Jump to content

gravity

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    74

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by gravity

  2. Posted

    Hi Simon,

    They are not currently registered with the US copyright office, but that is something that I will do if I can't reach an amicable agreement shortly.

     

    Nautilus is a Canadian company, but their web registration and hosting appears to be in the USA (as am I).

     

    The agreement I offered was meant to cover all past uses, but no ongoing or future uses. But after 11 months of back and forth. I recently set a one week deadline for them to accept my offer. They missed that deadline. So currently, there is not an offer on the table from either party.

     

    Two of my images are currently on one of their sites (nautilusswellstories.com) and they both contain my metadata and my name in the filename. Two images appeared on their homepage in the past, but they took them down when I alerted them they were using my photos without permission.The metadata was stripped before they put them on the homepage. And they have used two images in their email newsletter. In the newsletter, my photos were used as part of a composite. I haven't checked, but it is doubtful that the composite would have my metadata.

     

    I appreciate any input you can offer.

  3. Posted

    I have been trying to deal with the Nautilus Swell using my images without permission for almost one year now. They have used five different images (one photo they used twice for a total of six infringements). I have made a significant effort to come to an amicable settlement with Nautilus, but ultimately they continue to send me on a wild goose chase. I know wetpixel occasionally runs trips with them, and I am hoping someone on here can give me advise about how to move forward at this point.

     

    I went on a trip with them in May of 2011. Upon returning, the dive master aboard saw pictures on my facebook page and sent the link to their office. The office asked me if I would do a blog post and include photos. I did so, but I asked that other than the blog post my photos not be used without my permission. They agreed and put up the blog post. Since then, they have used two of my pictures (for a few months each) as some of the main photos on their homepage. They have used two of my photos in their email newsletter. And two of my photos are currently up on their blog under blog posts by people other than myself. The photos on their blog are credited to me. The other four uses had my copyright cropped off.

     

    The photos are all very high quality. Three of them were unique situations where I was able to capture photos that would be extremely difficult or impossible to replicate. And in my opinion they are higher quality photos than Nautilus typically uses in their marketing materials (other than when photogs contribute to their blog). According to the Internet Archive, the first infringement started approximately November 2011. I noticed it in February, and I have been trying to get compensation since then. Because I have been a customer of the Nautilus twice, I like the people involved, and I hope to be a customer many times in the future, I have asked for minimal compensation. After the first infringement I asked for $200 in credit towards a future trip, but since then there have been five more infringements. My most recent ask was for $1200 in credit towards a future trip or a $1000 check -- their choice.

     

    I have been passed around to retell my story to six different Nautilus employees. Each time, it is if I am starting over completely and they don't know they are using my images. All of the people have been very poor at replying to emails, and I have had to spend a lot of time following up. My emails now are going unanswered. The latest is that Mike Lever got involved. First he told me, "I am an avid photographer myself and would be furious if I perceived that someone was using my images for commercial gain after taking the copyright off. That's stealing. I would never condone it." After a few months of no action, I set a deadline. So after 11 months of showing his employees that these were my files (11 months of back and forth and back and forth), Mike Lever's latest response is that he doesn't believe I took the photos. He asked me to watermark my raw files and send them to him as proof. He said he won't engage in any negotiation until I do so. I let him know that I am unaware of any way to watermark a raw file and I am reluctant to send my raw files because of how my photos have been repeatedly (accidentally?) misused, but that I could send him screenshots that showed the pics along with the Nikon .nef extension of the photos in my Lightroom photo library. I could also send screenshots of the pics that come before and after in the sequence. I asked him if that would suffice as evidence for him. I offered to send those to him on January 29 and as of Today, February 11, I have still received no response. I have also repeatedly asked Mike Lever to call me because some of his emailed questions suggest that his employees haven't told him the whole story, but to this point he has declined to do so.

     

    I don't presume to know what is going on in the Nautilus brain trust regarding dealing with me. But it seems that their modus operandi is to be extremely apologetic and assure me that they will get the the bottom of this and resolve it fairly with me, then never follow up with me, then when I follow up pass me on to the next person. Now that I have made it to the top of the organization, my follow up is being met with accusations and denials. It is extremely frustrating. I am sure many photographers deal with this kind of thing all the time. But I never have before. So I don't know what to do next. Does anyone have any specific suggestions? Thanks,

  6. Posted

    I have been to Donsol twice, and have not experienced that the practice follows the preaching. The operators often did not follow their own rules about how many people are allowed to swim with a shark at one time. I think there were times that more than 70 people would be in the water. With this many people in the water it was impossible to keep people from touching the shark. I was the jerk who kept grabbing people and throwing them away from the shark when they would reach out to touch it. Even when the operators saw someone touch the shark, there was never any consequences other than asking them not to do it again. I don't know what the solution is in either Donsol or Hanifaru, but operators mentality of 'if I don't accomodate the customer then my competitor will' is pervasive in many places. Effective enforcement is much tougher than good intentions.

  7. Posted

    There will be varying opinions on Nikon vs Canon. At any given time one is ahead of the other, but they seem to take turns. Both are well supported by housing manufactures. It mostly comes down to personal preference. But I will say for Nikon you should the d7000, not d90. I am not sure if there are housings available yet for d7000, but there will be soon. I think Nauticam has announced one, and I think it is generally considered a significant upgrade from the d90. I

     

    With a limited budget, I would start with a wide angle lens. My favorite is Tokina 10-17 fisheye, and you will find that it is a very popular lens underwater. When your budget allows add a macro lens. I prefer the 105mm macro, but some prefer the 60mm. More than 90% of my pics uw are taken with a wide angle or macro lens, but eventually you will probably want a mid-range zoom also. The Sigma 17-70 performs relatively well behind a dome but doesn't work with full frame camera's (eg 5D MKII).

     

    The only other thing I would add is that if you are looking to be able to afford everything quicker, you might want to look into the new EVIL (electronic viewfinder, interchangeable lens) cameras. They are less expensive and tiny, but supposed to be high quality and you maintain the flexibility of interchangeable lenses. Nauticam makes a housing for one of the Sony models, and Olympus makes their own housing for one of their models. Recent issues of Underwater Photography Magazine has a review and more details.

  9. Posted · Edited by gravity

    Is there a specific Subsee adapter for Nauticam ports? I have been searching the web for a couple of hours now and haven´t found the answer. I have seen several pictures that have been taken with the Subsee and Nauticam houisngs, but as Nauticam housings does allow the use of other ports, the Subsee could be attached to a non Nauticam port. So is there such an adaper available?

     

    regards

     

    Bent

     

     

    Reefnet does have Subsee adapters for some Nauticam ports. If they don't yet have one for your specific port(s) they will usually design and build one for you for a modest design fee. The easiest way is just to email and let them know what you are looking for.

  11. Posted

    It'll be a big disappointment if the springs / mechanism has rusted in the short time (6 months) I've owned this 'finder, despite good rinsing. Once Kevin has taken a look and diagnosed the problem I may well heed your advice and dispense with the springs and bearings altogether...

     

    Thanks for your kind and appreciated help.

     

    Mine rusted in a similar period of time. I had the springs replaced and they rusted again shortly. Finally I just removed them myself and I think the viewfinder works just as well without the springs.

  12. Posted

    Hi Bill,

     

    Thanks for your kind reply. I havn't actually diassembled the viewfinder, only removed it from the housing. Perhaps in doing so I may have disturbed the orientation of the ball bearings / springs and the mechanism has jammed. I made a search for suitable circlip pliers so I could have delved deeper (...) but decided to pack the 'finder off to Kevin Reed at KMR / Aquaphot. It'll be interesting to hear what he has to say tomorrow. I'll report back.

     

    It is probably a coincidence that it stopped turning about the same time you removed and replaced it. The viewfinder has springs on the inside that allow it to lock in to position with each 90 degree turn. These springs are not water sealed and are prone to rust. There isn't a good way to flush them out well. I removed them altogether from my viewfinder, which does require a bit of disassembly, but not much. My viewfinder no longer locks into place every 90 degrees, but it also no longer gets stuck. It really doesn't present a problem and it works much better without the springs.

  15. Posted

    The interesting part of all of this is that the depth of field is a factor of the lens, not the camera.

     

    --Mark

     

     

    DOF is a function of f-stop and reproduction ratio. Thus a smaller sensor will have a higher DOF because of the lower reproduction needed to fill the frame.

     

    Example: if the subject/scene is 35mm wide, a full frame camera will require 1:1 reproduction ratio to fill the frame. A theoretical sensor that is 12mm wide could fill the frame with a 1:3 reproduction ratio.

  16. Posted

    Hey everyone!

     

    Ive been slowly upgrading my kit and am thinking about getting a macro lens- Im taking a lot of photos that I feel could benefit from a greater magnification.

     

     

    Now, I know that the SubSee lenses are good for dSLR setups, as there is a greater focal range. But what about the G10, which is quite limited?

    Also, what about the magnification on the zoom (which goes out to about 105mm, if im not mistaken)?

     

    Would it be worth it to get the SubSee magnifier (or another) for this camera given these "limitations"?

     

    (Also, i'd really appreciate it if someone has used this setup and has some feedback or pictures theyve taken with it that i could see!)

     

    A million thanks!

     

     

    My wife uses a Subsee with her G10 and it is definitely worth it. In fact, after using my SubSee on her G10 (I use it with a Nikon 105mm lens), she insisted that we get another SubSee to replace her Inon.

  18. Posted

    I am not a pro and haven't done very much media, so you can take my opinion with a grain of salt....but,

     

    Making money in U/W photography seems very difficult, and the quality of the photos are only part of the equation. Your photos are good, but not outstandingly unique. They are within the spectrum of acceptable exposure, but they are a little bit less exposed than I prefer--but i could be wrong as i am looking at it over the web on laptop outdoors. If you were taking photos 150+ days per year they undoubtedly would get better quickly and perhaps you would find a unique and identifiable style.

     

    I gather from talking to others and personal observation that there is very little money in the photos themselves even if you are relatively successful in the media. A career in photography requires building a brand around yourself as much as it does selling photos. When you look at someone like Alex Mustard, from appearances he is not only successful selling photos, but also selling workshops, trips, etc. I would speculate that this success comes from endorsements of people who have taken trips with him, extraordinary engagement with the online community of u/w photographers, success in teaching techniques both in person and in his writing, experimentation with techniques that occasionally lead him to a new technique that leads to unique photos.

     

    I don't know Alex personally, so if this is inaccurate I apologize. It is only my speculation.

     

    A good way to see how your photos are stacking up against other amateurs are to place them in the various free u/w photo contests: Wetpixel picture of the week, Dive Photo Guide picture of the month, FINs magazine flickr group picture of the day. Or the larger international paid photo contests-BTS, OWU, DEEP, LAUPS, NCUPS, etc. Photo contests are humbling, because even very good photos lose. But they have made me more aware of the differences between good photos and great.

  19. Posted

    You don't need/want a wide angle to shoot macro. Rather just the opposite.

     

    --The wide angle lenses you are asking about give you a wider perspective which allows you to get closer to large objects and scenes and still get them in the frame. Getting closer is important underwater because it puts less light absorbing, backscatter creating water between the camera and the subject.

     

    Macro Lenses:

    --On a G11 camera, you can gain magnification of a subject by either getting really close or by zooming in. But you cannot do both simultaneously. If you try to do both the camera won't focus and your pics will be blurry. A macro lens will allow you to both get close and zoom. This means you will be able to fill the frame with a subject otherwise too small. I use Reefnet.ca Subsee adapters for my DSLR and my wife uses them for her G10. We prefer SubSees to others we have tried.

     

    F-stops for macro:

    --Usually to learn you want to shoot with the smallest (highest) f-stops that you have enough light for. If you have an external strobe that means you will mostly use f7.1 and f8.0 for macro. As you gain experience you may find situations where you want only a narrow slice of the photo to be in focus. In this case you will use larger f-stops (smaller numbers) like f4.5 or f2.8, but will need to adjust downward the power of any lighting to compensate.

  21. Posted

    I recently traveled Seattle-Bali on Eva Air. As I went up to the counter, I pushed my carry on right up against the counter where the gate agent wouldn't see it. He asked to weigh our carry on, and we put my wife's carry on, on the scale. Hers was just over the limit, we removed something from it (and put it back in later). After the check in gate there was no problem.

  23. Posted

    Ryan from Reef Photo mentioned to me recently that I could use my 60mm (nikon) behind my 8" dome port without an extension. He said he used that setup in British Columbia to shoot wolf eels.

     

    I have tried it, but only one dive so far and no problems. If you try to get too close to 1:1 with it, you run the danger of bumping/scratching your port, but works well for some larger creatures, eg mimic octopus or fish portraits. I have only done it once, so I can't give a lot of advice about it, but I didn't experience any softness.

  24. Posted

    This quote is from http://reefphoto.com/tt/index.php?action=kb&article=7

     

    "The same process is repeated for the exposure, with the camera flash firing and the INON strobe precisely mimicking its duration down to the microsecond. (Strobes do not vary power or intensity, only the duration of the flash. Remember, the speed of light is 186,000 miles/sec., so all of these calculations, firing and quenching occur very, very quickly.) "

     

    So if this is correct, then lowering the camera flash will not hurt, right? This is where i am lost.

     

    thanks

    currently i have an inon 220s, but i will be upgrading to s2000 or Z-240

     

    When you turn the flash down in camera, it will turn down the duration of the in-camera flash. As Tim said, this will shorten (weaken) the S-TTL flash also.

×
×
  • Create New...