Jump to content

Rudy Umans

Members
  • Content Count

    645
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rudy Umans

  1. I think the only reason many contributors put up with all the inconsistencies and other crap over the years here at Shutterstock was the pay-out,

    but if SS takes that away................what's left? 

    In all my years in management, I learned that people put up with a lot, but do not touch their wallet and their coffee

    I have a feeling that they will have to move their office to the Bronx pretty soon. 

  2. 1 hour ago, Phil Lowe said:

     Played with it a little and, so far, feels more like CorelDraw than AI..  

    Affinity's answer to AI is Affinity Publisher

    The good thing of Affinity is that all their 3 programs (Designer, Publisher, and Photo) work together as one program. You can instantly switch back and forth between the programs within the file you are working on. At least that works from publisher and I am not sure if it is already implemented in the other two. It not, it will be soon.

    They are also working on scripts and might come out in version 19

  3. 2 hours ago, oleschwander said:

    No, you're right. Especially color slides. And with blue skies it's almost impossible. There are lots of noise in blue skies in 35 mm slides - maybe it's the film quality at that time ...? But also black and white are rejected for the grains. I got the black and white image above accepted though. It was shot with a Leica ... maybe therefore ..

    Try a 1 - 2 pixel caussian blurr on the blue sky. Mask the rest out. Or use the soft blur brush

  4. Scanning 35mm will always be problematic unless you can afford and have a Frontier, Imacon,or Noritsu scanner. In analog, the fine people of Texas are right, bigger really is better.

    Other options are to wet scan (in lighter fluid or Naphta) with  an Epson V700 or 800 series  or to digitize it with a DSLR. If neither is possible, use a dedicated 35mm scanner from Plustec for instance or a flatbed (for more versatility) like an Epson V600 and compensate for the loss of sharpness with Topaz Sharpen AI, which works pretty well. Even for negatives that were not completely flat during scanning.

    Scanning software can also make a difference. I tried Vuescan and for the love of God, I can't get anything sharp with that software. Some people swear by it though. I use Silverfast without problems. Other people really like Negative Pro, but that's only for Apple

  5. 1 hour ago, KeremGogus said:

    Best subjects ever and it's like meditation... I was visiting a small woodland nearby where I live before virus thing, and even shooting photos in that small woodland was calming and cleaning my mind from everyday clutter.

    Yes Sir. Cheaper than therapy

  6. 3 hours ago, HodagMedia said:

    R/C model airplanes have been flying around for over for 60 years, no one got excited, no licenses, no people claiming invasion of privacy.

    I also used to walk to school by myself when I was seven years old. Can't do that anymore either because a) I am not seven anymore and b) times have changed.

    Now they have designated fields for RC airplanes. There is one not too far from my house where they fly those fancy (read expensive) 6-7 feet RC fighter jets  and such.  Although I never asked them, I have a feeling those boys and girls on that field don't like drones either

  7. 4 hours ago, Patrick Cooper said:

    Though did I fly over someone else's house or somebody else's backyard? Nope. Did any property owner throw a fit as a result of me flying over their property? Nope. Ive never done such a thing in my 5+ years of flying rc quadcopters.

     

    "You" as in general "you" like You the people. I guess I should have specified that. Anyway, kudos to you.

  8. 8 hours ago, Patrick Cooper said:

    Of course it's relevant. If there is no camera, then there is no camera despite what a paranoid, delusional person claims. Cameras don't magically appear out of thin air. 

    again, it is a matter or perception and if a drone has a camera or not in reality has nothing to do with somebody throwing a fit if you fly over their house. Especially not if they learn about a camera or not after the fact.

    If a drone operator doesn't understand that or can't imagine him/herself in somebody else's shoes, or if that person thinks I have a permit and I have rights and therefore I can do whatever I want, that person should not operate a drone. Definitely  not in residential areas. But that's just my opinion.

  9. 1 hour ago, KeremGogus said:

    People have been tracking everywhere they go through their smartphones, all their messages and e-mail have been read and every single click in social media is also under observation, surveillance cameras watching all their moves, and this includes smart TV cameras in their own living room. There are spy satellites out there powerful enough to see inside a house. BUT people getting paranoid when they see a photographer with a camera or a drone and they still believe they protecting their privacy when they interfere with photographers work. There is no such thing as privacy, just everyday people that paranoid about photographers.

    BTW dear Rudy please don't get me wrong; I'm not saying all this just for sake of an argument or just to oppose you or anything, just my observation and that's it. ^_^

    I am not disagreeing with you and what you, rightfully I might add, point out might just be the reason why people are cautious if they see just another device doing whatever on top of all the other devices. Having said all that, what the hell do I know? I am not a psychologist

    Maybe that's why I rather take pictures of alligators and Rattlesnakes in the Everglades. They can kill you, but if they do, at least you know it's not their fault. They don't know any better

  10. 3 hours ago, Patrick Cooper said:

    Many of these anti-drone people are extremely paranoid. And irrational too. For example, a few years ago in a park in Australia, there was this guy flying his remote controlled quadcopter with no camera attached. He was keeping to himself, not disturbing other people. Suddenly, this angry woman marches over to him and says that what he's doing is an invasion of privacy. She was not happy at all. He points out to her that there's no camera mounted to the quadcopter. She then says: "Well it's still an invasion of privacy" and storms off. 

    There was also a case of a guy flying a drone in an empty oval. He had the whole place to himself....not another soul around. Then a woman and her two kids rock up. As soon as he sees these people arrive, the guy does the right thing and lands his drone. It's always good to be safety conscious and respectable to other people / park users, right? Next thing he knows, the woman is seriously angry and accuses the guy of recording footage of her kids with his drone.

    Also an example from me. Once I was flying my quadcopter in my backyard. There was no camera attached. I was just keeping up flying practise (it's a manual quad so it requires some skill to fly it.) And for the whole flight, I was keeping it within the perimeter of my family's property. Keeping it inside the fence line. A few days later, a next door neighbour on the right has a conversation with another member of my family. This neighbour claimed that I flew my quadcopter over the property on the left and flew it across to the next property after that. Absolute nonsense. And not only that, he says that I was recording aerial footage of the neighbours on the left as I was flying my quad over the top of them. Absolute garbage and completely untrue. What this guy was saying was ridiculous. 

    A few cases counts for "many" i suppose.

    Also, Non- photographers don't know if there is a camera attached or not and even if they think they know, they don't know what kind and its capabilities. So in my opinion, camera or not is irrelevant.

    It's all a matter of trust and mutual respect and both seem to be lacking a lot nowadays on both sides of the isle.

  11. 4 hours ago, engagestock said:

    So you understood i was complaining or worried about my payments even though i clarified i was just asking out of curiosity? Mmmm i see.  Thanks anyway.

    That was an answer to your second post and there was nothing wrong with my answer, so why the attitude? Do you always attack people who answer your questions? 

    *sigh*

  12. 1 hour ago, HodagMedia said:
     

    Other than the recipe part, which can only protected as part of a collection such as a cook book, or if someone made a physical copy of someone else's recipe, that was printed for example. Cooking directions, or food, and ingredients are not protected. Short and sweet, you answered this way back days ago. 👍

    Disclaimer: not legal advise

    I am sorry, but this is incomplete.

    A recipe IS copyrighted. What is not is a recipe that is only a list of ingredients (as you posted)  without an explanation. If a recipe, as most do, contains a description of what it is and how to make it, it is copyrighted.

    if the recipe just says:

    1 chicken

    1 tbl salt

    1 tbl pepper

    it is not copyright protected

    but if it says:

    "Hong Kong Chicken" or whatever

    Ingredients:

    1 chicken

    1 tbl salt

    1 tbl pepper

    Description:

    Skin the chicken, rub in the salt and the pepper, let it sit for 10 minutes and put in a 350F oven for 20 minutes. Serve hot with some garnish. Great as an appertizer

    It is copyright protected

    A little simplistic, but it illustrates the point.

    When I talk about recipes, I talk about the latter, since to me, that is what a recipe is. I should have been more clear about that.

    There are cases where people were successfully sued for publishing recipes that were not their own

    If a recipe is only protected if they are in a cookbook is illogical. As a matter of fact, if the recipe is part of a cookbook, the book as a whole is protected, but the recipes are obviously not anymore since the whole purpose of a cookbook is to teach other people how to make your dishes based on your recipes so by publishing it, you voluntarily surrendered your copyright protection of that recipe. Of course that allows you to make that particular dish, it doesn't mean you can copy that recipe and publish it.

    Disclaimer: not legal advice I just answered pertaining my understanding of US law. Your opinion and SS law (policy) might vary

  13. 10 hours ago, Phil Lowe said:

    What about trademarks?  Often, you'll hear of a dish being that restaurant's "trademark" menu item.  I understand that such may merely be a turn of a phrase, but might not a restaurant's signature dish also be protected under trademark laws?   If so, how does that affect copyright if at all?

    P.S.  This is my first shot at making cheesy chicken, broccoli, and rice.  It was delish! ®®®  :)

    Yes a trademark is a phrase, name, logo, slogan, a sign, or a particular mark by which a individual or business can be recognized or is known for. Like with copyright, these things that are created are automatically trademarked as "unregistered Trademarks", You can also register your trademark. The advantages and disadvantages of both are similar as with copyright.

    The problem with food is that restaurants are not known for a particular dish, they are known for the taste of that dish. e.g.. A restaurant can be known for their steaks, but there are thousands of other steakhouses, and if it is commonly known that this particular restaurant makes the best ones is that not because they have steaks, but because of how they taste and if there is a written recipe for that, that recipe is copyright protected. If that steak has a name they created, that name would be trademarked, but not the steak itself.

    My mom was known for her (Dutch) apple pie. There is no written  recipe. My sister makes it now. So if there is somebody else that makes an identical pie, there is legally nothing they can do. If my sister would call that pie "My mother's pie", that name would be trademarked as an Unregistered Trademark (tm) and she could try to register it and if it is accepted she can put an (R) behind the name. However, somebody can still make that pie because there is no written recipe. Also, if it is found that the phrase/name/slogan is too common, they might not accept it for registration as they didn't with "you're fired" for example.

    In our situation, you an take pictures for commercial use, because taste is not a tangible thing, it is the equivalent  of "a concept', "an idea" as used with copyright, and as long as you don't use the name of the dish (if there is one) you should be good. You can take a picture of a hamburger, just don't use the words "Whopper" or "Quarter Pounder" in the keywords or title (as we all know and I should have mentioned that in my first post in this thread actually)

    Hope I explained it well enough.

    anyway, thanks for reminding me. I have a registration of my own I forgot about.

     

    Disclaimer: not legal advice I just answered pertaining my understanding of US law. Your opinion and SS law (policy) might vary

  14. Of course they will ignore it. You are basically screwed. What are you going to do? Sue them? Beat them up? There really is not much you can do and they know it.

    Unfortunately there is no such thing as International Law you can fall back on. There are only treaties. The treaty for IP is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). You could check if Cyprus is a even a member.  Those "take down" notices you hear a lot about on forums like this are a direct result of that treaty.

    The problem with these things is the determination whose law applies and that can take a long time and in cases that are not a security threat,  or of some other significant international importance, nobody really cares.

     

  15. Ok Coppermouths. my mistake. I corrected it. I just keep calling them Water Moccasins . Easier for me and they are very common here and whatever they are called, no snake to mess with.

    I don't know what I would have done if I didn't have my tripod. Probably looking for a branch or a stick or something. Either way, my hands and feet would not have come near that snake. Those  full grown Eastern Diamondbacks can definitely kill you and I like to get older than today.

     

  16. I had my almost disastrous encounter with a coppermouth one day. (we call them Water Moccasins)  What saved me was that she opened her mouth and the pink stood out against the dark mud she was laying in. A bite would not have been good since I was in the middle of nowhere with no cell phone reception or anything.

    anyway the other day I drove my truck southbound on the main road in the Everglades when I saw something on the road northbound. First I thought it was some debris, coming closer, I realized it was a snake in need of saving before somebody would run him/her over. People go faster than they should on that road sometimes. I stopped the truck and walked over only to find out it was a beautiful Eastern Diamondback rattlesnake of about 5 feet.(smaller than average) With the help of my  tripod i was able to get her to safety. She was very grateful I stopped. She was talking to me, sticking her tongue out and vigorously saying hello with her tail. On the way back I encountered some overheated cyclists in need of food and water. They were equally grateful. It was a good day!! (this is a phone picture, i only had my pinhole cameras with me and a 14 sec -or longer- exposure of a rattlesnake with a pinhole camera just didn't seem right)

    Close-up of a wild Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake in the Florida Everglades National Park

×
×
  • Create New...