Beginner [SOLVED]

R

redpiratee

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2
Name
Arya
Edit My Images
No
Hi
I'm not a photographer but I try my best to do my own photoshoots, I'm an singer/songwriter and I'm working on my album cover which will be similar with this photo down below but in order to do this with natural shot I need a blurry material or what ever is fit for this shot and I don't know the name of that. You may suggest plastic bags but they can be wrinkled and even if it was straight there'll light reflections so I need to know the name of a material that's straight, big and blurry/transparent that will make a photoshoot like this possible.
thanks

(and yeah still think its dumb rule, people might put spam links or something harmful, all I did was put image and im doing something wrong? lol nerds. just look up to your competitors)


MOD EDIT: WE DON'T THINK ITS A DUMB RULE
MOD EDIT 2: AND WE CAN REVERT POSTS BACK AFTER YOU'VE CHANGED THEM :)


jacobsutton.com

Ghost in the Machine - Jacob Sutton

jacobsutton.com jacobsutton.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Plus an old technique that I recall reading/hearing of is using Vaseline on a filter (I e. you never want it directly on a lens) possibly on combination with a 'soft focus' lens? NB I am talking of photography back in the film days
 
Yeah after sometime I came to the conclusion that this is done with a blurry/frosted glass but Vaseline thing is very creative.
also that rule is very dumb
 
Hi Arya @redpiratee

If you consider the rule about respecting a photographer's copyright dumb, then perhaps you can explain why?

I note you say you are (an aspiring?) singer songwriter.....I surmise you intend to be paid for your work, if so then maybe you should be more respectful of copyright before yours gets infringed and you find yourself chasing those that have acted in that way!

All the best in your future aims.
 
redpiratee said:
also that rule is very dumb
Click to expand...

I'm sure that with a little thought you would realise that's not a sensible view. ;)

The easiest way to create that *kind* of effect would be with frosted glass or plastic, as suggested, and I can see a number of elements that suggest *something like that* may have been used. Do you know how to light a portrait?
 
redpiratee said:
also that rule is very dumb
Click to expand...

so is disobeying the rule, even if you disagree with it....

now I've had to not only waste time tracking down the original author, and editing your post, I've also had to warn you for it...

You are new here, if you wish to remain here, i suggest you rethink your attitude when the rest of the members helpfully inform you of a minor faux pas...
 
the sad thing is, if you'd have taken 30 seconds to actually track down the original artist, gone to their website, and looked at the original source, there'd have been a BIG clue as to how the image was made - hint it's very probably a still frame from an underwater filming session - look in the link I added - especially the 4th "moving image" in the series...
 
ancient_mariner said:
Just a temp ban then. - I wonder what went on behind the scenes.
Click to expand...

Nothing Sinister. In fact nothing other than one of our pretty fundamental rules regarding copyright (and common courtesy to the original author of the image) was dismissed by a new arrival as "very dumb".

short one day slap on the wrist holiday, just to impress upon them that we take things like copyright seriously, as with all the rules.
 
TheBigYin said:
Nothing Sinister. In fact nothing other than one of our pretty fundamental rules regarding copyright (and common courtesy to the original author of the image) was dismissed by a new arrival as "very dumb".

short one day slap on the wrist holiday, just to impress upon them that we take things like copyright seriously, as with all the rules.
Click to expand...

Quite right. I had a picture published in Canada (I live in UK) which I took way back in 1963. I still have the original and the negative but do you think I can trace the publisher - not on your life. I would love to know how they got it because it has been in my personal archive for decades. The last time it was in public was at a club competition not long after it was taken. It is definitely mine because of certain unique details in the print.
 
In the case of this thread, the photograph in question was all over the internet, displayed in various places, but, crucially, there was enough information in the FIRST hit that came up using a Google Image Search on Instagram of all places, to find the name of the person who took the photograph... From there, a search for that persons website and we were basically there. 30 Seconds more to find a sensible URL to link to and to paste it into the initial post. Honestly, in this case it took me less than a minute to source the origin information, find out how the photo was likely taken, AND paste the information up for everyone.

I guess that we've all become a little lazy, it's often easier to ask someone than actually do any research - however, there's an issue with asking, IF it means that you end up posting copyright material without references to the copyright holder. I'm not saying it's a BAD thing to ask questions, far from it, I've learned many wonderful things from the clever people on here who've far more experience than I, but I would like to think that before asking, I have at least done the bare "due dilligence" checking... as I say, if the OP had actually framed their question in a manner that was compliant with the forum rules, they'd have actually answered their own question anyway...
 
I suspect far more likely the OP sees photos as having no intrinsic value and does not respect copyright for them - if the image is 'all over' the internet then that would confirm the rightness of their thinking and I doubt they will be back to such a 'difficult' group of people who don't share their views.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I suspect far more likely the OP sees photos as having no intrinsic value and does not respect copyright for them - if the image is 'all over' the internet then that would confirm the rightness of their thinking and I doubt they will be back to such a 'difficult' group of people who don't share their views.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly, but a disappointing attitude in a "content creator" (to use the current vernacular) - as a singer/songwriter, you'd think that they'd be pretty concerned with copyright protection...

In fairness, I'm pretty sure that this thread stopped being about their initial question around post 4 and definitely by my first post (#11)
 
redpiratee said:
deleted.


(and yeah still think its dumb rule, people might put spam links or something harmful, all I did was put image and im doing something wrong? lol nerds. just look up to your competitors)
Click to expand...
Hopefully you'll receive a permanent ban, then you'll no longer be involved in a forum full of nerds :LOL:
 
@redpiratee

In case you missed the point....it is about the proper respect of Copyright. And to repeat myself, if you care so little about Copyright, I doubt you will make a success of your songwriting..???

PS especially beware of plagiarism.....there have been some well publicised cases of that in the music industry!
 
Last edited:
Solved indeed ..
 
Bigger hammer?
 
TheBigYin said:
Quite possibly, but a disappointing attitude in a "content creator" (to use the current vernacular) - as a singer/songwriter, you'd think that they'd be pretty concerned with copyright protection...

In fairness, I'm pretty sure that this thread stopped being about their initial question around post 4 and definitely by my first post (#11)
Click to expand...
As someone who's been a musician all their adult life, I think that for a lot of us, the copyright protection of content ship sailed a long time ago. Although many artists do try to protect their work, there is a very different attitude among the ordinary players. Possibly because the music 'industry' is seen at least partially as the enemy, but also because streaming made music available in a way that brought near universal abuse. For example in the early 2000s the music 'industry' managed to shut down a number of key sites holding people's own work of guitar tab - it was the same as if you had written instructions for how to recreate a photo by Ansel Adams - and this kind of attitude in various ways hardened opposition to copyright.

Photography has a different sense of right and wrong compared to music, even if the law sees them similarly. That's no excuse for behaviour, but sometimes it can be useful to understand why.

I doubt they will be back, which is no tremendous loss, though they might have had something useful to contribute.
 
This is a situation where if there were karma police anyone could take this guy's album cover once he has shot it and post it freely and uncredited. Use it to advertise washing powder or something and when he complains he should be told to stop complaining 'its a dumb rule'

In fact maybe I'll steal his image and use it on the release my own album called 'copyright, it's a dumb rule'
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top