first film shots back

Discussion in '35mm Cameras and Accessories' started by cyberspider, Jul 30, 2011.

  1. cyberspider

    cyberspider Member

    Messages:
    120
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    aberystwyth
    Shooter:
    35mm
  2. David Lyga

    David Lyga Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,942
    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Tough love for the cyberspider: the lone tree trunk and the hugging of said tree (to affirm your 'green-ness' perchance?) are not good because they demonstrate nothing but accuracy of focus.

    On the other hand, the stones and buildings are rather indicative of a knowldge of how to compose: the elements seem to me (what does that matter?) to be correctly placed and aesthetically pleasing. I felt that I was looking at something that said something but, please, spider, do not fall into the trap that most 'salon' worshipers did in the forties by 'naming' such photos. Providing 'names' (except for strictly identification purposes) forces the viewer to become myopic and crestrict his other thoughts about the picture. Let the viewer 'imagine' and conflate thoughts and revel in the unrestrictiveness. Thanks. - David Lyga.
     
  3. cyberspider

    cyberspider Member

    Messages:
    120
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    aberystwyth
    Shooter:
    35mm
    well the hugging tree was taken for that person thats not me i might add its a neighbour she wanted it for a friend
    the tree trunk was for that purpose of focusing skill so looks like i got it right

    and im still learning so your right i am not sure on composition yet but im doing a course now so i hope this will improve thank you for your feed back
     
  4. BrianL

    BrianL Member

    Messages:
    547
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Location:
    Toronto ON C
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    If this is the type of shooting you like then, I'd suggest in investing in a decent spot meter. The metering looks like is is an averaging type and the results from an exposure perspective could have been improved with a spot meter. Your composing looks good as does the subject matter. Ovedrcast days can be tough to work with. If I were in your place I'd have considered b&w.
     
  5. cyberspider

    cyberspider Member

    Messages:
    120
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    aberystwyth
    Shooter:
    35mm
    yes sadly i had no BW film and no one sells it here but im ordering some next week

    spot meter is on the list as is flash
     
  6. zsas

    zsas Member

    Messages:
    1,957
    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Great job. Like that lens a lot! I think this shot has all the attributes I just love, slim DOF, dreamy background, deep blue, interesting perspective. Thanks for the share!
    [​IMG]
     
  7. cyberspider

    cyberspider Member

    Messages:
    120
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    aberystwyth
    Shooter:
    35mm
    thank you i was going for a bugs eye view im glad you like it
     
  8. F/1.4

    F/1.4 Member

    Messages:
    235
    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    please, ditch the "footsteps in time" watermark. I kept looking for that instead of what the actual picture was.
     
  9. Worker 11811

    Worker 11811 Member

    Messages:
    1,626
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Put your personal information and copyright statement in the EXIF data hidden in the JPEG file header. Flickr preserves EXIF data if somebody copies the file or downloads it. Your name will be downloaded and stored inside the picture. Most people won't even know that it's there.

    If you "need" to use a visible watermark, either fade it back or put it closer to the edge of the image.

    I often use various techniques to mark my images but, when it comes down to it, if somebody's going to steal your images, they'll do it regardless of whether the image is tagged or watermarked. A good Photoshopper can rub that watermark out in less than five minutes.

    Besides, you have the negative... Proof positive that the image is yours.
     
  10. jnanian

    jnanian Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    20,212
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    local
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    if you are worried about copyright, having the negative doesn't really hold up
    in a court of law ( if it comes down to that )
    you need to register your images at the copyright office
    and have the registration form ...
    its cheap and easy and if you are worried about someone stealing
    and using your work and using it in a commercial way, i would do it ...
     
  11. mr rusty

    mr rusty Subscriber

    Messages:
    760
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Location:
    lancashire,
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    If you want to try B&W, consider one of the C41 process films. You can send those in with your colour films to the same processor. Fuji 400CN from 7dayshop is good value
     
  12. Diapositivo

    Diapositivo Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,343
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Location:
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Although registering your work at the copyright office (the Library of Congress in the US) can make things much easier and even allow the judge to liquidate a higher sum (because of judiridical details that I don't remember at the moment) copyright is, as a general principle, born the moment you create the work and not the moment you register the work.

    The registration at a copyright office constitutes a "relative presumption" of paternity, and can always be proved false.

    That is, if somebody else registers your work at the copyright office, and you can demonstrate you are the creator of the work (by showing the negative for instance, and having a tribunal technician certificate that it is not a digital negative, while the one of your opponent is :wink: ) you can always claim your copyright regardless of a registration by somebody else, or the lack of a registration.

    Copyright registration in my country, at SIAE, is awfully costly, slow and unreliable. You have to make some copy of it (print, CD) which goes in a sealed bag at SIAE offices where it remains for 10 years or so, when you have to "renew" it. When you go to court, the CD is unreadable. It's a system thought out basically for books and written material such as music.

    The procedure at the Library of Congress, last time I checked, is a bit clumsy.

    For "unpublished" work you have to pay a certain tax (with a check IIRC) for each "batch" you hand in. Each "batch" can contained an unlimited, or very large, amount of work but you have to register before "publication" that is, also before giving the work to a stock agency.

    That would cause, in the case of a stock photographer, either a delay in giving your work to an agency (if you make two registration per year, you have to wait six months before letting the work out of the door) or to pay any time for a new registration tax. I think I make around 4 submissions per months to agencies, that would be around 50 submissions per year to the LoC, which is a cost.

    They have simplified with an online procedure now, but IIRC the basic limitations of having to proceed in "batches" remain.

    If anybody can give me better information or advice on how to cheaply register my pictures with the LoC, that's very welcome. The same information is welcome about registration in any other country, such as UK or France or Germany (courts accept any kind of copyright registration by any country having signed the copyright convention, one would normally use the registration to settle out of court in any case).

    Fabrizio