Photography

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7068
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Photography

#26

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Sun Apr 01, 2018 11:14 am

Judge Roy Bean wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 11:01 am
My personal favorite - it's number #27 in his aviation section:

http://www.jimwilsonphotography.com/#a= ... 0&s=26&p=0

And this one:

http://www.jimwilsonphotography.com/#a= ... 0&s=17&p=6
#27 took my breath away! Wow!


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7068
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Photography

#27

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Sun Apr 01, 2018 11:23 am

RVInit wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:51 pm
Wildlife Photographer of the Year Competition Showcases Underwater Images

Some very interesting photos and commentary. Worth a look

https://www.scubadiving.com/wildlife-ph ... ter#page-9
These were fascinating. The crocs fighting was an eye opener.


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9359
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Photography

#28

Post by Mikedunford » Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:40 pm

Mentioned this in the "Pimp Your Blog Thing" -

Google has a new camera, Google Clips. It's a relatively low-resolution (12 MP), fixed-focus, very wide angle camera. It's reason for being is that you don't take photos with it (at least most of the time; there are manual capture options). Instead, you turn it on and place it somewhere. Then it, using an AI that makes decisions about framing, lighting, and your preferred subjects, decides when to take 7-second clips (15 FPS). These can either be saved as is (motion photos), as animated gifs, or you can select stills.

The question is who (if anyone) has the copyright in the photos. I just did another take, this time using actual photos from a Clips camera as examples.

https://questionableauthority.wordpress ... strations/


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Judge Roy Bean
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 12:26 pm
Location: West of the Pecos
Occupation: Isn't it obvious?

Re: Photography

#29

Post by Judge Roy Bean » Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:13 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:40 pm
Mentioned this in the "Pimp Your Blog Thing" -

Google has a new camera, Google Clips. It's a relatively low-resolution (12 MP), fixed-focus, very wide angle camera. It's reason for being is that you don't take photos with it (at least most of the time; there are manual capture options). Instead, you turn it on and place it somewhere. Then it, using an AI that makes decisions about framing, lighting, and your preferred subjects, decides when to take 7-second clips (15 FPS). These can either be saved as is (motion photos), as animated gifs, or you can select stills.

The question is who (if anyone) has the copyright in the photos. I just did another take, this time using actual photos from a Clips camera as examples.

https://questionableauthority.wordpress ... strations/
How many "layers" down into the technology could this delve into? The key device and processor in the camera is Intel's MovidiusTM VPU. I suspect Google and Intel have an agreement in place for the use of the technology but as you've indicated in your blog, it's certainly not clear how something like that would affect a copyright claimed by an end user.

Historically, I've never heard of a case where a manufacturer of any imaging device (still, or video) represented that their technological enhancement in any manner allowed them to share in the copyright of the person using it to produce the work. It might require assigning credit where the technology is a feature of the end product itself (i.e., IMAX or in the audio realm, Dolby), but my impression is that unless the clips camera is connected to the 'net and/or pictures/scenes are uploaded, Google would have no way of even knowing a clip has been captured.

In that environment/situation, I believe it would fall back to the traditional way of looking at photographer's or producer's copyrights - if he or she puts a copyright mark on an image, what device or process used to obtain it and present the final product doesn't affect the copyright. Even the maker of something as exotic (well, at least it used to be) as my video editor could not lay claim to my copyrights for the presentations and ads I've created and then licensed to clients over the years, despite the fact that I used a number of its automatic editing/enhancement tools.

Just my thoughts.


“Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”
Walter Lippmann

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9359
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Photography

#30

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:12 pm

Judge Roy Bean wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:13 pm
Mikedunford wrote:
Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:40 pm
Mentioned this in the "Pimp Your Blog Thing" -

Google has a new camera, Google Clips. It's a relatively low-resolution (12 MP), fixed-focus, very wide angle camera. It's reason for being is that you don't take photos with it (at least most of the time; there are manual capture options). Instead, you turn it on and place it somewhere. Then it, using an AI that makes decisions about framing, lighting, and your preferred subjects, decides when to take 7-second clips (15 FPS). These can either be saved as is (motion photos), as animated gifs, or you can select stills.

The question is who (if anyone) has the copyright in the photos. I just did another take, this time using actual photos from a Clips camera as examples.

https://questionableauthority.wordpress ... strations/
I addressed some of this (or thought I did, anyway) in the blog post linked above, but let me take another shot at explaining the complexity. For clarity, this camera raises two separate questions:
1: Does Google hold copyright to photos taken with the camera when the camera is in automatic mode?
2: Does the person who owns/operates the camera hold copyright to photos taken when the camera is in automatic mode?

These are independent questions; the answer to Question 1 has absolutely no relevance to the answer to Question 2. This means that there are four possible answers: only Google holds copyright; only the camera operator holds copyright; both Google and the camera operator hold joint copyright; and neither Google nor the camera operator hold copyright (meaning the images are in the public domain). As I noted in the blog post, the question of the camera operator's ownership will very likely vary from photo to photo depending on the precise circumstances involved in capturing that particular image.
Judge Roy Bean wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:13 pm
How many "layers" down into the technology could this delve into? The key device and processor in the camera is Intel's MovidiusTM VPU. I suspect Google and Intel have an agreement in place for the use of the technology but as you've indicated in your blog, it's certainly not clear how something like that would affect a copyright claimed by an end user.
It doesn't. As I said, the end user copyright is independent of any copyright image Google might possess. I also suspect that the hardware would be too far down, unless the hardware itself is directly involved in selecting when/what to photograph. (And while I love rabbit holes, I'm unwilling to dive down the techno-philosophical questions of what's really hardware at work and what's software.)
Judge Roy Bean wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:13 pm
Historically, I've never heard of a case where a manufacturer of any imaging device (still, or video) represented that their technological enhancement in any manner allowed them to share in the copyright of the person using it to produce the work. It might require assigning credit where the technology is a feature of the end product itself (i.e., IMAX or in the audio realm, Dolby), but my impression is that unless the clips camera is connected to the 'net and/or pictures/scenes are uploaded, Google would have no way of even knowing a clip has been captured.
Technically speaking, copyright arises ("subsists") at the moment that a work is created and vests with the creator of the work. This occurs regardless of whether or not the creator wants the protections. As a practical matter, it's extremely unlikely that Google would want to assert rights in the photos taken by its customers. That would be a bad business move. And, given the limitations of the technology in this version, I think that the sort of commercial use of the images that might lead to a lawsuit which would require the litigation of these issues is unlikely. But I expect that to change once higher resolution, narrower fields of view, and variable focus become practical.

In a hypothetical case, I could see an alleged infringer defending by claiming that the end user lacks copyright, making the images public domain; any Google copyright interest could come up in such a case (probably as dicta initially, with subsequent fallout).
Judge Roy Bean wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:13 pm
In that environment/situation, I believe it would fall back to the traditional way of looking at photographer's or producer's copyrights - if he or she puts a copyright mark on an image, what device or process used to obtain it and present the final product doesn't affect the copyright.
That's not the traditional way of looking at photographer's copyrights. In the traditional way of looking at copyright in photographs, the photographer (not the camera) receives copyright because of the photographer's creative input into capturing the image. That creative input can be minimal, but without it you don't have the originality required for copyright.* The issue is that with this particular camera, photos can be taken without creative input from the end user. (I included specific examples in the blog post.) This likely means that for at least some photos, the end user lacks copyright.

In such cases, the question then becomes whether Google holds copyright by virtue of its programming of the AI that has made all the creative choices in the production of the image (in which case Google is the sole copyright owner), or if Google lacks copyright because the AI's creative input is not the work of a human and therefore not copyrightable (in which case the pictures are public domain).
Judge Roy Bean wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:13 pm
Even the maker of something as exotic (well, at least it used to be) as my video editor could not lay claim to my copyrights for the presentations and ads I've created and then licensed to clients over the years, despite the fact that I used a number of its automatic editing/enhancement tools.
The use of the automatic editing/enhancement tools doesn't give rise to a copyright because the person using the tools has control over them, and over the changes they make. You are telling the tools, in effect, what to do. You don't know how they do it, but that's not really relevant.

The difference with this camera is in what you are telling it to do. When it's in automatic mode, you've placed it and told it to take whatever photos it "thinks" it should capture. That's it. The camera has an extraordinary amount of autonomy (at least for a machine). It, and not the end user, control whether to take a picture, when to take the picture, how many Clips to take while it is turned on, and so on. Each of those individal creative choices, would probably be enough originality, even in the absence of any other creative input, to support a conventional photographer's claim to copyright in an image.

*In the USA. In civil law jurisdictions, the philosophical underpinnings of copyright are different, being based on the French Revolution and Napoleonic Code emphasis on giving the creator the benefit of the creations of the sweat of the brow, but the effect is the same: authors must do things to be authors.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 9431
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Photography

#31

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:19 pm

Judge Roy Bean wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:13 pm
Even the maker of something as exotic (well, at least it used to be) as my video editor could not lay claim to my copyrights for the presentations and ads I've created and then licensed to clients over the years, despite the fact that I used a number of its automatic editing/enhancement tools.

Just my thoughts.
I think that's Mike's point though. YOU are the one who made the decisions about what and how to edit or enhance something, not the machine or program itself. Once you've added your artistic expression to it, the copyright is yours.



User avatar
Judge Roy Bean
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 12:26 pm
Location: West of the Pecos
Occupation: Isn't it obvious?

Re: Photography

#32

Post by Judge Roy Bean » Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:55 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:12 pm
:snippity:
That's not the traditional way of looking at photographer's copyrights. In the traditional way of looking at copyright in photographs, the photographer (not the camera) receives copyright because of the photographer's creative input into capturing the image. That creative input can be minimal, but without it you don't have the originality required for copyright.* The issue is that with this particular camera, photos can be taken without creative input from the end user. (I included specific examples in the blog post.) This likely means that for at least some photos, the end user lacks copyright. :snippity:
Isn't even the positioning of the camera sufficient to claim creativity? Your example of the cat on the table reflects a human idea - your expectation that the cat would get on the table. Setting up the camera in order to get the image of playing with the dog in the yard indicates you had a creative idea.

I've used motion-activated night-vision game cameras and have included images captured with them in presentations. I believe my copyright can be based on my "creativity" in placing them in the right place at the right time.

There are very sophisticated security systems that are "aware" of certain conditions within a field of view and will freeze capture them and alert the operators - i.e., you should never "see" a person laying on the ground in a parking lot or someone going the wrong direction through an exit-only door. Would that technology possibly create the same situation for the property owner in terms of the copyrighted image?

And I still can't see how Google would have any chance of laying claim to a copyrighted image they're not even aware of. Even if they become suspicious, in order to enforce their alleged copyright, they'd have to be able to prove a photographer's work came from their device; all someone has to do is remove the identifying properties from the image file. But if the photographer posts an image saying "... here's what I took with my Google Clips camera ..." then there might be a challenge. As you say, though, that would be a truly poor business/PR move on their part.

Always interesting to consider the implications of new technology on old ideas and law.


“Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”
Walter Lippmann

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9359
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Photography

#33

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Apr 03, 2018 3:12 pm

Judge Roy Bean wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:55 pm
Mikedunford wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:12 pm
:snippity:
That's not the traditional way of looking at photographer's copyrights. In the traditional way of looking at copyright in photographs, the photographer (not the camera) receives copyright because of the photographer's creative input into capturing the image. That creative input can be minimal, but without it you don't have the originality required for copyright.* The issue is that with this particular camera, photos can be taken without creative input from the end user. (I included specific examples in the blog post.) This likely means that for at least some photos, the end user lacks copyright. :snippity:
Isn't even the positioning of the camera sufficient to claim creativity? Your example of the cat on the table reflects a human idea - your expectation that the cat would get on the table. Setting up the camera in order to get the image of playing with the dog in the yard indicates you had a creative idea.
Copyright is famous for not protecting ideas.
Judge Roy Bean wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:55 pm
I've used motion-activated night-vision game cameras and have included images captured with them in presentations. I believe my copyright can be based on my "creativity" in placing them in the right place at the right time.
That's part of why I noted that, for the cat picture, I didn't bother to check the exact positioning of the camera. I simply put it down on the table and trusted that if I pointed the camera in the approximate direction, the wide field of view would do the rest. That's in contrast to the dog photo, where I carefully checked the field of view, and had some control over where within that field the dog and I were playing.

But not only did I have no control over whether the cat would climb onto the table, I also had no control over whether that would result in a photo being taken. There was no automatic trigger. The photo occurred because the AI decided that something worth capturing was taking place, not because any condition I had established had been met.
Judge Roy Bean wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:55 pm
There are very sophisticated security systems that are "aware" of certain conditions within a field of view and will freeze capture them and alert the operators - i.e., you should never "see" a person laying on the ground in a parking lot or someone going the wrong direction through an exit-only door. Would that technology possibly create the same situation for the property owner in terms of the copyrighted image?
Most likely not. The set of conditions that result in flags is pre-determined and subject to user control. The set of conditions that result in Clips capturing images is not rigidly determined, and is designed to learn based on things like picking out subjects you've deliberately captured in the past, learning from your existing Google Photos library, and (I believe) learning from which Clips you keep and discard. At least in my view, that's much closer to creative choice on the part of the AI than is the case when a security system matches current images to pre-defined maps. Here, the camera's machine learning is generating the decision map with substantially less input from the end user.
Judge Roy Bean wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:55 pm
And I still can't see how Google would have any chance of laying claim to a copyrighted image they're not even aware of. Even if they become suspicious, in order to enforce their alleged copyright, they'd have to be able to prove a photographer's work came from their device; all someone has to do is remove the identifying properties from the image file. But if the photographer posts an image saying "... here's what I took with my Google Clips camera ..." then there might be a challenge. As you say, though, that would be a truly poor business/PR move on their part.

Always interesting to consider the implications of new technology on old ideas and law.
If Google's involvement meets the copyright minimums, they have the copyright even if they are unaware. Clearly, they can't actually assert their rights in a particular image unless they become aware of that image. I agree that's unlikely with Clips, but this is a first release of the tech. I'm expecting the problems to occur with future releases that have more features and more commercial potential.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Judge Roy Bean
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 12:26 pm
Location: West of the Pecos
Occupation: Isn't it obvious?

Re: Photography

#34

Post by Judge Roy Bean » Tue Apr 03, 2018 3:28 pm

Speaking of "commercial potential," it would seem this kind of technology would be an "America's Funniest Videos" fan's dream tool - and because "contestants" can earn cash awards, Google has probably had a bunch of people in one of those conference rooms with white marker board walls figuring out how and when it would have some kind of value they could try to tap into.

Frankly, I don't trust Google - but that's a whole 'nother issue.


“Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”
Walter Lippmann

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7165
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Photography

#35

Post by RoadScholar » Thu Apr 05, 2018 9:48 am

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/arts ... ries-below
merlin_135047745_49152c04-d094-44e5-bf38-ed9266984ace-jumbo-1.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9359
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Photography

#36

Post by Mikedunford » Thu Apr 05, 2018 9:54 am

Awesome in the literal sense.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7068
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Photography

#37

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Wed May 02, 2018 10:42 am

If you are afraid of heights some of these photos are not for you.

http://kengarex.com/extraordinary-trave ... 50-images/
0-34-768x960.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7068
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Photography

#38

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Tue May 08, 2018 3:35 pm

http://kengarex.com/sony-world-photogra ... 33-photos/

SONY world photography awards - 33 pics.
1-28-600x400.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 2054
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: Photography

#39

Post by AndyinPA » Tue May 08, 2018 4:54 pm

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 10:42 am
If you are afraid of heights some of these photos are not for you.

http://kengarex.com/extraordinary-trave ... 50-images/

0-34-768x960.jpg
I am afraid of heights, and you are right; some of them are not for me. We were in Cartegena, Spain, a few weeks ago and went to a beautiful museum that gradually led to a Roman colosseum that had just been discovered in 1987. I didn't pay much attention to the fact that we were gradually going up and up so that we would come out at the top of the colosseum. We were then expected to go down the steps to ground level again. I froze. My husband uses a cane, so another gentleman offered to guide me down. I kept my eyes on only the step in front of me and he helped me down step by step. It's not something I want to repeat.

Lovely photographs, though!



User avatar
much ado
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:56 am
Location: The Left Coast

Re: Photography

#40

Post by much ado » Tue May 08, 2018 5:07 pm

AndyinPA wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 4:54 pm
Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 10:42 am
If you are afraid of heights some of these photos are not for you.

http://kengarex.com/extraordinary-trave ... 50-images/

0-34-768x960.jpg
I am afraid of heights, and you are right; some of them are not for me. We were in Cartegena, Spain, a few weeks ago and went to a beautiful museum that gradually led to a Roman colosseum that had just been discovered in 1987. I didn't pay much attention to the fact that we were gradually going up and up so that we would come out at the top of the colosseum. We were then expected to go down the steps to ground level again. I froze. My husband uses a cane, so another gentleman offered to guide me down. I kept my eyes on only the step in front of me and he helped me down step by step. It's not something I want to repeat.

Lovely photographs, though!
I did not know about the Roman theater in Cartagena. Here's a page about the discovery and excavation of the site...

http://www.teatroromanocartagena.org/hi ... p?idioma=2



User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 2054
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: Photography

#41

Post by AndyinPA » Tue May 08, 2018 5:47 pm

much ado wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 5:07 pm
AndyinPA wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 4:54 pm
Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 10:42 am
If you are afraid of heights some of these photos are not for you.

http://kengarex.com/extraordinary-trave ... 50-images/

0-34-768x960.jpg
I am afraid of heights, and you are right; some of them are not for me. We were in Cartegena, Spain, a few weeks ago and went to a beautiful museum that gradually led to a Roman colosseum that had just been discovered in 1987. I didn't pay much attention to the fact that we were gradually going up and up so that we would come out at the top of the colosseum. We were then expected to go down the steps to ground level again. I froze. My husband uses a cane, so another gentleman offered to guide me down. I kept my eyes on only the step in front of me and he helped me down step by step. It's not something I want to repeat.

Lovely photographs, though!
I did not know about the Roman theater in Cartagena. Here's a page about the discovery and excavation of the site...

http://www.teatroromanocartagena.org/hi ... p?idioma=2
Yes, it was a really nice museum and a lovely colosseum, and we were there on a beautiful day so it was just shining and bright.



User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7068
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Photography

#42

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Tue May 08, 2018 6:34 pm

AndyinPA wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 4:54 pm
Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 10:42 am
If you are afraid of heights some of these photos are not for you.

http://kengarex.com/extraordinary-trave ... 50-images/

0-34-768x960.jpg
I am afraid of heights, and you are right; some of them are not for me. We were in Cartegena, Spain, a few weeks ago and went to a beautiful museum that gradually led to a Roman colosseum that had just been discovered in 1987. I didn't pay much attention to the fact that we were gradually going up and up so that we would come out at the top of the colosseum. We were then expected to go down the steps to ground level again. I froze. My husband uses a cane, so another gentleman offered to guide me down. I kept my eyes on only the step in front of me and he helped me down step by step. It's not something I want to repeat.

Lovely photographs, though! :shh:
That's how the Wallendas do it.


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 2054
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: Photography

#43

Post by AndyinPA » Tue May 08, 2018 6:37 pm

:-D



User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 7126
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Photography

#44

Post by RVInit » Tue May 08, 2018 9:35 pm

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 3:35 pm
http://kengarex.com/sony-world-photogra ... 33-photos/

SONY world photography awards - 33 pics.

1-28-600x400.jpg
:lovestruck:


"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 9990
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Photography

#45

Post by Kendra » Tue May 08, 2018 9:40 pm

https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyTnbmNB0aI&ind ... hBJ2MMbCmo

Broke the link because it's so long, but worth watching. And all the other time-suck gorgeous videos they have.



User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7068
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Photography

#46

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Wed May 09, 2018 11:41 am

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-secre ... itter_page
The Secret Photographs of Stanley Kubrick


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7068
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Photography

#47

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Wed May 09, 2018 11:42 am

Kendra wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 9:40 pm
https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyTnbmNB0aI&ind ... hBJ2MMbCmo

Broke the link because it's so long, but worth watching. And all the other time-suck gorgeous videos they have.
Wow!!!!!!!! Thanks! :thumbs:


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 9990
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Photography

#48

Post by Kendra » Wed May 09, 2018 12:03 pm

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 11:42 am
Kendra wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 9:40 pm
https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyTnbmNB0aI&ind ... hBJ2MMbCmo

Broke the link because it's so long, but worth watching. And all the other time-suck gorgeous videos they have.
Wow!!!!!!!! Thanks! :thumbs:
Mt Rainier should be on everyone's bucket list.



User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 18183
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Photography

#49

Post by Volkonski » Sun May 20, 2018 3:01 pm

The Milky Way over Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii.

Image


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7068
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Photography

#50

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Sun May 20, 2018 8:41 pm

Volkonski wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 3:01 pm
The Milky Way over Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii.

Image
As they say on Lon Gisland, " GAWDJUS!! Simply gawdjus!! "


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

Post Reply

Return to “Media & Social Media”