• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Altering Posted Images

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
When an image is posted, sometimes it is for fun, demonstrating something or it's the picture itself that is the focus.

When someone posts for feedback or if they are real brave and think someone can do a critique, then what are the expectations as far as downloading and altering the image for demonstrating a new version, sharpened curves etc, as part of responding to the post.

Does there need to be an explicit request for versioning, or is this a matter like posting anything, people can take your words and present them back to you with some edits?

To me at least, if one is courteous and can read intent, no one will have a problem. Nicolas, being French, generally points out to me more stringent points of view.

When you post or see a picture for feedback, what do you think are and should be the rules, if any.

Asher
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Vite, a quick reply as I've one foot already in the car, leaving for holydays...
A few days ago, 2 magazines have published some pictures of mine.
They asked for copyrights and for credit, so this is fine.
But
Of course it was pictures of boat.
The main pic was this one:
_G8A2150_300x150.jpg

Without asking, they changed the color of the sea from green to blue

In the other magazine I had this pic published
_G8A3701_90x70.jpg

Without asking, they changed the colors of walls and ceiling to pure white.

In both cases they altered my vision of the boats and my way of catching light and colors.
What would an artist as Alain Briot (yes he is an Artist, see other posts on this subject) if someone would change the colors of his beautifull photos?

In both cases, for me, this is not acceptable.

If one day I post a picture, asking to others, how would you do to change te color of sea from green to blue (or pink!), then all posts with sample altering colors would be fine to me. Because I would have called for it…

Asher, is this too French ;-) ?

So the simple rule for me here would be not to alter and post an image unless the "owner" has asked for it or the poster of new version have asked first to the "owner".
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Nicolas,

One foot in the car and the other one typing! I understand how this must have upset you because I know how careful you always are in making the color perfectly true to what you see.

Your case is perfectly clear, they published your work but altered it and damaged your work. Now if you sold them the rights, did you specify that they couldn't alter the colors?

If not, however they choose to use it, is there choice, rude as it is! Isn't that the case?

Now perhaps, under French laws, you as an author, have special artistic rights which trumps commercial license?

AFAIK, stock pictures can be shrunk, twisted on fragmented and that is fine as long as it was paid for. Is a $10,000 shoot any different?

Anyway, here on a forum, the poster has placed his work in the public world. That is to be respected. I would recommend asking before one modifies, unless the ground has been set that gives you permission.

I wouldn't want to make an error and infuriate a photographer by scewing with their work.

I hope I havn't done that myself!

Asher
 
Last edited:

Ray West

New member
Hi Asher,

To me at least, if one is courteous and can read intent, no one will have a problem.
That is how I see it, too. The situation Nicolas described re. magazine is a different one to what we do here, but equally interesting, worth discussing after his return.

My personal view is, once it's said, it is not your's anymore. Others can, and will do whatever they like with it. I see no differance, in theory, between telling someone that in my opinion it would look better if the 'dark area of the sky was lightened' , or pp'ing it and reposting the image. However, in many instances, other than cropping, the images posted are low res jpegs, which restrict the pp that can be done.

However, 'courteous', and 'read intent' will have different meanings to different folk. I think, that unless specified otherwise by the poster, that posting of any images in any forum here must assume that verbal or visual edits can be expected. Sort of along my feelings re 'if you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question'.

Because this is also an open forum, then despite all the copyright notices, etc., stuff will be 'stolen'.

For folk that are 'artists' it is a catch 22 situation. I suppose you can thank 'us engineers' for that. The whole area of ownership, copyright, parody is a jungle, imnsho.

There was a touching of this subject elsewhere ' discussion or critique', iirc. I think it needs defining one way or another soon. There are not many images being posted, which may be due to folk being worried about what may happen to them - the image, maybe the person.

Is there a poll facility here?

Best wishes,

Ray
 

Guy Tal

Editor at Large
I have no problem as long as the altered version is posted within the same thread and to illustrate a suggestion/concept. As visual artists we should know better than anyone that some concepts need to be seen to be fully conveyed.

I also agree the magazine example is different - the magazine bought and paid for certain rights. As long as they don't step outside the bounds of the contract the image is theirs to use as they please. It is impractical for most magazines to have all photograpehrs proof all photographs before publication. Also, if this was say a boating magazine vs. a fine-art magazine then it is to be expectd that the documentary aspects of the image and the way it fits with the article are of higher concern for them than artistic intent.

Guy
 

Gary Ayala

New member
Personally, I wouldn't like someone to screw with my pix without my permission. That pix is mine ... one does not have a right to alter it in any way without asking for consent. I don't believe my feelings are coming from a being over-possessive or controlling (I don't even watermark my photos), mmmhhh ... well maybe controlling ... but for this forum to endorse a policy of "free yanking" of another's property for any reason, just doesn't sit well.

I side with the Frenchman on this one.

For consideration and respect of those who post, I think a nice request and consent is appropriate.

The Boating Photos are a bit of a delimma for moi. As a former photojournalist, I find a publisher's manipulation of a photo which changes the intent or represenation of that image to be more than just poetic license ... it is absolutely wrong. On the flip side of the coin, Nicolas sold the photo - period - end of story. I would not let Ferrari tell me that I couldn't change the color of MY car.

As one who has never sold a photo, I haven't a clue as to what protections/rights are available for Nicolas, especially in France (if this is where the transaction occurred). I guess Nicolas could give the money back and request a retraction from the publication ...
 
Last edited:

Tom Yi

New member
Another forum has a "OK to alter Image" line under their name. Another forum asks for the poster to state altering image and reposting is ok, otherwise not to alter and repost others images.
I'd personally prefer a generic "OK to adjust Image" line under a name so you don't have to do it for every post you put up for discussion.

Either way it's not a big deal with me, if you post for suggestions critiques, I'd want to see others adjust my photo and show me what they are describing so I can see.
 

Ray West

New member
Gary,

If I look at one of your pictures, am I allowed to think about it? Am I allowed to think, 'I reckon the green sea should be bluer?' How can I tell, if I can't fiddle with the colours, that you were wrong and I was right? How can you tell that I have not done so, re cropped it, merged in other bits, and sold it on....?

The fact is, on this open forum, as on your web site, whatever you post can be used in ways you possibly don't want, whatever you do to try to prevent it. My argument is that we accept that as a fact, then you will not be dissapointed if it happens to you/your work. I'm assuming it is not just forum members who are here.

Best wishes,

Ray
 

Gary Ayala

New member
Ray West said:
Gary,

If I look at one of your pictures, am I allowed to think about it? Am I allowed to think, 'I reckon the green sea should be bluer?' How can I tell, if I can't fiddle with the colours, that you were wrong and I was right? How can you tell that I have not done so, re cropped it, merged in other bits, and sold it on....?

The fact is, on this open forum, as on your web site, whatever you post can be used in ways you possibly don't want, whatever you do to try to prevent it. My argument is that we accept that as a fact, then you will not be dissapointed if it happens to you/your work. I'm assuming it is not just forum members who are here.

Best wishes,

Ray

Ray-
We need to separate capability from policy. We are all capable of a simple right click to download 90% of the photos on the internet. I just feel as an official policy, OPF should not endorse or condone this action without prior consent of the image taker/owner.

Personally, I have absolutely no objections to one adjusting/PSing my pixs. But, as one who has seen my images turn up on a number of websites without authorization or knowledge, I would appreciate some consent for this action. (I fully realize that said knowledge and consent would not stop unauthorized "yanking" of images ... it would make me feel better knowing that OPF does all it can to protect the property of its subscribers. (within reason)

Ray, at my age, one needs to partake of every opportunity presented at feeling better.
 

Don Lashier

New member
My own practice and assumption is that if the person is looking for help with a particular image, then I feel free to download, manipulate, and repost. IOW permission is implied in this case. If they're simply posting it as a "show and tell" I wouldn't do this, at least without asking first.

In the past (when I had more time), I would post others' images on my adjustment examples page showing the steps I took, but this was always with permission and in any case this is always with raw files.

- DL
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Gary,

to take your argument further are you specifying that one shouldn't download images to see what the histogram looked like or what a change might do to the image?

I'm not saying that it should be permissible, just want to know what your boundries are.

It appears there are a number of levels of viewer reaction to a picture put up for feedback or critique.

Lets imagine that in "Photography as Art" one posts without qualification here's my picture.

It must, IMHO, be assumed that the placement permits written response :what one feels and ideas in reference to impact and meaning.

I can't at this time, see any permit to download, although we sometimes do. Certainly, we have absolutely no right to post elsewhere. I may have reposted within OPF after getting permission. I hope I have never done otherwise!

To write critique, saying the picture is weak because or the color patterns are annoying or other such comments, is far more dangerous and requires knowledge, experience and trust, all of which hass to be built up.

To say "I enjoy the curve of the beach and how it reproduces the tracks of the clouds" is an enjoyable feedback that, IMHO, helps the original poster and the discussion. It is still critique, but helpful.

The suggestion stage is another level of risk for the photgraph and the discussion but often most valuable. There is an unwritten request in posting a picture to give feedback. Suggestions for cropping or color changes are not included but if handled appropriately can be fine. This I might ask, "have you made any variations with more contrast." "I wonder how this would look in B&W?" and so forth.

Still, this is an open forum and if someone wants to be a PIA and crush a picture, they will face isolation.

Asher
 

Harvey Moore

New member
Asher,

I personally feel that by the nature of this board, any photograph shown is open for critique and complements (if due).

Anything image I post here is open for download, mod, and repost. Probably all do not feel that way, so maybe good protocol would either give that OP gives permission at post time, or ask permission as a reply first.
 
If an image is posted in the context a critique request then reposting an image to the self-same forum is a correct and proper action so long as it is accompanied by a critique. To the best of my knowledge, this falls under the fair use portion of copyright in the USA (I am not a lawyer and could be wrong).

That said, permission is without question implicitly given to modify and repost and image within the same thread on a forum when a critique is given. If an image is posted for show and tell rather than a critique request, them permission should likely be sought out.

That said, said, I should also note that all EXIF and IPTC data should be retained in a reposted image. Stripping ownership comments and such is not appropriate and if a poster cannot figure out how to do so, then they need to ask for help.

But, even with implicit permission all modified work should be respectful and constructive in nature. Just tweaking a shot without words to explain leaves the land of criticism and enters other waters which could be copyright violation. But using visual words (i.e., reposted modified images in the same thread) is simply visual communication and is protected speach in the USA (again, I am not a lawyer and could be wrong).

If I post an image for critique, then I have no issues with tweaking and reposting of it in the same thread. My response may be to tell the poster it looks awful and they need to buy a monitor calibrator and perhaps a new monitor (high contrast ratio LCDs will ruin the presentation of an image that perfectly matches a print on a less contrasty display). Or I may find it helpful constructive criticicism.

I strongly disagree with the whole do not repost my work at all attitude as that is asking my to give up my rights to fair use and to sacrifice a powerful tool for communication. I find such attitudes to be terrible as they seem to be (note seem and not are) a statement of either the creator's perfection (never happens) or a withdrawl from participation in community (this latter is far worse).

just one opinion,

Sean
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
All the posts have been informative. Thanks so much everyone. We cant make a form to chack off boxes with out a rewrite but I should be able to insert a Guide to posting images for Feedback and/ Critique.

One might even Put "Hyena's in wait" FB only or "Purple Heather, Loch Ness" FB+ and C+. RPIF+

FB Feedback
C Critique
S Suggestions
RPIF Repost in forum
+ O.K.


How might we implement this.

Sean has staked out a clear position. It is rational and has bite. I think this is informed by a USA perspective of Freedom of Speech and fair use. I know that Nicolas, who would give me the shirt off his back, would feel I trespassed if I copied and posted a picture he has asked for critique. He would expect verbal critique. Nothing more. I would never alter Nicolas' picture since I already "feel" him looking at me in disappointment.

However, some possible rules:

Image posted in Photography as Art should have a statement introducing the work and why it is posted and what is wanted. If the post is just there with a title and llittle more, it means "How do you feel and what ideas do you have?" Nothing more!


A, EMOTION Happy, sad, hopeful, despairing, family, friend, enemy danger, cruelty, horror, happiness fairness, and other basic level reactions. This is covered in A, B and perhaps C. below.

B. THOUGHT I want to go there, That's a picture about poverty, people searching for scraps of plants to eat. No, it's the rat catcher's, wow they eat them too? I didn't realize Mr Crooz was 60 inches high with shoes on!
This is interesting, I want to see more by this photography. The light on that girl shows her like a landscape.

C. QUESTIONS: Is this taken with film and scanned? How did you get the frog to sit there with a raptor a foot away? What B&W conversion system do you use? Did you want the face all white and blown out?

(Here BTW, Nicolas might object, "Of course he did, otherwise he wouldn't have done it!")

Now if we agree on that, when is it O.K. to go further? D and E are more risky! F. is a home run!

D. SUGGESTIONS: (please) Post a larger picture. Post a 100% cut out of the herons head. Show me that other version you mentioned. Do you have a B&W version? How would it look with the fatch body cropped?

E. CRITIQE: Disclosure: I am not trained in art critique and in spite of spending a huge amount of time in scores of galleries and museums each year, but not an expert.

Still, here's an inking of what it might include:

"style reminds me of La Danseuse by Monet. The color palette however is harsher and Monet never painted angry women."

"The placement of the XXX balances the YY but I am troubled by the ....".

"I believe this represents a progression of the ideas of as seen in the works of P, Q, R. S. "

"Note how he uses the ....trick of V to indicate fremininity and...."

PURCHASE: wouldn't that be nice!

Asher

P.S. Any picture can be referenced (ie linked) in any other forum, but the restrictions from the original forum would carry through.
 

Ray West

New member
Asher,

Your last post - far to fussy, imho. I think it has to be kept simple. Something along the lines of 'any pivcture posted can be used on this forum in any way, unless specifically forbidden by the copyright owner', or 'any picture posted can not be used on this forum in any way unless specifically permitted by the copyright owner. (Used implies downloading/editing/reposting on this forum, in any thread)

For example, if I want to make a point on, say, representation of water, I do not have time to seek permission of posters who may be on holiday/whatever. I need to be able to copy the images, or parts of images, to my post, to make the point. Where is the problem?

If I am so protective of my work, that the sky mus be just this colour blue, but you think that it should be pink, and I'm not happy with what you repost, well, perhaps I should get a life... I still own the copyright on the original image, you've only messed with a low res copy, etc., and after all, how do I know that your monitor is calibrated the same as mine.?

This may seem a bit brutal, to some sensitive artistic types, but I know of none on this forum.

btw, I seem to be missing some new posts - I mean they are there, but I do not see them appear as new. Not a complaint, just appols in advance if anyone is awaiting for a reply from me.

Best wishes,

Ray
 

Alain Briot

pro member
I think simply asking that the poster provides relevant details about the photograph, and most importantly about which aspect of it they want help with, is simple and effective. The way Guy Tal presented his "salt" photograph recently worked very well for me. It was clear what he wanted help with, and it resulted in some very helpful posts which were appreciate by all those who participated.

I am not opposed to getting more details about a photograph, in fact I ask that of my students. But because this is a forum I am not sure if this will work.

Just my 2 cents as they say...
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Don Lashier said:
Is it or has it been a problem? I don't recall this ever being an issue on RG, LL, DOBP, etc.

- DL
Don,

We have had a number of succesful discussions of a number of images and everyone is happy.

Still, some have expressed concerns for the future, about the "right" to alter other people's images (as a part of demonstrating alternative artistic choices). We'll ensure that feedback continues without problems.

Asher
 
I would suggest taking a communication positive approach to this and make it an opt-out system for critique requests. If someone is asking for criticism and wishes the hamper the ability of others to communicate with them, then please require them to say so. This is simple and clearly states that those who wish to damage rapport by reducing others ability to communicate with them are free to do so if they choose. But they must make that choice.

I should also note that I had my images modified and reposted in other forums and been rather unhappy with the results. But I have never been angry. What really confuses me is why I felt violated when I do not think that is an appropriate reaction. So I know that I too have felt that sense of violation. But the idea of removing a powerful communication tool makes me feel more violated. This is just like why I pick up trash in the wilds. I do not enjoy carrying out other peoples garbage, nor do I enjoy picking it up. But I feel worse if I just leave it there.

In other words, do we as a community adopt a policy that damages communication by default or one that encourages it by default. Especially here in an online forum where the only shared experience we have is communication. And community is based upon shared experience.

some thoughts, :eek:)

Sean (who will live with it however it goes)
 
Nicolas Claris said:
Vite, a quick reply as I've one foot already in the car, leaving for holydays...
A few days ago, 2 magazines have published some pictures of mine.
They asked for copyrights and for credit, so this is fine.
But
Of course it was pictures of boat.
The main pic was this one: [pic]
Without asking, they changed the color of the sea from green to blue

In the other magazine I had this pic published [pic]
Without asking, they changed the colors of walls and ceiling to pure white.

In both cases they altered my vision of the boats and my way of catching light and colors.
What would an artist as Alain Briot (yes he is an Artist, see other posts on this subject) if someone would change the colors of his beautifull photos?

In both cases, for me, this is not acceptable.

One question. Will you sell an image to either magazine ever again?
 

Gary Ayala

New member
I do like Sean's approach of a blanket policy of an assume consent given by the photographer/artist for "Altering Posted Images". The photographer/artist is charged with notification should he/she not want an image to be down-loaded, altered or screwed with in any way.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Thanks for all the ideas to date, especially from Sean!

"Unless otherwise specified, images posted for critique can be modified and reposted here as part of that critique"

Comments please.

Asher
 
Asher Kelman said:
Thanks for all the ideas to date, especially from Sean!

Thanks Asher. :eek:) I am just glad for 1000th+ time I deleted the emotional portion of my response and stuck with the root emotional reasoning (the feelings that cause emotional reaction rather than the obvious reaction). Of course, this does nothing for the millions of exciting high pressure heartbeats I have wasted typing flames, but I have only posted one or two such in my life and those were regretted regardless of how appropriate or not they may have been as they were not constructive.

Asher Kelman said:
"Unless otherwise specified, images posted for critique can be modified and reposted here as part of that critique"
Short, simple, and non-confrontational. I like it.

I also think that the fact that it protects show and tell posts without requests for critique is of value. This means that those who do not want such occuring are still protected while leaving them the power to use visual communication which I think is of great value in a forum of this sort.

This leaves me with one question: what of modified images posted by those who dislike seeing their work changed? From my viewpoint, they have no say as the implicit permission to modify a shot is part of the granting license they recieved to modify and repost the work from the copyright holder. While at the same time they do hold copyright to the modified version but not the right to profit from it (again, a non-lawyers interpretation that is worthless in court).

And that said, I have seen no disprespect here that require a legal review of conditions. But having a clear set of ground rules would not hurt. And the point of my bringing up these issues is as much to play devil's advocate and force thought as anything else.

my $0.02,

Sean (opinionated as usual ;o)
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
"Any such changes are hereby donated to the image's copyright in consideration for in participation this forum."

Asher
 

Sid Jervis

pro member
Asher Kelman said:
Thanks for all the ideas to date, especially from Sean!

"Unless otherwise specified, images posted for critique can be modified and reposted here as part of that critique"

Comments please.

Asher
I have read this thread with interest, I feel that the modification and reposting as you describe it is acceptable to me.

The areas of concern that I have are, when my original (low res' version) has been modified to illustrate a point, the image has to be hosted somewhere. I would be concerned if any embedded information was stripped from the file.
Yes I still own the copyright, but the file may not contain that information. Which may cause issues for me at a later date.
This leads me down the path of adding watermarks to images, which does impact on the image, but seems like the only real course of action. We are all aware that if you can read it, it can be stolen, but I do not like making life easier for the darker folk.
 
Asher Kelman said:
"Any such changes are hereby donated to the image's copyright in consideration for in participation this forum."

I dislike the usage of copyright. I like the first version better. Nonetheless, the term grant license for illustration of points in this thread would be better.
 
Metadata and Ownership Data

Sid Jervis said:
I
The areas of concern that I have are, when my original (low res' version) has been modified to illustrate a point, the image has to be hosted somewhere. I would be concerned if any embedded information was stripped from the file.
Yes I still own the copyright, but the file may not contain that information. Which may cause issues for me at a later date.
This leads me down the path of adding watermarks to images, which does impact on the image, but seems like the only real course of action. We are all aware that if you can read it, it can be stolen, but I do not like making life easier for the darker folk.

I personally apply my "signature/initials with year" to all iimages I release including prints. Albeit, with prints I try to do a Where's Waldo with the mark so it does not detract from the image. At times, a subtly placed mark can actually enhance an image by creating a few extra lines that blur a distraction by breaking up its lines and camouflaging it. I have yet to have anyone notice said mark in a print (which is the goal).

As to retaining metadata, I can write a short note on how to do so in Photoshop but I am unaware of how to do so in less expensive tools (I know PS and cannot see the value in learning other image processing tools except RAW converters).

I would also be willing to learn to use and create a tutorial on EXIFER so that how to retain metadata is clearly displayed on the site. This covers PS and Windows. I could also help with command line tools for OS-X, but I cannot test it on OS-X as I would have to use bash shell to do it. I cannot help with GUI OS-X tools as I do not have a Mac.

my $0.02,

Sean
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Sean DeMerchant said:
I dislike the usage of copyright. I like the first version better. Nonetheless, the term grant license for illustration of points in this thread would be better.

This is my curreent draft under consideration.

These two sentence are supposed to go together:

Before posting read the F.A.Q. and note in addition,

"Unless otherwise specified, images posted for critique can be modified and reposted here as part of that critique.
Any such changes are hereby donated to the image's copyright in consideration for participation in this forum."

We will review FAQ on posting next.

Asher
 

Ray West

New member
Nice to see you're getting around to my way of thinking -

'any pivcture posted can be used on this forum in any way, unless specifically forbidden by the copyright owner',

I'm not sure about the necessity of the second line, whether the original copyright owner has automatic ownership of derivitives, etc. May well vary in differnt countries.
 
Top