20 Responses to “LARRY”

  1. unclebanjo Says:

    Like, that they are singing about a groundhog and I believe Larry is playing a OO?

    and bushy beards.

    People ruining there images with large types of there name with a copyright logo are arrogant

  2. Old Joe Clark Says:

    He does play an L-00 sometimes. …and the Culpeper Woodchuck. Indeed.

  3. unclebanjo Says:

    Sorry for my anger, I just think if everything is automatically under copyright what’s the need unless you are saying look at me aren’t I great. I usually stop looking at the photographs by then and dismiss their talent wether it’s good or not.

    Thanks! for the HOT girlfriend in tube. It made my day!

  4. Look at me. Aren’t I great?

  5. unclebanjo Says:

    The need to plaster your name on a image.

    Alot of public domain imagery is marred by companies that want you to pay for a large version of it. Ever get ticked trying to look at paintings that are so scale down you see nothing. Everybody seems so money grubbing and so damn important it makes me sick to my stomach.

    Just because you snap a photograph of a slice of reality with a machine you are intitled. I’ll share it with you for a price after all my reality is superior. “Aren’t I great.”

    If the work is good sure I’m interested in knowing the author but marring the image with an ego logo is a kill joy for me.

    If works are published in print, sure I think the orginator should be paid. I don’t put print size on the web.

  6. Really, I can see both sides. A bloke’s got to eat and that includes photographers. I used to think photographers’ rates were out of this world arrogant, and the internet / market has now knocked them (and anybody in the music business) down many notches in terms of their ability to control the distribution and sale of their works. On the other hand, the internet has opened access to works of art and made it possible for anybody to market to anybody else on the internets.

    I got no problem with photographers watermarking their product to make it hard for people to copy it without payment. That being said, I’ll go a long way to avoid paying fees to places like Getty Images. I’ve saved many a client many a buck, by photographing stuff myself rather than paying fees to a “pro” or to a stock photo company. …not that any of them ever really understood or appreciated the money I saved them.

  7. unclebanjo Says:

    I guess I’m just cranky because I’ve reach the frozen stage of my condition and I also drank alot of Molson when chasing Beaver. Man, were those the days!

    Hope everybody has a wonderful Ground Hogs Day!

    Is there any kind of count down for Roto?

  8. corndoggie Says:

    BD, no way to invoice for photography as an extra (moneysaving) service?

    O3, that guy worked hard to get that bridge pano, shooting the same scene repeatedly until the misty magic happened. He has special talent, he worked hard to gain special skills, he laid out money for gear and he invested a lot of time into making the image. He owns it, and if he can get $250 for a print or rights for a a 1/4-page magazine ad, more power to him.

    That river scene I just posted (chopped liver?) is one of my favorite pics. I should probably slap a big © CORNDOGGIE on it.

  9. CD, In a way I do invoice for the service. It’s a way of differentiating myself from the competition. The term “value added” comes to mind. But finding clients who are experienced enough to know that they are getting more for their money, or to even take the time to become involved in the details of their projects is another matter.

  10. …and I wouldn’t take the lack of comments as a “chopped liver” moment, as it seems all comments are currently coagulating under this topic for some reason. I had to come here to get a response to my “Tube Trip” post.

    I thought your river photo was the most beautiful river photo I’ve ever seen.

  11. unclebanjo Says:

    I’m just saying copyrights apply without the logo. I don’t see it on the masters prints or rarely. I do appreciate the images but find the text distracting and etc.

    Peace, Love, & Ecology

  12. corndoggie Says:

    Yo, boat, thanks for the compliment.

    It was shot a few miles upriver off a rich Republican dentist’s landing. I thought I’d lost it forever in a hard drive crash and had to be content with one print, but I just found it backed up on CD.

  13. corndoggie Says:

    To add to the comment count for this thread: check this out:

  14. unclebanjo Says:

    Sorry about my comments, I guess I’m just frustrated because I don’t understand the commercial photography game. My style doesn’t fit into that mode but could. Manray succeeded at fashion and his stuff wasn’t normal either. Not to say I’m Manray. It would be nice to be successful at something I love. The self marketing leaves me cold, but atleast I’m sharing my stuff on a blog in hopes of one day of getting some kind of break. Maybe it’s all just a pipe dream?

    Happy Ground Hogs Day!

  15. Keep going in that direction. Try supplementing with some sort of day job thing. You are making good art. As for the commercial photography potential you and I both would have to have better equipment to offer images in the resolutions that commerce demands. I get frustrated with the Photoshop end of it, because even when I do something that is pretty darn good, there are legions of Ad Center / commercial art school whippersnappers who can run circles around me with their color channels, masks, color profiles, vectors and the whole pesky gamut.

  16. unclebanjo Says:

    I don’t think the over produced commercial product is the soul of a photograph. My rough-cuts of what I shoot is never refined enough for me. That I think is part of journey of the image and sure I wish I had more equipment.

    Style Weekly is brilliant this week and some of their photographers are Smokin! We are lucky to have such a paper since the TD is so lame these days.

  17. corndoggie Says:

    Yeah, all the pros will soon be shooting 80 megs:,2817,2376709,00.asp

    Roto still uses and many portrait/wedding pros used to use the Fuji S3, which is crop-sensor and only 6 real megs but has great skin tones. Many pros use 12-18 meg crop-sensor cameras (like BD’s) as a second body.

    But if a magazine hires you for a shoot they’d probably like to see a full-frame 22-meg 5D Mk II or something.

    BTW, video from BD’s camera or the one I want and that from the 5D Mk II are supposed to look equally good. The 5D Mk II has been used to shoot scenes for “24”, “House” and “The Dark Swan”.

  18. Bosco’s not going to like all this photo geek talk! I was mostly referring to stock photo houses and the file sizes they offer, plus the need to be able to shoot in camera RAW format….and I was just making conversation.

    Let us know if you find that plug-in thingy that makes Canon colors look like Olympus. I have a groovy 4MP Olympus E-10 that I’d still be using if it wasn’t 4MP.

    7D movies (one site of bunches – watch out for bunching!):

  19. corndoggie Says:

    Haven’t got the Oly profile yet, but here’s how to set up for nice washed-out cinematic video:

  20. Yup. And then you have to have video editing software that has presets for DSLR frame rates and such, which I found out the first time I tried to edit video from the 7D, and which ended up with me having to get Adobe CS5.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: