favorite photograph and why...

[robitussin217]

I just realized I don't look at enough professional photography and therefore don't have a favorite.

So, post your favorite photo and explain why it's your favorite. If you can't narrow it down to a favorite single photo, say who your favorite photographer is and why.

It might be better not to post a picture of your kid and say you are your favorite photographer. But, go ahead and make your case!

 

[white]

too many favorites. here is one i like today:

 

[tnvol]

I love the National Geographic "Afghan Girl" picture taken by Steve McCurry. I always have. It's one of the reasons I became serious about photography.

 

[Hooligan Dan]

I love the National Geographic "Afghan Girl" picture taken by Steve McCurry. I always have. It's one of the reasons I became serious about photography.

This post is exactly what I would have posted.

 

[Onion]

too many favorites. here is one i like today:

So who's the dude in the helmet?

 

[Village Idiot]

Anything by Platon really. He does portriature and his lighting is impeccable.

 

[KmH]

Please, do not post photos you do not own the copyright to. Thank you.

<RANT-ON>

I am continually amazed at the number of photographers that fail to honor other creatives copyrights, either through ignorance, expediency, or just plain being lazy. Yet, many of those same photographers worry over, and take countermeasures to prevent or at least impede the theft of their own intellectual property, thus maintaining a double standard.

It is quite simple....If you don't own it, don't post it....Link To It.

Check out the forum Rules and Regs here at TPF:

The Photo Forum - Photography Discussion Forum - FAQ

* You agree to only post images and/or other material to which you have exclusive copyright, or permission from the copyright holder that you are able to present to TPF Staff. Under no circumstances will any instance of copyright infringement be tolerated.

From the Wikipedia entry for Steve McCurry and the "Afghan Girl" image:

...use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement

If you want to justify your action by invoking the 'fair use' doctrine, you might want to read:

From the US Copyright Office, concerning the 'fair use' doctrine:
(my bold, underline, and italics, except the reference to: title 17, U.S. Code)

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.



Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

• 1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
  2. The nature of the copyrighted work
  3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
  4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.

Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
FL-102, Revised May 2009

Those of you not in the US, need to be aware of the Berne Convention: Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

<RANT-OFF>

We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.

 

[ann]

Platon is good, but take a look at Richard Avedon from the 70's .

At school i have an article from the New Yorker from last year with an essay by Platon and it struck me at some point when discussion this article with my students that for me he has been influnced by Avedon. This is not meant to be a judgement call, just my obversation.

My favorites tend to change with time. Ruth Bernhard is still on my list but i have recently added Sally Mann

 

[abraxas]

Please, do not post photos you do not own the copyright to. Thank you.

<RANT-ON>

I am continually amazed at the number of photographers that fail to honor other creatives copyrights, either through ignorance, expediency, or just plain being lazy. Yet, many of those same photographers worry over, and take countermeasures to prevent or at least impede the theft of their own intellectual property, thus maintaining a double standard.

It is quite simple....If you don't own it, don't post it....Link To It.

Check out the forum Rules and Regs here at TPF:

The Photo Forum - Photography Discussion Forum - FAQ

* You agree to only post images and/or other material to which you have exclusive copyright, or permission from the copyright holder that you are able to present to TPF Staff. Under no circumstances will any instance of copyright infringement be tolerated.

From the Wikipedia entry for Steve McCurry and the "Afghan Girl" image:

...use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement

If you want to justify your action by invoking the 'fair use' doctrine, you might want to read:

From the US Copyright Office, concerning the 'fair use' doctrine:
(my bold, underline, and italics, except the reference to: title 17, U.S. Code)

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.



Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

• 1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
  2. The nature of the copyrighted work
  3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
  4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.

Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
FL-102, Revised May 2009

Those of you not in the US, need to be aware of the Berne Convention: Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

<RANT-OFF>

We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.

Ditto.

too many favorites. here is one i like today:

So who's the dude in the helmet?

Ditto.

+ See quote #1

-

 

[djacobox372]

I love the National Geographic "Afghan Girl" picture taken by Steve McCurry. I always have. It's one of the reasons I became serious about photography.

yeah, I think if they were to award "best photo of all time," this would win no question.

 

[table1349]

Caution. The link below is of a graphic nature.

http://www.nocaptionneeded.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/985640413apmrade_viet_2d11g-copy.jpg

By far my favorite photo. It changed the conscience of a nation as did the following photo.

http://www.nocaptionneeded.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/trodd-eddie-adams-01.jpg

These are just two photos of many powerful photos that changed the way we look at a lot of things in this country at least.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Can't you quote or reference somebody on forums? I mean.. come on.. I used a lot of images from somewhere on my graduate thesis paper. If one posted who it was shot by and from what link, isnt that good enough?

My favorite photo is got to be that sailor who kissed that girl in NYC in WW2 era.

 

[icassell]

Caution. The link below is of a graphic nature.

http://www.nocaptionneeded.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/985640413apmrade_viet_2d11g-copy.jpg

By far my favorite photo. It changed the conscience of a nation as did the following photo.

http://www.nocaptionneeded.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/trodd-eddie-adams-01.jpg

These are just two photos of many powerful photos that changed the way we look at a lot of things in this country at least.

These are two I would have included as well.

I will still include the following, but there is now some question as to whether or not it was staged:

Robert Capa's Lost Negatives - The New York Times > Arts > Slide Show > Slide 3 of 10

Some of you might enjoy this link:

http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.php?title=Main_Page

 

[white]

So who's the dude in the helmet?

I don't know, dude. Does it matter? It's beautiful black & white photography.

Here's another one for you, dude.

Dude what a cool picture!

 

[white]

But today I think I like this one:

Diane Arbus rules, dood.