is built upon? The idea of USM (and
this is way to short an explanation) is to introduce just such edge contrast
around and/or between objects and transition zones. The width of these halos
are controlled by the Radius slider in the USM dialog box. Try
Austin writes:
Why?
Because sarcasm is not seriously intended to generate a rebuttal,
by definition.
Why not?
Oh. Only Airbus and the IATA know anything
about this.
The original hoax specifically mentioned an Airbus A340 and
Sabena airlines,
although other verifiable details were lacking, as usual.
Did you ever think that the hoax that you claim was inaccurate for ONLY
those airlines, and that
Not necessarily. That does not mean that other airlines did not use
magnetic trays. The source for the report I had were far and above any
Internet folklore. The issue may have been cured since the issue was first
discovered. If memory serves me correctly, the report I had was done in
1993/4
Do you actually read? I posted the link showing that this is an urban
legend - a hoax, quite some time ago.
This entire thread is ridiculous. Grow up and shut up.
Tom
From: Austin Franklin
Did you ever think that the hoax that you claim was inaccurate for ONLY
those airlines, and that for
BS.
It is a hoax.
Shut UP
Tom
- Original Message -
From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 7:19 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: X-ray and digital camera
Not necessarily. That does not mean that other airlines did not use
At 19:24 09-09-01 +, you wrote:
I find
Nik Sharpener utterly useless-- it ALWAYS oversharpens, no matter what
settings I use.
Agreed. I've seen it in action and think it's grossly overpriced for what
little it does as opposed to custom Photoshop actions or packages like
UltraSharpenPro.
Well, now that I am done building the pages, I admit that contrary to my
initial optimism, when I view the completed pages, they are oversharpened.
Darn. I wanted this to work better. I'll play with it some more, but I
suspect I've thrown away the money.
I'll look into what you just suggested.
on 9/9/01 7:42 PM, Todd Flashner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But is it really
ethical to do work just once, and then expect to be paid for it forever?
Nobody
else has that privilege.
I sure do! If I write a movie and get 5% of producer's net, I get it
forever. Of course 5% of producer's net
on 9/8/01 12:03 PM, Lawrence Smith at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You've got to be kidding. E6 the same everywhere? I've taken identical
shots one minute apart in consistant lighting on separate rolls and had
different labs process them. The results were VASTLY different. How much
Todd,
I have experimented with the radius setting. However, when I reduce the
radius enough to eliminate the halo, I do not get much sharpening. Also,
this white line (halo, if you will) does not occur everywhere - just certain
areas where a black boundary is net to a light area. At least it
Sharpening is typically best done at the end, after manipulations, and
catered to a particular size/resolution/use. With that in mind, if you want
to use Nik, but it over sharpens for you, here's how I'd apply it. This is
but one way, but it's a good down and dirty way, short of sharpening
2 suggestions Dan Margulis makes that may help:
1.Change to LAB and sharpen the L channel only; or
2.Sharpen in RGB - then Edit - Fade Unsharp Mask - Mode: Luminosity
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Brian D. Plikaytis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday,
Hi,
I am thinking about getting this soon and have a few questions.
What exactly is included? SCSI cable? (what connectors?) Slide/Film
Adapters? One of each?
What SCSI connectors are on the unit?
I have mostly Kodachrome 64 slides to scan. This unit work well with them?
Any problems or
After reading what seems like a million posts on the copyright issue, *and* a
prestigious amount of typing,
I'm just going to try to give my opinion and (hopefully) leave it at that. :- )
I fear everyone is thinking in the very short term here (regarding search engines and
the web). Web
Tom
I am also a happy owner of the printer and web version of NikSharpener Pro,
and, like you, I feel it is one of the best programs I own. Getting the
three parameters of unsharp mask correctly adjusted and coordinated has
always been a mystery to me. Every article I've read on it has only
Tom Brian
I've scanning at 300 dpi using NikSharpener pro on slides. I'm then
printing my images 13x19 on an Epson 1280. I do not get any dark or light
lines around my images, and feel that the results are natural looking and
not at all artifical. There are three levels of degree of
I've been given a copy of NikSharpener Pro for review but have never been
happy with the degree of sharpening it gave me.
Could the people who are happy with it please give us the settings you are
using and the file size and dimensions of the intended images and their
use. Either post to the
I have to disagree with this negative view, at least when it comes to using
NikSharpener Pro for turning out prints. I've seen many excellent reviews
of it, including one by the landscape photographer Michael Reichman.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/nic_sharpner.htm. I am a very satisfied
Thank the gods! Finally a filmscanner question.
If you are going to buy one do it soon. The $200US rebate ends at the end of this month. If you can find one, they are selling for under $450 right now (including the rebate) as it's being replaced by a new model. The new model will have 14-bit
63 matches
Mail list logo
