I have recently opened an Esty store.
This store is a little different from the other selling sites listed. Those sites are where you can purchase copies of my photos or artwork.
Etsy is for other items.
I have been an avid auction attendee since the early 1990's. Selling on Etsy gives me the chance to make a little money from that hobby.
Etsy does allow sellers to offer digital files, so I might include some digital downloads there. (Images are one option but there are other options.)
This also gives me something to write about besides photography.
The photography news lately has been very limited, mainly covering new lenses and cameras. I currently don't have access to these items to review them myself and I have little interest in blogging based on reviews posted by someone else.
I did post links to those reviews at one time, but that became too time consuming when I started my day job.
I will continue to write on photography related subjects but will also include posts on other subjects, including Etsy updates.
For those looking for a place to sell photographic prints, Etsy is an option. Selling prints on the site does require you to print the images yourself. This does give you some control over the quality of the images sold. It also forces you to deal with the printing and shipping the prints.
Etsy does charge listing fees as well as charging a commission on sales.
The listing fee is only 20 cents per item and the listing lasts for four months.
Etsy also offers sellers a credit card reader. This allows sellers to allow buyers to buy directly from the seller while using their credit card. This is a viable option for anyone interested in direct sells to the public. (Like an art fair.)
All you need is a cell phone, an Etsy account and the credit card reader.
There is a per transaction fee when using the reader. (Roughly 3%.)
Monday, April 27, 2015
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Photoshop Can Determine the Subject Matter of Your Images.
Hat Tip: Popular Photography
I actually find this to be a bit disturbing and file it under just another reason not to use Photoshop.
It turns out that Photoshop will refuse to load images of currency. That requires Photoshop to determine the subject matter of any image the user wants to edit with the program. Couple that with Adobe's Cloud Computer model, which requires an active Internet connection to Adobe's servers in order to use the program and you have a nightmare for any paranoid individual.
Not only can the program determine when you are attempting to open a file containing the image of a banknote, but the program is in constant communications with the software company that owns the software.
Anyone else wondering whether the NSA also knows when you attempt to open a file containing a banknote image? Or maybe the Government mandates Adobe turn over information whenever the program flags a file as containing a banknote image?
(We have examples of them forcing companies to turn over information.)
Why would anyone use a program that stops working if you lose Internet service and examines the content of the files you edit? Especially if it flags content as "illegal".
Big Brother is here.
Its name is Adobe.
FYI, it is actually legal to possess digital images of U.S. banknotes. It has to be for non-fraudulent purposes and the image needs to be black and white instead of color. There is also a size requirement, but that seems to apply more to anything that is actually printed.
I actually find this to be a bit disturbing and file it under just another reason not to use Photoshop.
It turns out that Photoshop will refuse to load images of currency. That requires Photoshop to determine the subject matter of any image the user wants to edit with the program. Couple that with Adobe's Cloud Computer model, which requires an active Internet connection to Adobe's servers in order to use the program and you have a nightmare for any paranoid individual.
Not only can the program determine when you are attempting to open a file containing the image of a banknote, but the program is in constant communications with the software company that owns the software.
Anyone else wondering whether the NSA also knows when you attempt to open a file containing a banknote image? Or maybe the Government mandates Adobe turn over information whenever the program flags a file as containing a banknote image?
(We have examples of them forcing companies to turn over information.)
Why would anyone use a program that stops working if you lose Internet service and examines the content of the files you edit? Especially if it flags content as "illegal".
Big Brother is here.
Its name is Adobe.
FYI, it is actually legal to possess digital images of U.S. banknotes. It has to be for non-fraudulent purposes and the image needs to be black and white instead of color. There is also a size requirement, but that seems to apply more to anything that is actually printed.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Polaroid Announces New Mobile Photo Printer.
Hat Tip: Imaging Resource
My immediate reaction to Polaroid's new Zip photoprinter was "why?".
It's a mobile printer that prints 2" x 3" images. It's charged via a micro USB cable and prints roughly 25 images per charge.
The printer can link to android or iPhones via Bluetooth/NFC.
So basically, it's a device that turns your phone into a Polaroid camera with a single, 25 image, film pack. All for only $129.99
Oh, and you have to use Polaroid's paper which costs $14.99 for 30 sheets.
Okay, so I'm being a bit facetious.
The "printer" doesn't actual print. It actually activates ink embedded in the specialized paper. Plus, the printer will presumably draw power from the cable if the cable is plugged into a wall outlet instead of using the battery, allowing the device to print more than 25 images as long as a wall outlet is available. (It should also be able to use external portable batteries.)
This does strikes me as a very niche product. I don't see that many people being interested in a portable printer capable of only printing 25 images before it has to be recharged. It does appear to be a better option than the current alternatives, though.
You can purchase instant film cameras and film. The cheapest option for film seems to by Fuji's instant film at $8.99 for a 10 pack. That's $27 for 30 photos versus $14.99 when using Polaroid's new printer. Saving $12 per 30 images means the printer will pay for itself after roughly 300 images when compared to the alternatives.
This might be a product that certain photographers might be interested, with wedding photographers being the most obvious. Guests could obtain copies of photos taken at the wedding or reception while they were still on location. The couple could also personalize any keepsakes given out to guests with images taken during the ceremony.
The same is true for other events.
This does suggest a possible revenue source for event photographers. The photographer could rent the printer and sell the paper needed to print images at the event.
(For those wondering how someone could make money selling the paper. The $14.99 is the retail price. The photographer should be able to purchase it at the wholesale price. The difference is the photographer's profit margin on the paper.)
My immediate reaction to Polaroid's new Zip photoprinter was "why?".
It's a mobile printer that prints 2" x 3" images. It's charged via a micro USB cable and prints roughly 25 images per charge.
The printer can link to android or iPhones via Bluetooth/NFC.
So basically, it's a device that turns your phone into a Polaroid camera with a single, 25 image, film pack. All for only $129.99
Oh, and you have to use Polaroid's paper which costs $14.99 for 30 sheets.
Okay, so I'm being a bit facetious.
The "printer" doesn't actual print. It actually activates ink embedded in the specialized paper. Plus, the printer will presumably draw power from the cable if the cable is plugged into a wall outlet instead of using the battery, allowing the device to print more than 25 images as long as a wall outlet is available. (It should also be able to use external portable batteries.)
This does strikes me as a very niche product. I don't see that many people being interested in a portable printer capable of only printing 25 images before it has to be recharged. It does appear to be a better option than the current alternatives, though.
You can purchase instant film cameras and film. The cheapest option for film seems to by Fuji's instant film at $8.99 for a 10 pack. That's $27 for 30 photos versus $14.99 when using Polaroid's new printer. Saving $12 per 30 images means the printer will pay for itself after roughly 300 images when compared to the alternatives.
This might be a product that certain photographers might be interested, with wedding photographers being the most obvious. Guests could obtain copies of photos taken at the wedding or reception while they were still on location. The couple could also personalize any keepsakes given out to guests with images taken during the ceremony.
The same is true for other events.
This does suggest a possible revenue source for event photographers. The photographer could rent the printer and sell the paper needed to print images at the event.
(For those wondering how someone could make money selling the paper. The $14.99 is the retail price. The photographer should be able to purchase it at the wholesale price. The difference is the photographer's profit margin on the paper.)
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Disney Latest Corporation Caught in Copyright Controversy
Hat Tip: Amateur Photographer
The image in question is one taken of soldiers posted at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and shows those soldiers standing duty during a storm. (It was taken by Karen Markert and can be seen at her Smug Mug site.)
The image went viral after appearing on Facebook and many web sites reused it without the photographer's permission. This includes Babble, a site owned by Disney. (It was removed from that site after the photographer contacted it.)
The key issue here is "after it appeared on Facebook."
The Facebooks terms allow for reuse of photographs posted on that site. If the image had been posted by the photographer, Disney and the other sites would have had the right to use the image without asking for permission first.
Unfortunately, it appears that the image was posted by someone else instead.
That person did not have the ability to grant the right to use the image, but there may have been no way for the sites that reused the image to know that.
This points out one of the dangers of using images found on Facebook. While the terms of service grants people the right to reuse images posted to Facebook, there is no way to guarantee that the person posting the image has the ability to grant that right.
The image may have been posted illegally by someone engaging in copyright violation. That person can not grant rights to use the image and anyone that uses the image faces legal jeopardy. (They probably aren't engaging in "willful" violations which limits their legal exposure to a certain extent.)
Two things to remember about Facebook images.
1) Posting images to Facebook yourself invites use of those images by others. From Facebook's TOS: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)
That is legalese for "We can do anything we want with the contents you upload" including granting others the right to use it free of charge.
Facebook has the right to grant anyone it pleases the ability to use Facebook content without paying for its use, and they basically do so.
Never post anything to Facebook you don't want to be reused by someone else.
2) While Facebook may grant the ability to reuse Facebook content, they can only grant that right if the person that initially posted also has the ability to grant that right.
That usually means the photographer when it comes to images.
Anyone sharing Facebook content should be careful. They should ascertain whether the individual that posted the content was the actual copyright holder. Reusing content posted by someone engaging in copyright violation will subject you to legally jeopardy as well.
A quick image search on Google is often all that is needed to discover the origin of in image when someone engages in image theft. Take a few minutes to protect yourself.
The image in question is one taken of soldiers posted at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and shows those soldiers standing duty during a storm. (It was taken by Karen Markert and can be seen at her Smug Mug site.)
The image went viral after appearing on Facebook and many web sites reused it without the photographer's permission. This includes Babble, a site owned by Disney. (It was removed from that site after the photographer contacted it.)
The key issue here is "after it appeared on Facebook."
The Facebooks terms allow for reuse of photographs posted on that site. If the image had been posted by the photographer, Disney and the other sites would have had the right to use the image without asking for permission first.
Unfortunately, it appears that the image was posted by someone else instead.
That person did not have the ability to grant the right to use the image, but there may have been no way for the sites that reused the image to know that.
This points out one of the dangers of using images found on Facebook. While the terms of service grants people the right to reuse images posted to Facebook, there is no way to guarantee that the person posting the image has the ability to grant that right.
The image may have been posted illegally by someone engaging in copyright violation. That person can not grant rights to use the image and anyone that uses the image faces legal jeopardy. (They probably aren't engaging in "willful" violations which limits their legal exposure to a certain extent.)
Two things to remember about Facebook images.
1) Posting images to Facebook yourself invites use of those images by others. From Facebook's TOS: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)
That is legalese for "We can do anything we want with the contents you upload" including granting others the right to use it free of charge.
Facebook has the right to grant anyone it pleases the ability to use Facebook content without paying for its use, and they basically do so.
Never post anything to Facebook you don't want to be reused by someone else.
2) While Facebook may grant the ability to reuse Facebook content, they can only grant that right if the person that initially posted also has the ability to grant that right.
That usually means the photographer when it comes to images.
Anyone sharing Facebook content should be careful. They should ascertain whether the individual that posted the content was the actual copyright holder. Reusing content posted by someone engaging in copyright violation will subject you to legally jeopardy as well.
A quick image search on Google is often all that is needed to discover the origin of in image when someone engages in image theft. Take a few minutes to protect yourself.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Update to Story About Wedding Photographer Charging For Album Cover
Hat Tip: DIY Photography
Updating a story that dates back to January.
For those not familiar with the story. It involves a dispute between a wedding photographer and the couple. The photographer informed the couple that there was a charge for the cover to the wedding album that was part of the contract. The couple insisted that the photographer was contractually obligated to deliver a wedding album and they shold not have to pay for the cover.
And then the proverbial excrement hit the spinning cooling device.
The couple went public with the issue they had with the photographer, including news interviews.
The photographer has now sued for defamation asking for up to $1,000,000 in damages.
Personally, I think the photographer will have a very difficult time winning.
The couple said that the photographer wanted extra for the album cover. They also said she refused to deliver high-resolution copies of the wedding photos until they paid for the cover. They described it as having their images "held hostage".
From statements made by the photographer, those statements seem to be factual, although she would dispute the emotional charge of holding the images hostage. During the initial meeting after the wedding she did apparent inform the couple that there was a charge for the cover and that the images would not be delivered until the album was delivered.
She apparently expected no problems. This is how she normally handles weddings.
She did apparently try to reach an amicable agreement with the couple, including offering to absorb the cost of the cover. Those efforts were never mentioned by the couple.
The problem for the photographer is that those efforts don't change the initial situation, and the statements made by the couple factually match the initial situation.
Defamation requires more than just proving you were harmed by statements someone made about you. You must also prove the statements were false or made with reckless disregard for the truth. The photographer apparently can't do that.
The statements may have been made with malice, but they appear to have been factual (but not the entire story).
I think the only people winning when it comes to this lawsuit are the lawyers for both sides.
Updating a story that dates back to January.
For those not familiar with the story. It involves a dispute between a wedding photographer and the couple. The photographer informed the couple that there was a charge for the cover to the wedding album that was part of the contract. The couple insisted that the photographer was contractually obligated to deliver a wedding album and they shold not have to pay for the cover.
And then the proverbial excrement hit the spinning cooling device.
The couple went public with the issue they had with the photographer, including news interviews.
The photographer has now sued for defamation asking for up to $1,000,000 in damages.
Personally, I think the photographer will have a very difficult time winning.
The couple said that the photographer wanted extra for the album cover. They also said she refused to deliver high-resolution copies of the wedding photos until they paid for the cover. They described it as having their images "held hostage".
From statements made by the photographer, those statements seem to be factual, although she would dispute the emotional charge of holding the images hostage. During the initial meeting after the wedding she did apparent inform the couple that there was a charge for the cover and that the images would not be delivered until the album was delivered.
She apparently expected no problems. This is how she normally handles weddings.
She did apparently try to reach an amicable agreement with the couple, including offering to absorb the cost of the cover. Those efforts were never mentioned by the couple.
The problem for the photographer is that those efforts don't change the initial situation, and the statements made by the couple factually match the initial situation.
Defamation requires more than just proving you were harmed by statements someone made about you. You must also prove the statements were false or made with reckless disregard for the truth. The photographer apparently can't do that.
The statements may have been made with malice, but they appear to have been factual (but not the entire story).
I think the only people winning when it comes to this lawsuit are the lawyers for both sides.
Friday, April 3, 2015
Run Linux on Your Canon DSLR
Hat Tip: PetaPixel
The developers over at Magic Lantern have announced that they have gotten the Linux OS to successfully boot on Canon DSLR cameras.
The Magic Lantern team wasn't able to get beyond getting Linux to boot. That would require experience with modifying the Linux kernel and the developers at Magic Lantern apparently have no experience doing so.
They have released the information on how they accomplished this publicly. That means developers with Linux kernel experience should be able to develop a version of Linux capable of running on Canon DSLR cameras.
This creates the possibility of a great deal of customization when it comes to the software running on the cameras, including adding features not envisioned by Canon programmers.
The developers over at Magic Lantern have announced that they have gotten the Linux OS to successfully boot on Canon DSLR cameras.
The Magic Lantern team wasn't able to get beyond getting Linux to boot. That would require experience with modifying the Linux kernel and the developers at Magic Lantern apparently have no experience doing so.
They have released the information on how they accomplished this publicly. That means developers with Linux kernel experience should be able to develop a version of Linux capable of running on Canon DSLR cameras.
This creates the possibility of a great deal of customization when it comes to the software running on the cameras, including adding features not envisioned by Canon programmers.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Taking Real Estate Photos? Try This Trick.
Hat Tip: Shutterbug
A Florida couple trying to sell their home may have accidentally hit gold with their real estate photos.
The couples' 15-year granddaughter was taking the photos when she had the inspiration to include her grandmother. The results are priceless.
This does suggest something for those taking real estate photos, including professionals. Nothing beats staging when it comes to real estate, and the ultimate in staging is apparently an 86-year old grandmother.
Honestly, these photos scream "You too could be enjoying yourself in this home."
That is the goal of real estate photos.
A Florida couple trying to sell their home may have accidentally hit gold with their real estate photos.
The couples' 15-year granddaughter was taking the photos when she had the inspiration to include her grandmother. The results are priceless.
MY GRANDMA IS TRYING TO SELL HER HOUSE IN FLORIDA AND THESE ARE THE PICS I AM LAUGHING SO HARD pic.twitter.com/rONaIUyevS
— makenzie (@asapmakky) March 26, 2015
This does suggest something for those taking real estate photos, including professionals. Nothing beats staging when it comes to real estate, and the ultimate in staging is apparently an 86-year old grandmother.
Honestly, these photos scream "You too could be enjoying yourself in this home."
That is the goal of real estate photos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)