If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   The coolest wedding photo you'll see all night   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 27
    More: Cool, light pollution, Mr. Smith, League City, Milky Way  
•       •       •

12160 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Aug 2012 at 4:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



27 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-22 12:35:45 AM
seems legit
 
2012-08-22 04:48:51 AM
I like the zombie wedding photos more.
 
2012-08-22 04:52:28 AM
Not sure which is more stunning here, that pic or a headline on Fark that is not disingenuous in any way.
 
2012-08-22 04:57:22 AM
They seem...abnormally proportioned.
 
2012-08-22 05:16:32 AM
Put that on the next gold record into space
 
2012-08-22 06:45:37 AM
I likey.
 
2012-08-22 07:05:44 AM
It's just a street light.
 
2012-08-22 07:12:12 AM

quatchi: Not sure which is more stunning here, that pic or a headline on Fark that is not disingenuous in any way.


Yeah, I was expecting some kind of groom dressed as Darth Vader, bride as Jabba the hut kind of terribleness. Although as a photo of the couple it isn't great as you can barely see them.
 
2012-08-22 07:27:04 AM

Slaxl: Yeah, I was expecting some kind of groom dressed as Darth Vader, bride as Jabba the hut kind of terribleness. Although as a photo of the couple it isn't great as


Meh, who needs to see the couple as more than an outline? They have other shots for that.

I was kinda prepared for a COSplay wedding in Antarctica done in Kilngon so I was pleasantly surprised here.

/Prepare for the worst and hope for the best and most of your surprises should be pleasant ones.

Do the couple who got the pic taken get all rights to the shot or can the photog sell that elsewhere or do they need to sign away that right?

Any pro pic peoples or lawyer speaking types know?

/Well, it *was* in the newspaper article so there's that.
//Just wondering how it works legally.
 
2012-08-22 08:43:06 AM

quatchi: Do the couple who got the pic taken get all rights to the shot or can the photog sell that elsewhere or do they need to sign away that right?


It's all in the contract.

Typically the photog owns the 'negatives' so you have to buy the pictures from them
 
2012-08-22 08:58:16 AM
The coolest wedding photo you'll see all night.*

*Unless you're browsing mobile.
 
2012-08-22 09:06:30 AM
I just read an article about who owns the photos.

It is always the person who pushed the shutter button.

Even if it isn't their camera, the person who took the photo owns the rights to it.
 
2012-08-22 09:18:44 AM
"As a young child, all I dreamed about was being an astronaut," he wrote. "As an adult, all I dream about is being a wedding photographer."

And that pretty much sums up what can be the sad reality of getting old.
 
2012-08-22 09:26:44 AM

farker99: I just read an article about who owns the photos.

It is always the person who pushed the shutter button.

Even if it isn't their camera, the person who took the photo owns the rights to it.


At the moment of capture, yes. But the photographer can sign away limited, unlimited, or all rights if they wish, based on the contract with the party that hires them. Or with another party, for that matter.
 
2012-08-22 09:45:16 AM
Wow. That was a waste of time. Thanks subby.
 
2012-08-22 09:51:18 AM

farker99: I just read an article about who owns the photos.

It is always the person who pushed the shutter button.

Even if it isn't their camera, the person who took the photo owns the rights to it.


When I got married, the photographer just gave me the undeveloped film. Does that mean she surrendered her copyrights?
 
2012-08-22 09:52:48 AM
I'd think it was cool if that had been the view that wedding guests had. Since it required such a long exposure, he might as well have just photoshopped it.
 
2012-08-22 10:07:01 AM

stevetherobot: I'd think it was cool if that had been the view that wedding guests had. Since it required such a long exposure, he might as well have just photoshopped it.


I think he did. A 71 second exposure and the couple aren't blurred out? I'm no photography expert but how could you leave the shutter open that long and not have any of the people move a little and ruin the shot?
 
2012-08-22 10:37:51 AM
"As an adult, all I dream about is being a wedding photographer."

/sigh...
 
2012-08-22 10:40:00 AM

stevetherobot: farker99: I just read an article about who owns the photos.

It is always the person who pushed the shutter button.

Even if it isn't their camera, the person who took the photo owns the rights to it.

When I got married, the photographer just gave me the undeveloped film. Does that mean she surrendered her copyrights?


That is the general implication when that is done, but technically if the photographer wanted to she could reassert rights over the pictures. By giving you the film itself it allows you to get prints and reprints without dealing with photo-lab copyright hoops.

I have done what the photographer did in the article. Essentially he set the timed exposure in the 'dark', had the couple stand in the dark, and quickly flashed the porch lights on. When I used this technique I used a handheld strobe so that I could be more precise in what foreground I wanted lit and with what color light.
 
2012-08-22 10:44:07 AM
dentalhilljack: stevetherobot: I'd think it was cool if that had been the view that wedding guests had. Since it required such a long exposure, he might as well have just photoshopped it.

I think he did. A 71 second exposure and the couple aren't blurred out? I'm no photography expert but how could you leave the shutter open that long and not have any of the people move a little and ruin the shot?


In the days of film cameras you'd do such a shot using multi exposures on the same frame, something which until recently couldn't be done with digital. In recent years pro level digital SLR's from Canon and Nikon could do multi exposures and the camera model mentioned in the article that the photographer was using does have that capability.
 
2012-08-22 10:48:59 AM

farker99: I just read an article about who owns the photos.

It is always the person who pushed the shutter button.

Even if it isn't their camera, the person who took the photo owns the rights to it.


Copyright of images is nowhere near that simple.

A word of warning folks, never take legal advice from people over the internet because the law is different in different jurisdictions. So, for example, in Australia while the photographer is often the copyright holder there are other possibilities. If you take the photograph for work, your employer owns it. If you take it at the direction of a government agency then they own the photo. If you take photos for a client, then the client owns the photos (unless there is a prior agreement to the contrary).

But...
even then it is complex because even though I own the copyright for the photos taken of my wedding, the photographer still has moral rights AND the right to prevent me using them for a different purpose (publishing them in a Bridal magazine for example). And, while an employer may own your photos, if you are a newspaper photographer THEY own the right to most things but YOU retain the right to publish them in a book of your works or a gallery retrospective.

And if Australian copyright law is that convoluted I can't imagine the American or British laws are any simpler.
 
2012-08-22 12:54:06 PM
As a wedding photo, it's okay. I'd be pretty pissed if I were paying somebody to take recognizable shot of my new spouse and I and they were shooting the sky instead.
 
2012-08-22 01:25:16 PM
This is not a photograph. It is photographic art.
 
2012-08-22 04:56:59 PM

Latinwolf: dentalhilljack: stevetherobot: I'd think it was cool if that had been the view that wedding guests had. Since it required such a long exposure, he might as well have just photoshopped it.

I think he did. A 71 second exposure and the couple aren't blurred out? I'm no photography expert but how could you leave the shutter open that long and not have any of the people move a little and ruin the shot?

In the days of film cameras you'd do such a shot using multi exposures on the same frame, something which until recently couldn't be done with digital. In recent years pro level digital SLR's from Canon and Nikon could do multi exposures and the camera model mentioned in the article that the photographer was using does have that capability.


historystuff.net

Took twelve minute exposures. Now why ain't they all blurry?

Methinks the photo was posed. Not photoshopped.
 
2012-08-22 07:36:27 PM
I don't know... I was at a wedding last weekend that did involve blackface.
 
2012-08-22 09:29:15 PM
nocturn:
Took twelve minute exposures. Now why ain't they all blurry?

Why would you need a 12 minute exposure for that?
Was it shot in a cave at midnight using a cookie tray as the medium??

Seriously curious.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report