When your photos are just too good.

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by Calvin Sambrook, Apr 3, 2010.

  1. Apparently this article:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-print-photography-students-snaps--GOOD.html
    is true even though it's printed in the good old Daily Mail. According to a
    previous tutor of hers who I happen to know she really is that good!

    Aside from the total nonsense of Boots (a national pharmacist chain in the
    UK who do photo printing) deciding that the woman in front of them couldn't
    possibly be a good enough photographer to take these photos I think it's an
    interesting decision to dress the model in black and use a black background.
    That really forces your eye to work hard and concentrate on the body but it
    must have made exposure a real challenge.

    As I've forced a Daily Mail article on you all I offer this in mitigation:
     
    Calvin Sambrook, Apr 3, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Great publicity for the 'tog, and not really all that bad for Boots.
    Agree on choice of dress, b/g and exposure. Nice job, but the skin tones
    are poor- which may or may not reflect reality.
     
    John McWilliams, Apr 3, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Calvin Sambrook

    Paul Furman Guest

    She could prove it by taking another snap with her camera and comparing
    the nearly consecutive file numbers and perhaps other info in the exif.

    Lol


    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Apr 3, 2010
    #3
  4. Calvin Sambrook

    Robert Coe Guest

    : Apparently this article:
    : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-print-photography-students-snaps--GOOD.html
    : is true even though it's printed in the good old Daily Mail. According to a
    : previous tutor of hers who I happen to know she really is that good!

    I'm pretty sure I've heard of that happening in the US. We're considered to be
    the most litigious society on earth, so I guess it would be simple common
    sense.

    : Aside from the total nonsense of Boots (a national pharmacist chain in the
    : UK who do photo printing) deciding that the woman in front of them couldn't
    : possibly be a good enough photographer to take these photos I think it's an
    : interesting decision to dress the model in black and use a black background.
    : That really forces your eye to work hard and concentrate on the body but it
    : must have made exposure a real challenge.

    The pictures were taken on a digital camera. Couldn't the photographer have
    cited the Exif data? It might have shown the photographer's name and would
    have shown the serial number of the camera.

    : As I've forced a Daily Mail article on you all I offer this in mitigation:
    :

    I've never seen the DM, but that song is hilarious.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Apr 4, 2010
    #4
  5. Calvin Sambrook

    Rob Morley Guest

    The Boots employees were clearly being silly, so why would they believe
    that the woman hadn't changed the metadata of the images that she was
    supposedly attempting to steal?
     
    Rob Morley, Apr 4, 2010
    #5
  6. Calvin Sambrook

    tony cooper Guest

    If the photo department people at Boots are the same as their
    counterparts at American drug stores, they might not know what EXIF
    data is. It is not necessary to understand cameras to process images
    on the machines they have.
     
    tony cooper, Apr 4, 2010
    #6
  7. Calvin Sambrook

    Vass Guest

    another case for the Canon EOS 5D MkII giving superb results!,
    this wouldn't have happened had she used a Nikon :)
     
    Vass, Apr 4, 2010
    #7
  8. Damned if you do, damned if you don't - it's a no-win situation all to often
    these days. Imagine the fuss if the pictures HAD been copyrighted. The
    song is brilliant, thank you.

    Geoff.
     
    Geoff. Hayward, Apr 4, 2010
    #8
  9. Calvin Sambrook

    Bruce Guest


    It's a real problem. I shoot weddings (among other things) for a
    living and, in most cases, the deal includes a CD-ROM of high
    resolution images with the copyright owned by whoever commissioned me
    to shoot the wedding.

    There have been several instances of problems with the copyright
    holders (or another family member) getting prints made. So I print
    the name of the copyright holder on each CD. Even that hadn't stopped
    the problem, though, and I have had to get involved personally on
    several occasions. Plus, my initiative isn't too popular with other
    social photographers who still demand to retain the copyright of
    commissioned work. ;-)

    Some UK minilabs have a form to fill in which allows the person
    ordering prints to clarify the ownership of the copyright. The
    purpose of the form is to indemnify the minilab owners/operators from
    any claim for breach of copyright. It involves the person ordering
    the prints making a declaration that they are entitled to order prints
    to be made. But as far as I know, it has not been tested in law.
    Perhaps because it works?

    Given the very complex situation, I think the staff at Boots probably
    made the right decision under the circumstances. If someone orders
    prints from digital files that appear professionally made, but the
    person ordering the prints does not appear to be a professional, then
    it is not unreasonable to err on the side of caution and avoid a
    possible breach of copyright.

    Others will disagree. If they read the Daily Mail, that probably
    classifies them as the type of person that would disagree. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Apr 4, 2010
    #9
  10. Calvin Sambrook

    spike1 Guest

    The photographer owns the copyright UNTIL he hands over said copyright to
    anyone else. If the OP chooses to give the copyright to the photographs to
    the commissioner, that's up to him and him alone.
     
    spike1, Apr 4, 2010
    #10
  11. Calvin Sambrook

    Paul Furman Guest

    California sales tax rules are weird about insisting all photographic
    services are products to be taxed, never hourly unless you're an
    employee, which I find ridiculous for architectural or product/sculptor
    type shoots. I just do those hourly & they get the files. I don't do
    much of that though.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Apr 4, 2010
    #11
  12. Calvin Sambrook

    Bruce Guest


    Well, they do come in all shapes and sizes, so it's probably easier to
    spot someone who isn't one. ;-)

    Seriously, I take your point, but it's probably more about what the
    customer says and how they say it than about their physical
    appearance.
     
    Bruce, Apr 4, 2010
    #12
  13. Calvin Sambrook

    K W Hart Guest

    Generally true, except in the case of "work for hire". The OP apparently
    considers being commissioned as work for hire, which is valid. But as a
    professional photographer, I don't do "work for hire"; I retain copyright on
    all my work.
    The person creating the photograph is the copyright holder as of the moment
    the image is fixed in a permanent form. He may turn over any rights he wants
    to for whatever fee he may or may not charge.
     
    K W Hart, Apr 5, 2010
    #13
  14. Calvin Sambrook

    Rob Morley Guest

    But that assumes that the person manning the photo counter is capable
    of recognising a satisfactory answer when it is given, and that's
    clearly not always the case.
     
    Rob Morley, Apr 5, 2010
    #14
  15. Calvin Sambrook

    Bruce Guest


    In the absence of a written contract, English law grants the copyright
    to the photographer. But a contract can be written to say whatever
    the parties want.

    The reasons for my choice to grant copyright of social images to the
    people who commissioned me are simple. First, it is a strong selling
    point, because customers don't like to be tied to using the
    photographer as the sole source of (usually expensive) reprints.
    Second, it relieves me of any responsibility to preserve the image
    files in perpetuity in the faint hope of some lucrative re-orders for
    prints that usually aren't worth the hassle.

    So basically my approach enables me to charge more while at the same
    time costing me less. The customer gets full ownership of the images
    and avoids being tied to me as the sole source of reprints. Win/win.

    Having said that, several customers who have been dissatisfied with
    the quality of reprints from elsewhere have come back to me to have
    them done. Win/win/win. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Apr 5, 2010
    #15
  16. Calvin Sambrook

    K W Hart Guest

    Obviously, you will run your business in the way that you want. And your
    position was have some validity.
    But here's my problem: Suppose the customer takes the files (or in my case
    negatives) to a slipshod lab and gets bad prints. How do they know that it's
    the lab's fault and not yours? Suppose they show those poor quality prints
    to friends who also think that the problem is due to your original files?

    I tell my customers that I hold the negatives and make the prints because I
    want them to have the best quality images possible, and the only way to do
    that is if I control the process from camera to framed image. (All of my
    portraits leave here in frames, ready to hang. BTW, the little metal hanger
    on the back is screwed on, not nailed.)

    Again what works for you is your choice. But my customers are willing to pay
    a premium price for quality framed images ready to hang. And if I have to,
    for a bit more money, I'll go to their home and drive a nail in the wall for
    them!
     
    K W Hart, Apr 5, 2010
    #16
  17. Calvin Sambrook

    Bruce Guest


    There are many different approaches to wedding and social photography.
    I wouldn't claim that my business model was the best for everyone, nor
    that there isn't ample scope for developing it into something better.
    Indeed, it has developed over time.

    What struck me was that the business model that you and many other
    social photographers still use was well suited to film capture, but is
    perhaps less well suited to digital capture. In the days when
    most/all image manipulation was done in the darkroom, and there was a
    great gulf between the high standards of commercial wedding labs and
    the variable and often mediocre high street minilabs, it made sense
    for the photographer to keep control of copyright for exactly the
    reasons you say.

    But in today's digital world, there is much less of a difference in
    quality between the services that pros use and the retail minilabs,
    because they tend to use similar if not identical equipment. Image
    manipulation is done by the photographer so that's one huge variable
    removed from the printing process.

    I know that many UK wedding photographers use Photobox, which is
    available to absolutely anyone with an Internet connection. The
    photographers charge extremely high prices for prints that anyone
    could buy cheaply themselves, direct from Photobox. I appreciate that
    it must seem very tempting to try to pass off machine made prints as
    though they were something special, but it strikes me as being rather
    dishonest.

    Clients often realise that too - I have had several commissions from
    people who have their own DSLRs but, as amateurs, don't feel up to the
    challenge of covering a friend's or relative's wedding. They know all
    about Photobox's combination of good quality and low prices and are
    very aware of the possibility of being stung with a premium price for
    what they know are Photobox's inexpensive, but high quality prints.

    I have chosen Photobox as an example, but there are other similar
    services in the UK and in other countries too.

    Of course I realised that, once I had sold the client a CD with all
    their images on it, retaining copyright was not going to be an option.
    So I decided not to retain copyright.

    I don't claim to be an innovator. I know quite a few pros who have
    done the same thing. We compare notes and it is interesting that more
    and more social photographers are taking the same approach. I don't
    know whether it is the best option for every social photographer -
    that's up to the individual. But so far, I'm happy with the way it has
    worked for me.

    I do supply prints with most of my wedding packages. I also offer
    several options for albums and photo books. I point my clients to a
    web site where they (and their friends/relatives) can order additional
    high quality prints from the files on the CD-ROM, at reasonable cost.
    Or they can come back to me for prints in the "old fashioned" way,
    which some prefer to do.

    My clients tell me (via feedback forms) that they greatly value my
    approach, which is based on offering several different wedding
    packages (covering a wide range of prices) plus a wide range of
    options. So far, there has been enough flexibility to satisfy every
    client I have had, but as I said above, what I offer has had to evolve
    and it will continue to do so.

    There is always room for improvement, but the one thing that I am
    unlikely to change is my approach to copyright.

    I should state that, in other areas of my work, I use different
    approaches to copyright, but they are outside the scope of this
    discussion.
     
    Bruce, Apr 6, 2010
    #17
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.