2 days without phone connection and hence internet (thanks, Ciaran), so I'm catching up...
Following the processing discussion above, here are a couple of storm shots taken from the garden (we didn't dare venture further)
Minimally processed, sort of catches a bit of movement but not much else
And the same tree, with some completely OTT processing that sort of happened (something I can't remember what plus a watercolour effect), but does much more convey what it felt like at the time
A serious question, since there are clearly some seriously good photographers on this forum.. As an amateur fiddler, I don’t care, but are any of you concerned about having your images copied, edited and reproduced, possibly even for commercial gain? E.g. here is your last photo Liz, copied and edited into a ‘new’ image:
(For illustrative purposes only, now deleted from my Ipad!)
Mountainous Northern Catalunya, Spain. Hot summers, cold winters.
I’ve also thought about that too @Nollie, not just on this thread. There are lots of possibilities here, particularly the close up threads and garden gallery.
At one point several moons ago, I did some online courses through a magazine. A group of us ran a Flickr group connected with it and several people put watermark signatures on their shots. I did for a while and then decided most of mine were such rubbish no one would want to copy them anyway!
Now? Well I still don't think much I do is worth copying! But even if it is, the resolution posted here is too low, less than half the original, to do much with commercially. And if someone does take anything to use, I think quite honestly I'd be flattered.
My view is that anything you post online is vulnerable to someone using it with or without permission, so don't post if that would bother you. Anything I want to keep safe I don't post anywhere - e.g. I have a load of portraits I took last year. They stay with me and those directly concerned.
I can't speak to photograpy, but I used to share a lot of writing online and never worried about copyright. I would much rather people enjoy the creations than worrying about being 'robbed'. I know writers who spend all their time consumed by the idea that people will steal their work. It's a very dark way to live. You can copy pretty anything on Google Images - from big fish or small. You can copy any article, story, song or poem - this is tech world we live in. We are flooded with creative content. I do feel for professional creators that cannot protect their widely published works, if they want to.
A similar thought occurred to me recently. I wonder if the GW magazine people keep a look-out on here for images that could grace their pages? Seems a bit pointless having a forum otherwise. If you think how much they have to pay stock libraries for small images, an approach to a forum poster might be a much cheaper alternative.
Clay soil - Cheshire/Derbyshire border. I play with plants and soil and sometimes it's successful
It seems that most publications use stock agencies like Getty. Ot they would use their own photographers on their books. I'm not sure they would mess about with asking forum members, with all the limitations of file size etc.
I thought the forum was formed when the BBC were very interested in education - a hang over of the old days.
A similar thought occurred to me recently. I wonder if the GW magazine people keep a look-out on here for images that could grace their pages? Seems a bit pointless having a forum otherwise. If you think how much they have to pay stock libraries for small images, an approach to a forum poster might be a much cheaper alternative.
The terms and conditions of the site seem to confirm this @LunarSea :
13. You remain the owner of the copyright in any original user Contribution that you submit. By submitting any user Contribution to any of our Services (including without limitation any forum, blog, social network, discussion page, photo album or video uploading facility) and in consideration of us making available to you the opportunity to upload any user Contribution (which you acknowledge as a sufficient benefit to you), you irrevocably and unconditionally grant us free of charge a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sub-licensable licence of the entire right, title and interest in and to such user Contribution so that we and any successor may use the user Contribution in any way, including without limitation the right to copy, reproduce, modify, edit, adapt, reformat, translate, create derivative works from, incorporate into other works, transmit, distribute, perform, play, broadcast, commercialise and otherwise make available to the public such user Contribution (whether in whole or in part or copies of the same) in any format or medium currently known or developed in the future for the full period during which such rights subsist (including all renewals, revivals, reversions and extensions of the same) and thereafter to the fullest extent possible in perpetuity.
Posts
Following the processing discussion above, here are a couple of storm shots taken from the garden (we didn't dare venture further)
Minimally processed, sort of catches a bit of movement but not much else
And the same tree, with some completely OTT processing that sort of happened (something I can't remember what plus a watercolour effect), but does much more convey what it felt like at the time
Here was an image of Acer Bi-Hoo stems I posted yesterday on Plantminded’s thread:
The ‘Smoke’ filter is pleasing:
A serious question, since there are clearly some seriously good photographers on this forum.. As an amateur fiddler, I don’t care, but are any of you concerned about having your images copied, edited and reproduced, possibly even for commercial gain? E.g. here is your last photo Liz, copied and edited into a ‘new’ image:
(For illustrative purposes only, now deleted from my Ipad!)
At one point several moons ago, I did some online courses through a magazine. A group of us ran a Flickr group connected with it and several people put watermark signatures on their shots. I did for a while and then decided most of mine were such rubbish no one would want to copy them anyway!
Now? Well I still don't think much I do is worth copying! But even if it is, the resolution posted here is too low, less than half the original, to do much with commercially. And if someone does take anything to use, I think quite honestly I'd be flattered.
My view is that anything you post online is vulnerable to someone using it with or without permission, so don't post if that would bother you. Anything I want to keep safe I don't post anywhere - e.g. I have a load of portraits I took last year. They stay with me and those directly concerned.
I play with plants and soil and sometimes it's successful
13. You remain the owner of the copyright in any original user Contribution that you submit. By submitting any user Contribution to any of our Services (including without limitation any forum, blog, social network, discussion page, photo album or video uploading facility) and in consideration of us making available to you the opportunity to upload any user Contribution (which you acknowledge as a sufficient benefit to you), you irrevocably and unconditionally grant us free of charge a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sub-licensable licence of the entire right, title and interest in and to such user Contribution so that we and any successor may use the user Contribution in any way, including without limitation the right to copy, reproduce, modify, edit, adapt, reformat, translate, create derivative works from, incorporate into other works, transmit, distribute, perform, play, broadcast, commercialise and otherwise make available to the public such user Contribution (whether in whole or in part or copies of the same) in any format or medium currently known or developed in the future for the full period during which such rights subsist (including all renewals, revivals, reversions and extensions of the same) and thereafter to the fullest extent possible in perpetuity.