Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
My belief is that the more we all know about the rights and obligations of both the model and the photographer, the more likely we are to avoid problems.

bang bang photo wrote:
I generally agree with you -- and by the way, have often enjoyed and learned from your participation in those sorts of discussions in the past.

I guess my point is -- there needs to be balance in these things.

I suspect we're more in agreement than not -- I agree that knowledge is power. I personally would just be happier if photographers showed more finesse and less stridency in defending their rights.

bang bang photo (from another response) wrote:
Personally, I think the world WOULD be a better place if more people actually followed the rules they try to set down for other people to follow.

Actually, I think we are in total agreement.  To me it is all about common courtesy between the parties and flexibility on everyone's parts.  I too think that it serves no point for anyone to go overboard on either side of the equation.

BronxBeauty8 wrote:

I do have the rights. Its not like I do it all the time. That washed out image on the first page will stop me from ever doing it again. But I do get a lot of compliments on the black & white one only because its not just black and white - its black & white, and green and purple and blue and red and lighter and darker and black & white again and Tada! Told ya, I was just trying it for the first time. I will never be able to recreate that image again using the RAW photo.

Only the photog or someone he gave permission to has the right to edit the images.  In the eyes of the law, the fact that you're in em means absolutely squat on this issue.  That's squat.. as in over the pot. 

bang bang photo wrote:

Just trying to keep things in perspective. Of course I've dubbed a tape. But then, I'm not the one jumping up and down insisting that all my property rights be honored all the time.

But you're right -- I do think that if you're going to insist that others follow the exact letter of the law, it's a pretty good thing to do so yourself. Otherwise, you run the danger of deserving the label, "hypocrite."

Personally, I think the world WOULD be a better place if more people actually followed the rules they try to set down for other people to follow. I can't agree with you that it's a good thing for people to be hypocrites.

Paul

Haha!  Way to put words in my mouth lol.  What I said was: You don't have to be perfect to ask for a little respect.  Also.. I suspect that if I took your current avatar and cropped off the bottom half of it...you'd be jumping up and down. 

I dare you to say you wouldn't haha.

I double dog dare you. 

Lapis wrote:
What about models who are also photographers, practice photoshop 20-40 hrs a week and get secret editing as well as not so secret editing rights, show the pics to the photographer, who then tells them to edit more so he can put it in his new book?

We don't talk about that out loud.

n81v wrote:
By the way here is what I was talking about,

I could be wrong, but what I think she was trying to do (and did not know how, without blowing out the contrast) was to remove or de-emphasize the amount of grease shine on her face.  She may also be a bit self-conscious about her nose, and the way the shine is reflecting almost draws viewers' eyes straight to it.  The best thing would have been more powder during the shoot itself, but the only real way I know to properly fix this in Photoshop is with the airbrush and blur tools... and that is usually far too time-consuming.

_Tabitha_Rose_ wrote:
What if the model doesnt like the way the photographer edits things..

Then the model should not shoot with that photographer until he edits to the model's satisfaction, plain and simple.

Meehan Photography wrote:
Let me state it a bit more clearly. No F'n way should anyone be altering your images without your permission.

What he said.

As I provide Fibre based prints made in a wet darkroom, not too many llamas are too keen to go dipping their fingers in Selenium etc...

Just a thought 

jac3950 wrote:
OK.... here's the relevant line I have added to my release:

I understand that I (the model) do not have the right  to alter, manipulate, or distort the images provided to me, and that I am expressly prohibited from using any electronic software for this purpose. 

thoughts and feedback welcome

Don't mean nothing. The photographer has the model release. Some photographers give a copy to models, but not all.

n81v wrote:
My initial intention for this thread was not to say that all llamas are not knowledgeable with post processing of images, or that to say yes some photographers could probably sharpen their editing skills. I know we are all always learning something new everyday.

My thought was that I had a finished work and that person went and made adjustments to the image AND cropped out my name (maybe that was a good thing…ha ha). That felt and seemed wrong to me.

Well I am not mad, since I feel it’s a lessoned learned. Now I know to stipulate in the release form or as Alan and Roger have pointed out to have a whole another licensing form drafted, and to also state it verbally at the time of the shoot.

I figured others had been in the situation once or twice, so I thought it would be good to discuss it amongst each others. Thank you everyone for sharing your thoughts.

By the way here is what I was talking about,

Image I provided:


Image they posted:

So it looks like she blew (out) her nose. Can't blame her.

bang bang photo wrote:
Coming out of the corporate world, I'm surprised to see so many photographers say they NEVER let anybody edit their work. I know several rather large multibillion dollar companies that stipulation would immediately disqualify you from working with.

That's why I said "UNLESS I am paid for it"

Demarcus Freeman wrote:
To the rest of you: If you look at a button-mashers port, and you think "I'm going to have to fix this and that and...blah blah".. why work with him?  Free does not always equal good.. yes?

That was my point
If they like my work enough to work with me (especially assuming they approach me) why would they want to make it look like something other than my work?
Same for any other photographer.
Work with people whose work & style you appreciate, or pay someone to snap shots & edit yourself.

Fuzzybear Photography wrote:
I specifically forbid anyone to edit my pictures. I tell models if they want an image edited for some purpose or the other please ask me and I will oblige.

On TFP/TFCD shoots, I give a model a disk of 6 megapixel JPG previews (RAW's are 16.7 megapixels) until I can produce edits. They are not to edit the image themselves unless I approve it before they post it. If they post an image with no editing done, that OK by me as long as the title states "Unedited/as-shot" or something to that effect. I would much rather someone tell me that they would like a specific image worked t=on then they try to do it themself and ruin it, though I have seen some excellent editing work done, as many of the models I work with are actually college art majors, which is why I put in the stipulation about them being able to edit if they OK the finished image with me first and lable it as being edited by them. If they are posting the photos on something like a MySpace or personal page which they only use for family and friends then I have no problem with them doing whatever they want as far as odd edits, as long as they note that they were the ones who made the changes.

On an alternate note, I have edited a couple of "home-made" photos for a model who was/is on this site to show her what could be done in post processing to her non-professional photos to improve them. She liked them so much she actually gave me a photographer credit/link on the files. I made sure I added a comment to each photo stating that I was the photo editor, not the actual photographer, so that people wouldn't confuse things, though I wouldn't have been too ashamed to have taken them the way they turned out once edited......

Ryan Entwistle - Photographer
re: photography

Lew of Vividere wrote:
Just for sake of making a point, I just checked my portfolio on here.  Of twenty pix posted, only 3 have seen Photoshop.  It is obvious they are Photoshopped.  Most of the others are scans from the negs or slides or direct from camera digitals.  The Photoshopped images are the last ones I posted and as I said, for some testing.   There are many great photos on MM, but how many are "raw"?  Maybe the industry needs a "real seal" before we have our pix pulled by Reuters.

I almost never do anything in photoshop which is "unreal." Nearly everything I ever do to an image can be done with a film image in a darkroom. I thus use Photoshop as a "digital darkroom" not a painting studio...... for example, my skin very rarely "looks" retouched, and that is the key to what I am attempting.......but every image on my profile has seen Photoshop and/or the RAW processor of Photoshop at least a little, even the B&W hand processed film one if you can tell which they are.....

=see if you can tell which they are.....

wot fun!
well i did line one 3rd a LOT
line   2 last
none in line 3

line 4  second and last
line 5 last

what do you think MM ?
maybe this is the time to ask for feefback on the images...
.go see!

Revel wrote:
I rarely trust photographers with the post-processing- a lot don't know how to handle the programs.

Both of these pictures are posted publicly here on MM- one is mine, the other is the photographer's. Which would you prefer?

The question isn't which one *I* would prefer, nor which one *you* would prefer... the question is, which one is the original artist's intent.

don't rust the photographers with post-processing? Then take the damned photos yourself.

Tikal wrote:
It depends on the agreements made, and whats in a release although as a serious art student Im pretty offended you assume all models cant use photoshop and all photogs can. (in basics)

it's not about whether models can "use photoshop" or whether photographers "aren't good at it"... it's a question of what the original artist's intent is and their desires of what their art looks like.

You want to use photoshop on a photo? take the pictures yourself.

Andrea Barnett wrote:
...i wont ever edit someones work that knows what they are doing. sorry to say, but MANY on this site, dont.

if you don't think the photographer knows what s/he is doing from the images in their portfolio, then don't work with them or post their images in your portfolio.

It's not about whether *you* think they know what they're doing or not.

Samantha-Lynne wrote:
As a model, I can see why they do do this...sometimes the photographers don't acheive the tone you'd like in the picture,...

Thats just my view on this..that is is the models picture as well, perhaps suggest that they put upon the image that it was edited by them..and not the photographer. I always place the original photographers name, as well as if I edited it...that I did the editing, and not the photographer. I believe anyone can look at an image, even if it is badly coloured and see that the base of the image is good, and thus judge the photographer on that. To each thier own, and I understand your problem entirely.

Thanks!
Samantha-Lynne
Atlanta,GA

You want to use photoshop on a photo? take the pictures yourself.

It's not a question of the photographer achieving the tone *you* like, or the photo looking like *you* want it.

The picture is not "the model's picture as well".  The picture belongs to the photographer.

You don't like it, don't put it up in your portfolio, don't work with the photographer in the first place if he doesn't demonstrate the kind of quality to the photos that you are expecting in yours or if you wouldn't like the qualities he demonstrates in his portfolio.

You want something specific that no photographer in the area does? Take the pictures yourself.  (are we noticing a theme here?)

JAYROME wrote:
The point should be to come to a solution that your both comfortable with. The model should have some rights when it comes to the images...

no.... if the model *should* have some rights to the image, then they *would* have some rights to the image.  The rights the model has to execute at their discretion are what you have detailed here:

JAYROME wrote:
if you don't like it ask them to adjust the images, they should be willing to help or either just don't post them!

Right on Jayrome.  "if you don't like it ask them to adjust the images, they should be willing to help or either just don't post them"

_Tabitha_Rose_ wrote:
but she should be allowed to edit her raw images w/out the photogs name on it if he is embarressed.. and if her images SUCKS.. well that makes HER look bad.... if the photogs name is on the pic..well she should make it clear that SHE edited it.. ya know?

if the images suck...if the model is embarrassed by them then don't post them in your portfolio.

Don't like them enough to post them in your portfolio? Then work with another photographer who demonstrates the skills necessary to deliver an image that is worthy of your portfolio.

Models should never be editing images unless expressly permitted to by the photographer.  Period.

bang bang photo wrote:
I think it's interesting to see all the radically different responses an issue like this receives -- I'm fascinated by the "moral" tone so many of us take -- as though there really is only one proper and definitive answer, and anybody who does it differently than we do is wrong, stupid, ruining the business, etc.

there *is* only one proper and definitive legal and moral answer to the editing of a photographer's final vision.  You don't do it. period.

bang bang photo wrote:
Coming out of the corporate world, I'm surprised to see so many photographers say they NEVER let anybody edit their work. I know several rather large multibillion dollar companies that stipulation would immediately disqualify you from working with.

That is the difference between a photographer being an artist, and a photographer being an element to a production.  If the photographer is just there to snap the photos then it isn't his artistic vision.  Further if he's just there to snap the photos, he's being compensated for his time and his work is being PURCHASED at a rate he determined and which is WAY higher than ANY model is willing to pay for portfolio work.

JJD Productions wrote:
Putting clauses in release forms, etc. is not going to stop models from doing this because there is no way to enforce the law here.  Unless the photographer can prove a large monetary loss and the model can afford the compensation, none of these cases will be pursued.

In Canada you may be correct (I don't know Canadian copyright law at all)... IN the USA it is simple for a photographer to enforce the law.  All the photographer need do is register his works with the copyright office, and then any copyright violation needs not prove any sort of monetary loss, only that the infringer did infringe on a right belonging to the copyright holder.