|
|
|
OK, maybe not so frequently, but I get asked about something at least once every time I go out. The site has undergone some changes, plus I'm doing a lot of People shots, and enough questions and concerns have come up that I thought I should write something up about it. Um ...
I had been using variants of Ajax (as in Amsterdam Ajax) as user IDs since 1995 and I was due for a change. Back in 2002, I switched over to dogma, and whatever spelling or 1337 variant was necessary for me to get it in given systems. It's a multi-tiered name, the most important of which to my choice was the definition of dogma. I despise dogmatic arguments, as they rely upon unsubstantiated claims of "truth," but I've also been known to resemble that remark when I go on a BBS rant, so it's also a back-handed slap at myself. Until recently, Dogma was the only movie I owned that had a happy ending, if a black comedy can have a happy ending, while KMFDM is one of my favorite bands. For their song "Dogma," KMFDM hired a woman to do spoken word over their music, and it has provided some of my favorite quotes. In the back of my head, I also had the idea of logos for a site, and the concept of stenciling DOGMA on a church steeple was too precious to pass up. Last but not least, it engendered more gender debate. If you've met me, you know (or in some cases think you know ... poor Sarah), but I've been declared male, female, and unspecified on many different sites, with a trail of breadcrumbs leading in all sorts of directions, for almost 15 years now. If someone asks for advice, it shouldn't matter what gender gives it, but far too often it does, so I've got IDs for all occasions. To my ears, dogma sounds masculine, but a dog ma is a bitch, which is feminine. Yes, that's also part of why there are no pictures of me posted here. Wheels within wheels within wheels ... When I finally got around to looking to buy the domain name, dogma.com was available, but I got sidetracked and didn't try to buy it until two weeks later. By then, it had been purchased by someone selling copies of the movie DVD, and has since been absconded by some "sponsored link only" search engine. I snagged d0gma.com with the zero while I could, and yes, I'll be renewing it. It's probably a good thing that I didn't get it with the letter O, as someone connected with the movie or the band could easily have sued me for the site name. What's up with this site? It's so different from everything else you've done. I've had websites for a decade now. Every single one of them has been an, "http://www.xxx.../YYY/webpages," where xxx was the webhost I happened to be using, and YYY was the particular game or system for which I was posting information. When I get into a game, I don't just get into it, I get into it. What I cannot figure out myself, I find out from others, and then try to explain whatever jigsaw puzzle I've managed to construct from those sources in a cohesive and coherent format. A lot of people are better at parsing code, or developing effective equations from them, but I'm a lot better than most at understanding what all of those equations actually mean to the average player or participant, and then putting it into terms any person new to the structure can understand. For example, the Excel damage/second calculators I've written for NWN and D2 are apparently still in use, (even the max-dam NWN character I scripted is still making the rounds) in large part because, in addition to writing out the 50-100 cells necessary for each possible weapon, I also took the time to explain why all of this was important, what I did, and why I didn't do for this one what I did for a different weapon. Yes, turning dependent equations into a series of consecutive cell formulae that have an answer in column DE is actually fun to me, but it's not why I started writing websites. This ... posting what my eye has seen and I've managed to not screw up too badly trying to capture ... is why I started. It just took me eight years to get around to doing anything about it, but all of those subsites were subsites specifically to leave the primary alone for this. Ugh, my eyes. What the heck is up with the colours? Most of my sites are blue or green based, using a light mocha text like this. They are just nice, neutral colours that are neither so bright that they are going to blind you when you are surfing late at night, nor so dark that they require you to turn on a light to be able to nav through it. For the image pages, I use a slightly different colour scheme. Where I've a comment to make on an image, I use a light blue font. It's bright enough to be legible when you try to read it, but dark enough, and close enough to the background, to blend in when you are concentrating on the image. This site is about the images, not whatever caption I've made, nor any explanation I might have. I consider anything that distracts from them to be a detriment, so the nav, header, comments, and link bar are colour coded to try and let them fade in your peripherals when you focus on the shot. I thought this was for your photos. What's with all this other stuff? The primary basis of the site is for the images, but I've enough other interests to warrant the other links. The music section isn't ever going to be a Napster or Kazaa; it's just hard to find stuff I happen to like and felt like sharing. "Hard to find" just means it would be a pain for me to try and track them down again. All were supplied free by the copyright owners, so I've no qualms about reposting them. Shar got me into those random on-line quizzes, and I've taken enough of them that I've found quite a few to be worth mentioning. My results from them are posted to give an idea of what to expect, to give you a better gauge on whether or not to bother. As an adjunct, those who care can get a better gauge on me. As to the movies, I've wished to find something like it for quite a while, so ended up making one myself. As a rule, I like indie films, but a lot of them suck ... and suck pretty hard. Just because it's an indie doesn't mean it's any good and, even if it is good, doesn't mean it's something that you'll like. With my blurb and some ratings, as well as everything else you've read about it, you can make a decision on whether or not to bother. I don't post the crap, though, so you'll have to make due if it's not listed. Benny and Joon is well crafted, but I'd rather have my ears drilled than watch it again. I'd love to give the director of Soho Square a swift kick where it counts for the garbage I had to sit through. My ears start to bleed just thinking about the soundtrack. Both are highly acclaimed films, but I'm leaving if you toss them in the player, and I'm certainly not taking up webspace with a review of either. Some of these shots look pretty bad. Why did you even post them? If you want bad, you should flip through the prints I didn't use. As of March 2006, I'm at roughly 50/50 film to digital on what's posted, despite being at 70/30 on what I've shot. On my trip through Madrid and Dublin, I shot 80/20 film/digital, resulting in some 1500 images, while my run through Belgium, German, and Holland, was all film for about 800. The fact that the digital survived better led me to use more of them here. I took more film shots knowing that I could capture better quality with it than the 3MP digital I had, but failed to realize what was going to happen to the film. You can see the best contrast in those from Dublin and Madrid for digital versus film. 30 rolls of 800 35mm film went through four carry-on X-rays at airport security, versus the pissant digital I was carrying with me "as a spare" on the Madrid-Dublin trip, while all of the Belgium-Germany-Holland was on 200 and 400 35mm. I got better shots on film, but the "X-rays do no harm film" signs at the checkpoints lie. The shot was better on film, providing I had had it developed before I went to the airport again, but the print I can actually get from it now stinks. Now that I've started using a 10MP digital SLR (Nikon D200), I'm capturing all digital and they are as good as I could obtain from film ... without the hazards of the airport and the benefit that it's much easier to edit them. Until I wander through the various countries to obtain "replacements" with the D200, the scans of crappy X-rayed prints are going to stay. That logo of yours is huge. Why is it so big? It's grown over time. Before I was doing my recent gig of wandering around accosting people with my camera, I was busy posting previous images I had taken. On a few occasions, I started discovering hotlinks to my images. For those who don't know, what that means is that someone wrote a webpage and for the <img src> tag, they had used the direct address for my image. This posted my image on their site, drawing it directly from me and stealing my bandwidth in the process. Yes, I know the fix, but the .htaccess isn't compliant, so I cut out access for off-site pages that I've written in the process. After a few "chats," bringing to their attention the fact that I not only noticed but knew how to find who to contact over it, they would recode the pages. On a few occassions, I later discovered that that recoding simply involved them saving my image, cropping out the logo, and then hosting it on their site as unattributed work, which led to my attorney deciding to have a chat with them. Well, that's how the logo started getting bigger. It's as big as it is now partially because of that, but more for another reason. Many of you have been on a BBS and seen a reply with a post-it, (a picture of someone with a comment like, "Wow! You suck more than I do," written across the image) and I'm trying to curtail it occuring to anyone who posed for me. Someone who really wants to use an image can still crop out the logo, but it will throw off the balance, probably mess up whatever effect they were trying to have, and the logo is where they'd want to put most of the text anyway. Someone with skill can crack the layers and remove it, or extrapolate over it to where you wouldn't even know that it used to be there. With the sheer volume of what's posted elsewhere, it's really not worth their while to waste time on the images I post here. Nothing's perfect, so it can still happen, but at least I'm thinking ahead and tried to do something about it. People has a page drop-down but the others don't? I've been resistant to adding drop down menus, simply because of the fact that there is no way to change it to the colour scheme of the pages to make it blend in. As of April 2006, a drop down is available for both Architecture and People, because the convenience of navigation for my visitors is a bit more important than my (insert euro-trash background music) vision for the site. When something stops working, it changes. This was the first site I had designed in at least five years that was not framed, and I used to have a great nested table layout ... right up until I decided to add something to the nav. Having to change ~150 pages simply to add a link was more than enough, so I went back through them all again and changed it to a frameset. At present, the other sections are still working fine with First, Next, and Previous links to nav through the thumbnail pages, but will shift to drop downs when they get to four pages of images (76+). Installing breaker code to all of the pages is the next step, and possibly the Urchin script while I'm at it, but it can't be helped. I'm not that serious about it. I'm organized enough that I almost compulsively take notes about things, but I'm also constantly losing any notes I do take. I don't plan to start posting film and shutter speeds, aperture settings, or light readings with shots, as I've long since given up on trying to keep track. Shots like Jensen's Falls (True) versus Jensen's Falls (Blue) make me not want to bother anyway, as the difference between the two has zero to do with camera settings. I took True, then a .2m step to the left, and got Blue; go figure. If you really need to know: for the digitals, anything you want is in the EXIF. For the scanned prints, it's long gone, so don't ask. You took my picture. Who are you and why did you take it? How long have you been at this? The short answer is because I feel like it. Through lack of practice, I've lost any skills I might once have had as a wordsmith. I can still remember the day, 30 years ago, that I chose to stop drawing, so I've had no art skills to lose. I still have a good eye, though, and this serves as my creative outlet. I'm just some random person who likes taking pictures and thought you might make a good subject. I pay for this site myself, and accept no donations to support it. I do it because I like to do it. I understand, more than you know, any suspicions you might have, but there's no ulterior motive. I just like taking pictures. I've been shooting for 30 years now. About ten years ago I started to really get into it, but have been shooting seriously for only the past five. My first camera was a little Kodak 110, the one with the tiny dual-spool film cartridge. I fooled around with a Polaroid Land Camera, and even a Kodak Disc, along the way, but stuck with that 110 until about 1990. I shot with an old (older than I am) Canon 35mm for a few years, then started working with a Nikon N80. In 1998 (I think) I finally broke down and picked up a digital, an Olympus C740, and primarily used it to test shoot before committing to film. In March 2006, I got my hands on a Nikon D200 and have been using it almost exclusively since. Why did you take my picture? Don't you need some kind of release? It actually depends upon the situation: A) If you are in public, (on the sidewalk, at a public park, etc.) I can take anyone's picture that I want and I don't even have to ask. Duck as you like, it's open season when you are out in public. Legally, in a public situation, I have the right to even shoot minors without asking anyone. How I actually proceed varies based on context. If it's an adult and I like the shot, I'm probably just going to take it, but I might ask them to hold still for it. With something like "The Chase," where a minor is part of the image and could be readily identifiable, I can still easily fuzz the face without it detracting from the image, so I'm not likely to ask. What I'm trying to capture what they are doing, not them. When the child is the focus of the image I want to capture, I will never take it without asking both the parent and the child. There's just so much wrong that can happen from them believing it's OK for random strangers to walk up to them and take their picture. I'm not concerned so much with what I do, but with what happens next. What if their mother is hiding from an abusive husband and he happens to see their child's image? What if someones take an image of them and turns it into the next "Star Wars Kid" that makes the internet rounds? I want no part of either ... and those are the nicer variants. B) If I'm in a private location (most of my People shots are at pubs, so I'm more familiar with this), I have to ask permission. That doesn't mean I have to walk up and say, "may I take your photograph," as simply waving until I'm sure I have their attention and that they understand I am about to aim a camera at them is sufficient. "Hi. I'm Chris. I'll be your annoying tourist for the evening," still works surprisingly well at getting people to let me take their picture, and is a great way to meet people, so I do tend to stick with that. Technically those shots of you passed out at a friend's house on the couch, no matter how little they painted you with markers, are illegal because they didn't obtain your permission, but I wasn't invited to that party, so let's get back to the pub shots. Any indication of "no," from sticking a hand up to ducking, means I'm not allowed to take a shot. Usually, I will go over and chat with the person about it, but the most I can do is try to cajole them into it. On occasion I've been known to tap the aperture test button to tease someone, as it also fires the flash, but I'm still not allowed to capture an image without an OK. If I want to take a shot of someone under 18, I need to ask, and this does entail walking up and asking both the permission of the parent and the child and if either says no, I can't shoot. In a private location, the owners, or any employees, can also require that NO pictures be taken. It has to be blanket ban though, as telling you not to shoot, but letting me, opens them up to myriad of First Amendment arguments. For example, most casinos have a general ban on "recording devices," which includes cameras, and many will now even confiscate cellphones that have a built in camera to enforce this. An adjunct to camera restrictions (read: lawsuit waiting to happen) is that many sport venues are now restricting the size of lenses you can bring into the stadium with you. You and your digital are fine, and I'm probably OK with my 70-300mm zoom as I can make it look small, but if I'm trying to bring in a 300mm prime or larger, depending upon the venue, I'll either have to pay a surcharge to do so or not even make it past the gate. So you took my picture, but don't you need a release to use it here? Again, it depends. Being a private individual rather than a public figure, your image is you and you own it. If you tell me no, I can't do anything with it but let it take up space on a hard drive or in a print bin. If I were trying to use it to promote, or sell, anything, I would be required to obtain a release. If we were doing a modeling shoot, I would obtain a release from you for the images, and you from me for use of your copies of them, even if the "promotion" for which we want them is merely just of ourselves. Minors add an additional release form to the process. My posting them here, in a non-commercial environment, is construed to be "editorial use." Technically, I could make a book of images and use your picture in it without your permission, under the "editorial use" framework, including pictures of/containing minors. The reality is that I'll never do it. The laws and rules are in place because too often common sense fails. Why do you think your blow dryer had a big tag that tells you not to use it in the shower? Common sense tells me that some people were nice enough to pose for me, and I'd kind of like others to do it in the future. Sure, some of the comments and titles for images may push it, but I've restrained myself from more than a few statements that I thought were funny as hell, but decided that they might not appreciate it. Legally I could have gone ahead and posted it, but just because I can doesn't mean I should. I have some great shots of kids, from events to weddings, but if I can't fuzz their face without making the image useless, and I can't get in touch with Mom & Dad for an OK ... and make sure they know how to tell me it's not OK if that changes ... those shots get an audience of one. The laws are in place to restrain people who need it, while not infringing on their First Amendment rights. Some of us don't need laws to know better. I gave you my name. I saw you write it down. Why am I a "Random XX" on my page? Sometimes it's because I either didn't write it down, or if I did that I managed to lose the note. On occasion, the expressions or situation led me to some comment that I really shouldn't use, and I couldn't get it out of my head, so I instead tagged "Random" on top and left it at that. If you're not a "Random" and there's a title instead, one of those comments was clean enough for me to use and I opted to use it. Things like "Piratas Lost" are when I'm too clever for my own good, using a comment that has several layers behind the name, only one or two of which anyone else will actually get. "I suppose he looks like a pirate and he's looking at a map and, hey, piratas is Spanish for pirates so maybe that's from Madrid," is usually the farthest anyone takes it. For most shots I tend to lean towards a "Random" tag or some other commentary, particularly when it is head shots of a woman or women. Promulgating chauvanism? Maybe. Acting old fashioned? Sure. Being realistic? Definitely. I spent eight years behind the bar, and, although I'm sure I haven't seen all of it, I'm confident I've seen most of it. When I go out to a pub to do some shooting, pass out my cards or site addy, I understand that people are doing me a favor by posing. With as much grief as women have to put up with, real low on my list of things to do is enable some schmoo to make their life even more difficult. If I take a woman's picture and post it, and some guy who has been here happens to see it, and then happens to see her out one night ... as nice a guy as he might turn out to be, I am not going to be the one responsible for him being able to walk up to her and say, "Hey ... isn't your name Kim?" The opposing point you might make about ones like those of Dado, Kate, and Sinead is valid, but carries less weight for me. The chances of my running into anyone who's going to see them, let alone run into them again myself, are well below slim to none. ~shrug~ closer to home, where I'm more likely to meet someone who has a good chance of meeting the subject of an image, is where I'm a lot more protective. So you took my picture, but I'm not here. Where is it? If I took your shot and it's not on the site, it's because I didn't like it; not you, the way the shot came out. I typically end up using only about 3-5% of my shots of landscapes and buildings, and those don't move or blink at the wrong time. If I wandered up to take your picture, it's because something clicked in my head that told me it was a good image. For whatever reasons, there was just something about the way it turned out that didn't appeal to me and/or that I thought wouldn't appeal to you. Bad lighting, bad moment, user error (*cough* being dense enough to stand where the flash is coming right back at me off a mirror behind you *cough*), some combination of the above, take your pick, but there was something about the shot that just wasn't right. I keep almost all of my shots, even if I don't use them here, so if you really want it, you can get it. I'm still working out how I'm going to do it, so I might take your picture four times in a month and give you four different coding variants ... or none. Once I get someone to bother to respond to my inquiries about getting some business cards made up, I'll settle into a system (preferably non-predictable), but we'll muddle along for now. I'm not running this site commercially. At some point I'll start trying to sell some shots, like the stuff in Features, but not of the people I've simply met and shot. Everyone who was kind enough to pose for me is welcome to a digital copy. That's specified because I'm not printing it out and mailing it to you. You'll have to do that on your own, but I'll be happy to fire off an e-mail with a 3MB attachment of the original. As mentioned in previous parts of the FAQ, I'm trying to cut down on the ability of other people to use my picture of you in ways you might not like. Again, nothing is foolproof, but I'm doing what I can to limit it. The code you have is for you to be able to e-mail me and obtain your image without the honking big logo on it. If I get an e-mail asking for the original without that code, you don't get the image. It might be you I'm refusing, but it might be someone else who wants to slap some text on your image and use you as a BBS post-it. ~shrug~ I've no way to know from just an e-mail, and I'd rather err on the side of caution. Is there any way I get some of this stuff without the logo? If you're talking about a shot I took of you, or you and friends, yes. See the paragraph immediately above this one. If you're talking about anything else, no, not yet. The only shot for which I've actually tried to sell the rights was the one of Raul, Beckham, and Ronaldo in the same frame, but that went nowhere. I have had some vague notion of eventually offering prints for sale since I began posting, but other than making sure I have copyright information included in everything I post, I've done nothing to progress on that. "At some point" I'll get around to it, but it will only be for selected images. As I've yet to obtain a single release, almost nothing in People, and a good chunk from Mixed, will ever be for sale. Marketing shots of public figures to a magazine, like the sports shots, is one thing; selling shots of private individuals is another. I like your stuff. Are you for hire? You obviously haven't seen the stuff I don't use lol Tossing money at me to do something I love is like handing a kid the keys to a candy store. I've no issue with going to an event or wedding to shoot (within a reasonable distance), and can offer cut-rates compared to a pro, but understand that you get what you pay for. A professional has better gear for, and more experience at, that sort of thing than I do, and will charge accordingly. At the end of the day we'll both have some great shots of the bride and groom, but they'll have many more and likely got them faster. If I somehow still haven't talked you out of it, e-mail me and we'll work out the details. |