Photographic relevance

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.

markpierce

Master and Commander
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
12,557
Location
USA
Vessel Name
Carquinez Coot
Vessel Make
penultimate Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
It might be worth reviewing your math ... a thousand words is about 16KB, one of Mark's pics is close to 200KB.

It might be worth the bandwidth if it were in context but a picture of a bergy bit taken from a cruise ship in some unknown location in a thread by and about a member's photos of his voyage south seems like a bit too much "me too" for good taste.

All the photos I've posted have relevance to my posts and a thread's development. If one doesn't recognize that, well perhaps we live in different universes or I've over estimated peoples' imaginations. Regardless, my intent was never to waste bandwidth but to illustrate or emphasize my point. ... I'm not going to change.

img_112448_0_e03e5eaf0b0eca6a7713cc663f71b0c4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Carry on, it is not like we are being charged to see them. If not interested, click the scroll or page down button
Steve W
 
Apparently the forum owners are not concerned about the storage space occupied by the forum. When I suggested that I thought it would be a good idea to remove all of my previous posts dating from the first days of the forum and only retain posts (my posts, anyway) for a month or so, the forum owners didn't jump at the chance. I'd have done it myself already but we haven't quite got that process figured out yet although we're working on it.

It's the photos that take up the space and I've posted a lot of them over the years. I've not kept track but I'm guessing they occupy a fair number of gigs on the forum server. So it'd be good to get them off, I think.

Someone mentioned awhile back that they thought that when we post somehting to the forum that material becomes the property of the forum owners. That may be true of the text but it's not true of the photos. The copyright of a photo belongs to the photographer unless the photographer signs the rights away in a buy-out contract. Interestingly this is not true of video.

When we (Boeing) hire an outside air-to-air photography specialist to shoot a project for us, if we want to buy the rights in perpetuity to his photographs the buy-out generally runs $10,000 to $15,000.

So post away, Mark, and if any of your photos show up on any other forum or in a publication or on a website and you did not authorize their use in this way, you can collect whatever you can collect. Might even get you that Nordhavn you've always wanted.:)

A Seattle magazine used one of my floatplane photos on their cover a number of years ago without my permission. They weren't trying to get away with anything, they simply hadn't been told who took the photo. As the magazine had already been published I pretty much had them over a barrel. I told them my price for their use of the photo and they paid it without argument. The timing was perfect--- part of their payment paid for our new Rocna which back in those days was just shy of $1,000.
 
All the photos I've posted have relevance to my posts and a thread's development. If one doesn't recognize that, well perhaps we live in different universes or I've over estimated peoples' imaginations. Regardless, my intent was never to waste bandwidth but to illustrate or emphasize my point. ... I'm not going to change.

img_112664_0_e03e5eaf0b0eca6a7713cc663f71b0c4.jpg

I'm the one Rick chose to argue with when I stated that a picture was worth a thousand words. I believe photos convey information that is difficult to put into words. Keep them coming. If the moderators don't like them, they will let you know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom