Forum
»
More General Categories
»
Misc.
» Official Misc Photography Crew, Part V "Do you even shoot?"
07-25-2021, 01:40 PM
#3181
Originally Posted By scoops555⏩
Are you using a start tracker?
- MilkforBrains
- Registered User
-
- MilkforBrains
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2016
- Age: 31
- Posts: 4,022
- Rep Power: 30,016
-
Quote
07-25-2021, 01:55 PM
#3182
Originally Posted By MilkforBrains⏩
yes
Are you using a start tracker?
Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer tracker
meade heavy duty tripod
redcat 51 apo telescope
fuji hx1
<3RAINBOW ZUMBA<3
areolaborealis used to be my favorite poster crew
rip in peace pissbag 2021
07-25-2021, 02:32 PM
#3183
rate my pano skills. the spot where my tripod was looks srsly like an anus.
shot with an EOS R & 8-15mm f/4 fisheye then stitched together. i have like 8 or 9 of these in various places throughout alaska (mostly the kenai penn.)
this right here is beluga point >> https://photos.app.goo.gl/nXBdvybTwLz9pKim9
also from the emerald cove trail in alaska last year
shot with an EOS R & 8-15mm f/4 fisheye then stitched together. i have like 8 or 9 of these in various places throughout alaska (mostly the kenai penn.)
this right here is beluga point >> https://photos.app.goo.gl/nXBdvybTwLz9pKim9
also from the emerald cove trail in alaska last year
Bills crew / Bud Light crew / extra onion crew / M&P crew / lcp2 crew / ap3 crew / Trump crew / mcdonalds app crew / cat-owner crew / Tin Cup crew / self-checkout crew / country music crew / RIP snails crew / 214CE crew
07-25-2021, 02:50 PM
#3184
Got my first camera 6 months ago. A wee ricoh gr. Used the in camera jpeg developer.
- MilkforBrains
- Registered User
-
- MilkforBrains
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2016
- Age: 31
- Posts: 4,022
- Rep Power: 30,016
-
07-25-2021, 08:20 PM
#3185
some of my recent pics with the R5 and 800mm F11.
definitely my favorite camera / lens combo yet, even though that F16 is pretty difficult to work with. I need to setup my Auto ISO so it stops going above 6400. These 12,800 pics are workable, but not ideal.
the other day I went and found some eagles, here's a pic from my S10+ to show distance:
and then saw this beautiful buck today near my dad's house. gonna be a good season
just did some distance looking up, and most of these shots are 300-500'. that level of clarity (minus the ones where I'm using 12,800 ISO) is pretty damn impressive especially for a $900 lens imo
definitely my favorite camera / lens combo yet, even though that F16 is pretty difficult to work with. I need to setup my Auto ISO so it stops going above 6400. These 12,800 pics are workable, but not ideal.
the other day I went and found some eagles, here's a pic from my S10+ to show distance:
and then saw this beautiful buck today near my dad's house. gonna be a good season
just did some distance looking up, and most of these shots are 300-500'. that level of clarity (minus the ones where I'm using 12,800 ISO) is pretty damn impressive especially for a $900 lens imo
+++ Positive Crew +++
♬♫♪ Music crew ♪♫♬
**** PC Master Race Crew****
Misc Photography Crew
- PositiveCrew
- Longtime Lurker
-
- PositiveCrew
- Longtime Lurker
- Join Date: Mar 2015
- Location: United States
- Age: 26
- Posts: 3,807
- Rep Power: 137,172
-
07-25-2021, 10:02 PM
#3186
Originally Posted By friesbruh⏩
The oystercatcher(?) is a nice composition. Shame about the… thing.
rate my pano skills.
edit: didn't click on the pano. nice.
GO LOCAL SPORTSBALL TEAM
*** Pureblood Master Race ***
*** Official Misc Photography Crew ***
08-02-2021, 01:39 PM
#3187
Bills crew / Bud Light crew / extra onion crew / M&P crew / lcp2 crew / ap3 crew / Trump crew / mcdonalds app crew / cat-owner crew / Tin Cup crew / self-checkout crew / country music crew / RIP snails crew / 214CE crew
08-02-2021, 06:34 PM
#3188
Originally Posted By friesbruh⏩
Nice shot. Contrast might be on the high end tho.
★★★ A State of Trance Crew ★★★
♞♞♞ Misc Horse Head Crew ♞♞♞
08-18-2021, 06:21 PM
#3189
been shooting with the R5 + EF 500mm F4 + RF 2x lately. all handheld. just ordered a Gitzmo GT5543XLS tripod and Wimberely WH200 head
I'm focusing on my editing and trying to get my pictures to look more consistent across the board. Having a lot of issues with blown out white skies.
also some annoying "noise" I've been seeing with the R5 that I never had on the XT3. Not sure if it's just because I'm cropping so much more, or the higher base MP. Just bought Topaz Denoise to help with that.
I'm focusing on my editing and trying to get my pictures to look more consistent across the board. Having a lot of issues with blown out white skies.
also some annoying "noise" I've been seeing with the R5 that I never had on the XT3. Not sure if it's just because I'm cropping so much more, or the higher base MP. Just bought Topaz Denoise to help with that.
+++ Positive Crew +++
♬♫♪ Music crew ♪♫♬
**** PC Master Race Crew****
Misc Photography Crew
- PositiveCrew
- Longtime Lurker
-
- PositiveCrew
- Longtime Lurker
- Join Date: Mar 2015
- Location: United States
- Age: 26
- Posts: 3,807
- Rep Power: 137,172
-
08-18-2021, 07:35 PM
#3190
Originally Posted By PositiveCrew⏩
At least with the best gear you can't blame the gear.
been shooting with the R5 + EF 500mm F4 + RF 2x lately. all handheld. just ordered a Gitzmo GT5543XLS tripod and Wimberely WH200 head
Tall Gitzo crew. Had mine for over 10 years.
08-18-2021, 10:16 PM
#3191
Originally Posted By Dominik⏩
Exactly. No room for "well I could've had a better picture if I had x, y, z".
At least with the best gear you can't blame the gear.
Tall Gitzo crew. Had mine for over 10 years.
Tall Gitzo crew. Had mine for over 10 years.
Really good FF camera, 45MP, good AF, several new RF lenses, and then the old faithful EF 500mm which still impresses me even though it's almost as old as I am
+++ Positive Crew +++
♬♫♪ Music crew ♪♫♬
**** PC Master Race Crew****
Misc Photography Crew
- PositiveCrew
- Longtime Lurker
-
- PositiveCrew
- Longtime Lurker
- Join Date: Mar 2015
- Location: United States
- Age: 26
- Posts: 3,807
- Rep Power: 137,172
-
09-02-2021, 07:19 PM
#3192
ended up buying another lens…
last month I picked up a Canon EF 500mm MK I L IS USM for $2,650 shipped on ebay
today I picked up a Canon EF 600mm MK I L IS USM for $3,500 shipped (found on ebay, but we worked a deal outside of it so the seller could lower the price)..
I was shooting a 9pt buck in the swamp today with the 500mm and 2x and wished I had a bit more reach…
last month I picked up a Canon EF 500mm MK I L IS USM for $2,650 shipped on ebay
today I picked up a Canon EF 600mm MK I L IS USM for $3,500 shipped (found on ebay, but we worked a deal outside of it so the seller could lower the price)..
I was shooting a 9pt buck in the swamp today with the 500mm and 2x and wished I had a bit more reach…
+++ Positive Crew +++
♬♫♪ Music crew ♪♫♬
**** PC Master Race Crew****
Misc Photography Crew
- PositiveCrew
- Longtime Lurker
-
- PositiveCrew
- Longtime Lurker
- Join Date: Mar 2015
- Location: United States
- Age: 26
- Posts: 3,807
- Rep Power: 137,172
-
09-20-2021, 03:23 AM
#3193
y'all, i've done f'ed up…send help
09-20-2021, 05:10 AM
#3194
A couple recent ones I've got around to processing:
- Porridgemonster
- Registered User
-
- Porridgemonster
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jun 2012
- Posts: 1,031
- Rep Power: 13,217
-
10-09-2021, 05:14 PM
#3195
Question for you guys about copyright.
I shoot contract work for other people, they pay me for my time or I purely shoot for fun and provide links to others for free - I dont gaf what they do with the digitals after I shoot them - I have zero interest in printing and dealing with enforcing copyright.
Buuuuut. A 'professional' shot portrait photos (I dont shoot portraits) for a client and the proofs are horrendous. Blown out, no detail, photos weren't even straight, waaaay too much light - the eyes have no iris, just look really bad. The photos were for an ad campaign that launched today and they frantically sent them to me at 11:30 p.m. last night begging for me to make them useable and asked me to touch them up which I did by manipulating literally every perimeter of the photo, added iris to the eyes in the photos and I removed watermark / signature in corner of the photo.
They posted them to ******** today and Hoooooooly fuk this other photographer is threating to sue me. Not sure what the actual damage is, and I plan on just ignoring this idiot. Mind you I did a favor for a good client and made exactly $0 and the person that posted the photos PAID the original photographer for them - all I did was spend a hour touching them up and sent them back.
tldr: Does a photographer have any recourse if a third party digitally edits a photo not limited to but including editing a signature / proof / marking and taking no credit? Im sure this is stipulated on a contract by contract basis, but what is the 'common law' interpretation?
I shoot contract work for other people, they pay me for my time or I purely shoot for fun and provide links to others for free - I dont gaf what they do with the digitals after I shoot them - I have zero interest in printing and dealing with enforcing copyright.
Buuuuut. A 'professional' shot portrait photos (I dont shoot portraits) for a client and the proofs are horrendous. Blown out, no detail, photos weren't even straight, waaaay too much light - the eyes have no iris, just look really bad. The photos were for an ad campaign that launched today and they frantically sent them to me at 11:30 p.m. last night begging for me to make them useable and asked me to touch them up which I did by manipulating literally every perimeter of the photo, added iris to the eyes in the photos and I removed watermark / signature in corner of the photo.
They posted them to ******** today and Hoooooooly fuk this other photographer is threating to sue me. Not sure what the actual damage is, and I plan on just ignoring this idiot. Mind you I did a favor for a good client and made exactly $0 and the person that posted the photos PAID the original photographer for them - all I did was spend a hour touching them up and sent them back.
tldr: Does a photographer have any recourse if a third party digitally edits a photo not limited to but including editing a signature / proof / marking and taking no credit? Im sure this is stipulated on a contract by contract basis, but what is the 'common law' interpretation?
- ChewYourFood
- ▪█───────█▪
-
- ChewYourFood
- ▪█───────█▪
- Join Date: Aug 2012
- Posts: 7,385
- Rep Power: 89,931
-
10-09-2021, 05:31 PM
#3196
Originally Posted By ChewYourFood⏩
I'm no professional but I'm thinking removing the watermark might be a problem. Normally I edit the photos and once my client pays for them, I remove the watermark and send. At that point they own them and I don't give a crap what they do with them.
Question for you guys about copyright.
I shoot contract work for other people, they pay me for my time or I purely shoot for fun and provide links to others for free - I dont gaf what they do with the digitals after I shoot them - I have zero interest in printing and dealing with enforcing copyright.
Buuuuut. A 'professional' shot portrait photos (I dont shoot portraits) for a client and the proofs are horrendous. Blown out, no detail, photos weren't even straight, waaaay too much light - the eyes have no iris, just look really bad. The photos were for an ad campaign that launched today and they frantically sent them to me at 11:30 p.m. last night begging for me to make them useable and asked me to touch them up which I did by manipulating literally every perimeter of the photo, added iris to the eyes in the photos and I removed watermark / signature in corner of the photo.
They posted them to ******** today and Hoooooooly fuk this other photographer is threating to sue me. Not sure what the actual damage is, and I plan on just ignoring this idiot. Mind you I did a favor for a good client and made exactly $0 and the person that posted the photos PAID the original photographer for them - all I did was spend a hour touching them up and sent them back.
tldr: Does a photographer have any recourse if a third party digitally edits a photo not limited to but including editing a signature / proof / marking and taking no credit? Im sure this is stipulated on a contract by contract basis, but what is the 'common law' interpretation?
I shoot contract work for other people, they pay me for my time or I purely shoot for fun and provide links to others for free - I dont gaf what they do with the digitals after I shoot them - I have zero interest in printing and dealing with enforcing copyright.
Buuuuut. A 'professional' shot portrait photos (I dont shoot portraits) for a client and the proofs are horrendous. Blown out, no detail, photos weren't even straight, waaaay too much light - the eyes have no iris, just look really bad. The photos were for an ad campaign that launched today and they frantically sent them to me at 11:30 p.m. last night begging for me to make them useable and asked me to touch them up which I did by manipulating literally every perimeter of the photo, added iris to the eyes in the photos and I removed watermark / signature in corner of the photo.
They posted them to ******** today and Hoooooooly fuk this other photographer is threating to sue me. Not sure what the actual damage is, and I plan on just ignoring this idiot. Mind you I did a favor for a good client and made exactly $0 and the person that posted the photos PAID the original photographer for them - all I did was spend a hour touching them up and sent them back.
tldr: Does a photographer have any recourse if a third party digitally edits a photo not limited to but including editing a signature / proof / marking and taking no credit? Im sure this is stipulated on a contract by contract basis, but what is the 'common law' interpretation?
Hope is works out good luck.
National Level Competitor (Female BB)
10-09-2021, 05:53 PM
#3197
I posted a few of my shots a few pages ago(Under username CougarP01)..
Here's a couple more. Can't wait to finish school next year because I'm going to be breaking the camera right back out.
Valley of Fire State Park
Hudson Yards Subway Station - Manhattan, NY
Here's a couple more. Can't wait to finish school next year because I'm going to be breaking the camera right back out.
Valley of Fire State Park
Hudson Yards Subway Station - Manhattan, NY
RIP Based Kevin Samuels
London Brah
Computer Science / IT Master Race
10-09-2021, 07:08 PM
#3198
Originally Posted By kimm4⏩
Thanks, Im not concerned in this instance (no written contract & photos were paid for) - The photos were due a week ago, and were delivered at 11:00 at night the day before they were needed and they were totally unusable. More curious for future reference in case someone really wants to press the issue - I assume as long as they tell me they own the copyright I am in the clear.
I'm no professional but I'm thinking removing the watermark might be a problem. Normally I edit the photos and once my client pays for them, I remove the watermark and send. At that point they own them and I don't give a crap what they do with them.
Hope is works out good luck.
Hope is works out good luck.
This wasn't a proof mark - it was like the bottom corner but semi transparent like below. I think the photographer thought they were going to throw it on there and get some free advertising off someone else's advertising campaign.
- ChewYourFood
- ▪█───────█▪
-
- ChewYourFood
- ▪█───────█▪
- Join Date: Aug 2012
- Posts: 7,385
- Rep Power: 89,931
-
10-09-2021, 07:10 PM
#3199
Bumping for later WILL deliver some JOOCY shots DED fooking SRS.
- Keep the misc great again
- Watch my poo flush while holding the plunger to make sure I don't flood the bathroom crew.
- You can be REALCLOUT too VIA the REALCLOUT text GENERATOR sponsored BY miscmathematician SRS
Click here —————-> https://js.do/caffeinatedlogic/50858
The world is YOURS boyos.
10-10-2021, 09:40 AM
#3200
Originally Posted By Realclout⏩
you better, or we'll have negs ready
Bumping for later WILL deliver some JOOCY shots DED fooking SRS.
just got back from 5 days in Yellowstone. Have just over 300GB of content that I'm working on transferring and editing…
+++ Positive Crew +++
♬♫♪ Music crew ♪♫♬
**** PC Master Race Crew****
Misc Photography Crew
- PositiveCrew
- Longtime Lurker
-
- PositiveCrew
- Longtime Lurker
- Join Date: Mar 2015
- Location: United States
- Age: 26
- Posts: 3,807
- Rep Power: 137,172
-
10-10-2021, 11:43 AM
#3201
Originally Posted By ChewYourFood⏩
Typically yes they do unless it was a work for hire contract, photog owns the picture when they hit the shutter no matter who is paying. Before editing anything you need to check if your client actually owns the photographs. Usually decent photogs keep copyright and let clients use them under license eg. they want to now use the pictures of a multi-year multi-national ad campaign = more money but this is getting eroded in more recent times. If this guy is this awful though just ignore him, even the most egregious copyright infringement cases I've seen online like wedding photo used on a billboard the photog never actually collected any money. It is just to expensive and difficult to pursue, often they need to prove losses and it gets very messy and expensive. Storm in a teacup imo.
Question for you guys about copyright.
I shoot contract work for other people, they pay me for my time or I purely shoot for fun and provide links to others for free - I dont gaf what they do with the digitals after I shoot them - I have zero interest in printing and dealing with enforcing copyright.
Buuuuut. A 'professional' shot portrait photos (I dont shoot portraits) for a client and the proofs are horrendous. Blown out, no detail, photos weren't even straight, waaaay too much light - the eyes have no iris, just look really bad. The photos were for an ad campaign that launched today and they frantically sent them to me at 11:30 p.m. last night begging for me to make them useable and asked me to touch them up which I did by manipulating literally every perimeter of the photo, added iris to the eyes in the photos and I removed watermark / signature in corner of the photo.
They posted them to ******** today and Hoooooooly fuk this other photographer is threating to sue me. Not sure what the actual damage is, and I plan on just ignoring this idiot. Mind you I did a favor for a good client and made exactly $0 and the person that posted the photos PAID the original photographer for them - all I did was spend a hour touching them up and sent them back.
tldr: Does a photographer have any recourse if a third party digitally edits a photo not limited to but including editing a signature / proof / marking and taking no credit? Im sure this is stipulated on a contract by contract basis, but what is the 'common law' interpretation?
I shoot contract work for other people, they pay me for my time or I purely shoot for fun and provide links to others for free - I dont gaf what they do with the digitals after I shoot them - I have zero interest in printing and dealing with enforcing copyright.
Buuuuut. A 'professional' shot portrait photos (I dont shoot portraits) for a client and the proofs are horrendous. Blown out, no detail, photos weren't even straight, waaaay too much light - the eyes have no iris, just look really bad. The photos were for an ad campaign that launched today and they frantically sent them to me at 11:30 p.m. last night begging for me to make them useable and asked me to touch them up which I did by manipulating literally every perimeter of the photo, added iris to the eyes in the photos and I removed watermark / signature in corner of the photo.
They posted them to ******** today and Hoooooooly fuk this other photographer is threating to sue me. Not sure what the actual damage is, and I plan on just ignoring this idiot. Mind you I did a favor for a good client and made exactly $0 and the person that posted the photos PAID the original photographer for them - all I did was spend a hour touching them up and sent them back.
tldr: Does a photographer have any recourse if a third party digitally edits a photo not limited to but including editing a signature / proof / marking and taking no credit? Im sure this is stipulated on a contract by contract basis, but what is the 'common law' interpretation?
Edit if you edited out the watermark this may be more serious because your client might not have actually paid the photog and these are proofs, do confirm this. Why would paid for photographs have logos/watermark?
If you can't handle me when I'm incel, you don't deserve me when I'm chad
10-10-2021, 07:26 PM
#3202
Originally Posted By zknarc⏩
It was the company name like a signature 'Misc Studio' in the corner. I could have cropped out…
Typically yes they do unless it was a work for hire contract, photog owns the picture when they hit the shutter no matter who is paying. Before editing anything you need to check if your client actually owns the photographs. Usually decent photogs keep copyright and let clients use them under license eg. they want to now use the pictures of a multi-year multi-national ad campaign = more money but this is getting eroded in more recent times. If this guy is this awful though just ignore him, even the most egregious copyright infringement cases I've seen online like wedding photo used on a billboard the photog never actually collected any money. It is just to expensive and difficult to pursue, often they need to prove losses and it gets very messy and expensive. Storm in a teacup imo.
Edit if you edited out the watermark this may be more serious because your client might not have actually paid the photog and these are proofs, do confirm this. Why would paid for photographs have logos/watermark?
Edit if you edited out the watermark this may be more serious because your client might not have actually paid the photog and these are proofs, do confirm this. Why would paid for photographs have logos/watermark?
These were 100% paid for, the email I was forwarded had a paid receipt and I downloaded full resolution pics directly from photographer (they were so bad that I contemplated asking for the raw photos). My assumption is that the photog forgot about the pics, and then edited them in bed at the last second and had the brightness on their screen turned down and nightshift on. I've seen some companies slide their 'signature' in the corner hoping the client doesnt say anything with the hopes of free advertisement.
Does a watermark in itself grant any additional protection or are you saying the implication that the photos weren't paid for? Usually the proofs are unusable even if you wipe the watermark because they are low res.
- ChewYourFood
- ▪█───────█▪
-
- ChewYourFood
- ▪█───────█▪
- Join Date: Aug 2012
- Posts: 7,385
- Rep Power: 89,931
-
10-15-2021, 08:11 PM
#3203
Life has been a fukn shytshow for the last while, but I managed to get a couple of hours to myself today, and went for a walk on the beach. Highlight:
GO LOCAL SPORTSBALL TEAM
*** Pureblood Master Race ***
*** Official Misc Photography Crew ***
10-17-2021, 05:17 PM
#3204
24-105 lens. probably use a longer one next time.
Bills crew / Bud Light crew / extra onion crew / M&P crew / lcp2 crew / ap3 crew / Trump crew / mcdonalds app crew / cat-owner crew / Tin Cup crew / self-checkout crew / country music crew / RIP snails crew / 214CE crew
10-17-2021, 05:43 PM
#3205
Your ass shot is a little soft, not to mention noisy. What settings did you use?
GO LOCAL SPORTSBALL TEAM
*** Pureblood Master Race ***
*** Official Misc Photography Crew ***
10-17-2021, 06:14 PM
#3206
Strong thread, never came across it. Using an 80/90D and an old 55-250. I've since upgraded to a 150-600 lol. Sold the 90, looking into an R5 now.
- Skeptical_Hippo
- Banned
-
- Skeptical_Hippo
- Banned
- Join Date: Dec 2009
- Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
- Posts: 23,128
- Rep Power: 0
-
10-17-2021, 06:21 PM
#3207
- Skeptical_Hippo
- Banned
-
- Skeptical_Hippo
- Banned
- Join Date: Dec 2009
- Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
- Posts: 23,128
- Rep Power: 0
-
10-20-2021, 03:41 AM
#3208
Originally Posted By Skeptical_Hippo⏩
This one is really nice, good job.
Strong thread, never came across it. Using an 80/90D and an old 55-250. I've since upgraded to a 150-600 lol. Sold the 90, looking into an R5 now.
- Porridgemonster
- Registered User
-
- Porridgemonster
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jun 2012
- Posts: 1,031
- Rep Power: 13,217
-
10-20-2021, 08:14 AM
#3209
Originally Posted By Skeptical_Hippo⏩
welcome to the crew.
Strong thread, never came across it. Using an 80/90D and an old 55-250. I've since upgraded to a 150-600 lol. Sold the 90, looking into an R5 now.
R5 master race.
I spent 4 days out in Yellowstone and the Tetons and took like 1.2GB of photos and videos. Had to upgrade CF Express and SD cards, and get a new backpack xd
I also purchased a 600mm MK III (the 6.7lb one, vs the 12.5lb one I have) on ebay for $7500. ended up being a scam… still waiting for eBay or my CC to refund me on that.
the temptation to spend $13k on a new RF 600mm F4 is soooo strong
+++ Positive Crew +++
♬♫♪ Music crew ♪♫♬
**** PC Master Race Crew****
Misc Photography Crew
- PositiveCrew
- Longtime Lurker
-
- PositiveCrew
- Longtime Lurker
- Join Date: Mar 2015
- Location: United States
- Age: 26
- Posts: 3,807
- Rep Power: 137,172
-
Bookmarks
- Digg
- del.icio.us
- StumbleUpon
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts