Jump to content

Rudy Umans

Members
  • Content Count

    462
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rudy Umans

  1. Yes Stieglitz was in an unhappy Marriage. To my knowledge, Ansel Adams never had anything romantically with Georgia O'Keeffe. They were friends and roamed around in the same circles. (Edward Weston on the other hand, had probably more girlfriends over the years than all of the others combined) That camera Dorothea Lange is holding is a 5 x7 Graflex series B, not a 4 x 5. I have, and use, a later Graflex RB (Revolving Back), which is virtually the same as hers, smaller, but the same design, an SLR with a chimney and a huge cloth vertical curtain shutter, She also used Zeiss Ikon 9 x 12 plate cameras (that I also use-with a 6 x 9 Suydan roll film back) This is one of my favorite cameras because the Zeiss lens is very very good and sharp. The kodak Ektar lens on the Graflex is also very good and sharp and was designed to compete with the Zeiss lenses (that were/are still better) You can still get 9 x 12 film, but is expensive btw, 35mm has been around since the early 1900dreds, but became practical and more popular in the 1920ties That was the reason of the Pictorialism movement, to be more artsy so that photography would get recognition as art and could compete with painters. This movement started around 1865-1870 in England and became popular shortly after that in western Europe and France in particular. Paris was Stieglitz's Art Mecca at the time. He discovered pictorialism there and brought it to the US. Back in the US, he became friends with Edward Steichen and started Gallery 291 at the initiative of Steichen who lived across the hall of the empty apartment, what would become the Gallery. Photo- Secession was started later and was basically a select group of Photographers handpicked by Stieglitz. Kind of like what Magnum is today. One of those photographers was Clarence H. White who started later the first professional full time photography school in the US Maybe even world wide, not sure
  2. He is on top of my list too. Stieglitz was a powerhouse and with his on/off relationship with Georgia O' Keeffe, they were a true power couple. Sieglitz also did a lot outside photography for the art world like his introduction of Picasso, Cezanne and Matisse to the American art world Stieglitz "came from money" so he had the connections and didn't have to worry about making an income/living, which helped I am sure. Having said that, you should check out Leonard Misonne (Belgian Pictorialist) https://monovisions.com/leonard-misonne-biography-pictorial-photographer/
  3. f/64 (glad you wrote that the proper way and not like F64 or something). For people who don't know, f/64 was a club of west coast photographers who practiced and promoted "Straight Photography" (Straight as in straight forward or "pure") in the first half of the 20th century. Straight Photography was the answer of Paul Strand somewhere between 1915-1920 to the then still popular "Pictorialism" movement, which was very painterly. Paul Stand showed his images to Alfred Stieglitz and he told Paul Strand that he started something new....and so it began. In Stieglitz and Steichen's Gallery 291 in NY City to be exact. From there it went to Edward Weston, Dorothea Lange, Imogene Cunningham, and others and became an actual "movement". Contrary to what some might believe, Ansel Adams wasn't all that involved until 1930 or so. Also thanks to Paul Strand btw . Edward Weston came up with that small aperture notion way before the f/64 club. As a matter of fact, Edward Weston was known to modify his lenses with masks with a smaller aperture like f/135 or f/233 even so he could get his whole tabletop subjects into focus. The bell pepper series was done this way and since Weston only made 8 x 10 contact prints, diffraction problems with those small apertures were not much of an issue. f/64 was in principle a gallery club and the west coast answer to those "art snobs" in New York. ("We show them" was their attitude). Weston btw., also came up with this whole previsualization concept thing way before Adams. Weston was the one who told Ansel Adams about it. Adams did come up with the Zone System though as far as I know. It is funny in a way that Pictorialism has made a somewhat of a comeback now in digital with all the lighting, glowing and vignetting effects that are so popular now. (As some examples in this thread). Film has made a comeback too, but as Straight or Pure photography. (except for pinhole of course, which is by default painterly) so Pete... you HAD to bring up f/64 and get me going. Sorry about my long winding pointless expression of narcissism. Sometimes I can't help myself
  4. i have been using Photolab Elite for a few years now and i love it. For me it is all about output and when I was looking for a Lightroom replacement (wasn't happy with LR and Adobe) there were only 2 programs that fit the bill for me and that was Capture One and Photolab. I choose Photolab because the output was virtually the same, but photolab didn't have the steep learning curve (I am getting too old for that) and it had U-Point technology. Now you also get the whole NIK collection plug-in. I also bought DxO viewpoint and filmlab as plug-ins for Photolab and Affinity Photo 18.0 (That I also love) Viewpoint is very useful, Filmlab is more like a fun novelty. The only thing that could use some approvement is their DAM, but I work with very low quantities, so it is not a big deal for me. Although the DAM in Photolab 3 is already much better than in previous versions, so they are getting there. For me Photolab 3 Elite and Affinity Photo is the perfect combination. ON1 came in third btw.
  5. No he is not alone and I understand his frustration. SS should delete all of them
  6. Don't remember reading they were editorials, but if so, the answer would be I don't think so. I just looked at Photoschmidt's portfolio and figured his work is so beautiful, who wouldn't want that on a postcard or calendar? Hence my thought of those kind of companies
  7. In the US, work based on existing work is called derivative work and the creator of this derivative work does not have copyright protection on the existing elements in the work, only on the new elements. So, in order to have full copyright on the works in question, they need to be different enough of the existing work for it to be called a "new work" and from what I saw and according to your own admission, they are not. In other words, you do not have full copyright on those submissions and owning full copyright on submissions is one of the requirements of Shutterstock. The same for work that was based on works already in Public Domain. disclaimer: not legal advice
  8. That's not how I read that post and there is nothing in the license agreement about that that I can find. There are no special circumstances in the ToS. Can you point it out to me? It sounds like that what Kate wrote contradicts item 1.2 and I rather go by what the agreement says in writing than by somebody's interpretation. Even if it's a staff member. The only other option is that SS withholds information from us and if that's the case, that would be terrible indeed.
  9. Frankly, it escapes me what exactly the problem is, clause 1.2 concerning these restrictions is very broad and very inclusive in my opinion If I remember correctly, before the sensitive opt out option there was no clause pertaining to sensitive use of any kind. There was always a chance that a model could and would be used in a less desirable manner. I remember many discussions on these forums about that Then a number of years later, SS came up with this Sensitive use opt out option that gave certain restrictions to the end-use of the image. These restrictions were in a separate clause and only applicable if a contributor opted out of the sensitive use. Today these restrictions (and then some) are no longer optional, but standard in the license agreement regardless, which seems to make the sensitive opt out option redundant. (Kate's post earlier might not have been the clearest post she ever wrote. Sorry Kate.)
  10. A- no they cannot be on billboards for strip clubs etc. Clause 1.2 is very clear B- They can change a legal contract after the fact because you (we) gave them permission to unilaterally make changes when you signed up.
  11. This is what the "fuss" is about. Somebody asked a question that you answered in a not very nice and condescending way (accidentally or not and if you don't know why it wasn't nice, i would recommend a little bit of Google research)) . If I was the one who asked that question and I got an answer like you gave, I would not feel very good about myself. I called you out on it and instead of apologizing to the person you answered and change your post (since it wasn't intentionally), you got angry and offensive with presumptions about my lifestyle that make no sense whatsoever. Like it is my problem and not yours. The old adage that offense is the best defense is still true I guess. If you would have said it was not intentionally and changed you post, I would have said, no problem and I would have deleted my post and life goes on, but that's not what happened In the mean time, your post is still the same while you had plenty of opportunities to change it by now, but you didn't.........
  12. The decisive moment from the comfort of your livingroom........ It's probably me. I was never into machinegun style photographer either. No wonder so many go back to analog
  13. Pulling stills like that from video is another dagger in the he(art) of photography
  14. So you are an expert in privacy and global internet laws. Good to know. Couldn't tell from reading you first post.
  15. Couldn't agree more.!!!!! Guess the local posting wasn't embarrassing enough for the person(s), so let's make it global. Should never have been submitted like this and should have never been accepted.
  16. To put things into perspective: (true stories) I was approached by a company who does those screensavers for TV etc. Their deal was not to pay contributors per sale, but by the number of likes a picture would get on their site! (think about that for a second) on the other hand, I was also approached by a company who wanted to license/rent some of my pictures for some short term projects to hang in an event venture. Don't want to reveal the details and what they offered, but it made me happy and they absorb all the cost of printing etc.! This is recent and still in the works The moral of these stories is, as long as you don't let them screw you and branch out, you'll be fine.
  17. Thank you for posting this so HUGE. Now I didn't need to get up to get my reading glasses.. Thank you again. very considered
  18. Haven't seen somebody else yet. So, I guess they all have been good.
  19. No biggie. Unless you can only accept checks. Then you are sh#t out of luck.
  20. just pointing out that you can't compare it with a movie poster.
  21. The thing is, what is public record in one country is not necessarily public record in another and SS takes the worst case scenario. A movie poster is advertising. Different ball game. A legal notice could be defamatory, which would be like the opposite. Besides, those movie stars sign contracts in which they allow those things and very often it is in their own best interest, especially in they get paid royalties.
  22. I politely disagree with blurring a name being an alteration or removing/hiding an object. It is not the same thing. It is not really altering or hiding an object because it is still very obvious it is a name. It is illegible, not invisible. It is protecting somebody's privacy as in "sensitive information" Here in the US, I see blurred out license plates on the evening news all the time. Linda's 2 quotes seem contradictory, they are not, but regardless, it is the only way I would submit it.
×
×
  • Create New...