Loren E wrote:
Phenomenal! Did using a TSE mean you didn't have to focus-stack for all that awesome DOF? Curious if this was just a single exposure...
Thank you Loren. I didn't use tilt shift lens, this photo was taken with Nikon 14-24mm@14mm and it is single shot for DOF. I was standing on top of small hill / rocks and the closest foreground rocks and plants were about 4meters away.
Artur, that is an amazing shot! You really worked to get the light to compliment an absolutely beautiful location. I wondered what it would look like to be on that side, and now I know. Thanks for sharing.
Interesting story. I moderate a "community" on Google Plus. (The "California and Western US Landscapes" community, in case anyone is interested.) Today a photograph was shared there by one of those posters—the type is well known to anyone who moderates any community—that was basically click bait. The photo looked familiar.
It was this photograph. Used by someone else.
Google and other image searches already show this photograph popping up on other web sites.
Dan
Thanks again to all of you. Dan, I know that this photo is going to be used aka "stolen"by others. This is the case with many photographs and as soon as we click "upload" we are taking the risk. I don't know how to better protect photos once posted online. If any of you know or use some kind of software or techniques to add protection to your photos I'm open for advice. Thanks.
ArturS wrote:
Thanks again to all of you. Dan, I know that this photo is going to be used aka "stolen"by others. This is the case with many photographs and as soon as we click "upload" we are taking the risk. I don't know how to better protect photos once posted online. If any of you know or use some kind of software or techniques to add protection to your photos I'm open for advice. Thanks.
There is no perfect answer to the question, and the right balance will be different for every photographer. On one hand there are the very real concerns about photographs being used without the photographers permission or knowledge, with no credit to the photographer (or credit being given to someone else), and for a diversity of purposes ranging from seemingly innocent up to fraud of several sorts. On the other hand is the desire to see photographs in all of their pure beauty, unimpeded by non-photographic elements and the photographer's wish to have his/her work more widely seen.
There is nothing that you can do to completely eliminate the possibility of unauthorized use, but if you do nothing you amplify the opportunities for the "bad guys" to do the wrong thing.
This photograph creates a powerful impression and has obvious attractions to folks, including those who would use it without permission and those who might use it even for nefarious purposes. (There is at least one site out there that has scooped up hundreds of relatively small and lo-res images which it purports to sell in larger versions. Since the site probably doesn't even have access to larger versions of most of those files, it seems likely that it is there primarily to induce folks to supply their credit card data...)
gdanmitchell wrote:
There is no perfect answer to the question, and the right balance will be different for every photographer. On one hand there are the very real concerns about photographs being used without the photographers permission or knowledge, with no credit to the photographer (or credit being given to someone else), and for a diversity of purposes ranging from seemingly innocent up to fraud of several sorts. On the other hand is the desire to see photographs in all of their pure beauty, unimpeded by non-photographic elements and the photographer's wish to have his/her work more widely seen.
There is nothing that you can do to completely eliminate the possibility of unauthorized use, but if you do nothing you amplify the opportunities for the "bad guys" to do the wrong thing.
This photograph creates a powerful impression and has obvious attractions to folks, including those who would use it without permission and those who might use it even for nefarious purposes. (There is at least one site out there that has scooped up hundreds of relatively small and lo-res images which it purports to sell in larger versions. Since the site probably doesn't even have access to larger versions of most of those files, it seems likely that it is there primarily to induce folks to supply their credit card data...)
Dan, many thanks for insightful advice and article. Yes, I have already experienced copyright problems with couple of my photos...namely "From Above," which was used by Google Earth and credited to Google Earth, then used by several online newspaper services without my authorship, and with "Thundered Ice," which was taken by a local radio station for marketing purposes. Fortunately in both cases I was able to force them to credit my authorship after all. Nevertheless, copyright problem is and will be an ongoing issue for all photographers and I am sure that I am not aware of many other copyright violations that concern my photos.
Again thanks for sharing your experience with me.
Artur
Thank you Jeffrey and Gregg. The light was magnificent that morning and colours in the sky very unusual from what we normally see. In post processing I was trying to keep it as close as possible to what I saw to spectacle the beauty of the region and the range of light.
