Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,568   Posts: 1,545,458   Online: 1130
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 31 of 31
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,342
    Blog Entries
    5
    Images
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Too lazy to destroy the negative is a lame excuse... It takes more effort to include the negative with the prints to send to the "job/client" than to make a pile and set it on fire or send it through a shredder...
    "being lazy" is a lame excuse ?
    ... i've created singular images/ objects for a long time ...
    with previous work, the negatives have always been ephemeral ( and i never had to deal with them ) ...
    i do not want destroy these new negatives because i am selfish and lazy,
    it took me 25+ years to get here, and if i destroy my negatives, it will put me back 25 years,
    i am too lazy to do it all over again ... besides i will probably be dead in 25 years
    and don't plan on making photographs from the grave.

    it is labor intensive making the prints (images) since i will be doing it all by hand
    . ... not sure how including the negative is considered more effort .. the negative is already made ...

    i guess if you only processing film making the negative is the hard part ... ?


    Why not send the negative as the copywrite <sic> registration .... Then they have it and you don't have to deal with it...
    the copyright office doesn't retain negatives
    Last edited by jnanian; 05-15-2014 at 11:16 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: gibberish

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin