Analog Photography Makes a Comeback

[BrianShaw]

Self-publishing one or a few copies for relatives is fine. I'm thinking of doing it. It's a simple way of printing a bunch of pictures that you can leave on your coffee table and not fight with your wife about hanging framed photos throughout the house. Giving a copy to a relative as a gift is also nice. As far as ego, all photographers are egotists to a certain degree. Everyone likes to get an attaboy for their photos. Denying it is unbelievable.

I give copies, both bound and pdf, to as many libraries as will accept… including Library of Congress. Attaboy’s are great but a chance for eternal life is better.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I give copies, both bound and pdf, to as many libraries as will accept… including Library of Congress. Attaboy’s are great but a chance for eternal life is better.

I once snuck into the Temple of Dendur in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC. It was excavated from Egypt and paid for by the Rockefellers and donated to the museum. The Met built a whole wing around the temple. You're not supposed to enter the Temple itself as there are signs mounted. But I was there as a contractor before the museum opened and the guards weren't around. On one of the temple walls inside out of normal public view, some guy scratched his name and the date: 1837. Now that's eternal.
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...iw=2133&bih=1174&dpr=0.9#imgrc=IT1xPKvyvdNHIM

 

[Agulliver]

That is certainly the dictionary definition. Seems like gilding the lily to say you are a published photographer just because you posted a photo of your lunch on Instagram. I am obviously showing my age. I wouldn't have the chutzpah to put that on my resume.

Dictionary definition, legal definition, generally understood too.

That isn't the same as saying "I am a published photographer". I can say that because I've had photos I took published in books that I did not write, published on a musician's website and subsequently ripped off around the world (not that I care, I didn't take it for money or fame) and used as an album cover. But from a legal standpoint, anyone who posts a photo to social media or any website or otherwise makes it viewable on the internet has published that photo. Any photo publicly available on photrio, for example in a forum area accessible without registering, is published.

And to the person who claims publishing to the internet is all about ego, I've rarely heard a more steaming pile of poo in my life.

Why do I take photos? Primarily two reasons. To help curate memories. I realised this as a child, that memories can fade and having a record such as a photograph or audio recording keeps those memories alive. And to share stories. This used to be done via handing out prints or slide shows, and to some extent is still....though now I often share stories on.....the internet! With friends and family. Nothing to do with ego. I couldn't give a fig if someone external praised or criticised my photos as they are taken purely for fun. Occasionally I post some here as an example of what a film or piece of gear can do. On a few occasions people throw money at me for pictures I've already taken. The one time I actually entered into a contract to take photos of an event it was a miserable experience I shall never repeat. What I can say is that I am directly responsible for several friends and acquaintances taking up or resuming film photography and thereby the purchase of around 15 film cameras and 3 fridges full of film. I am rather pleased with that achievement.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Dictionary definition, legal definition, generally understood too.
...And to the person who claims publishing to the internet is all about ego, I've rarely heard a more steaming pile of poo in my life.
...Why do I take photos? Primarily two reasons. To help curate memories. I realised this as a child, that memories can fade and having a record such as a photograph or audio recording keeps those memories alive. And to share stories. ...What I can say is that I am directly responsible for several friends and acquaintances taking up or resuming film photography and thereby the purchase of around 15 film cameras and 3 fridges full of film. I am rather pleased with that achievement.

Sounds like ego.

 

[faberryman]

Dictionary definition, legal definition, generally understood too.

That isn't the same as saying "I am a published photographer". I can say that because I've had photos I took published in books that I did not write, published on a musician's website and subsequently ripped off around the world (not that I care, I didn't take it for money or fame) and used as an album cover. But from a legal standpoint, anyone who posts a photo to social media or any website or otherwise makes it viewable on the internet has published that photo. Any photo publicly available on photrio, for example in a forum area accessible without registering, is published.

Thank you for the clarification.

And to the person who claims publishing to the internet is all about ego, I've rarely heard a more steaming pile of poo in my life.[

That is certainly not my claim. I am sure people post photos to the internet for a wide variety of reasons.

Why do I take photos? Primarily two reasons. To help curate memories. I realised this as a child, that memories can fade and having a record such as a photograph or audio recording keeps those memories alive. And to share stories. This used to be done via handing out prints or slide shows, and to some extent is still....though now I often share stories on.....the internet! With friends and family. Nothing to do with ego. I couldn't give a fig if someone external praised or criticised my photos as they are taken purely for fun. Occasionally I post some here as an example of what a film or piece of gear can do. On a few occasions people throw money at me for pictures I've already taken. The one time I actually entered into a contract to take photos of an event it was a miserable experience I shall never repeat.

Those sound like good reasons to take photographs.

What I can say is that I am directly responsible for several friends and acquaintances taking up or resuming film photography and thereby the purchase of around 15 film cameras and 3 fridges full of film. I am rather pleased with that achievement.

We all have to take pleasure in life where we find it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Dictionary definition, legal definition, generally understood too.

That isn't the same as saying "I am a published photographer". I can say that because I've had photos I took published in books that I did not write, published on a musician's website and subsequently ripped off around the world (not that I care, I didn't take it for money or fame) and used as an album cover. But from a legal standpoint, anyone who posts a photo to social media or any website or otherwise makes it viewable on the internet has published that photo. Any photo publicly available on photrio, for example in a forum area accessible without registering, is published.

And to the person who claims publishing to the internet is all about ego, I've rarely heard a more steaming pile of poo in my life.

Why do I take photos? Primarily two reasons. To help curate memories. I realised this as a child, that memories can fade and having a record such as a photograph or audio recording keeps those memories alive. And to share stories. This used to be done via handing out prints or slide shows, and to some extent is still....though now I often share stories on.....the internet! With friends and family. Nothing to do with ego. I couldn't give a fig if someone external praised or criticised my photos as they are taken purely for fun. Occasionally I post some here as an example of what a film or piece of gear can do. On a few occasions people throw money at me for pictures I've already taken. The one time I actually entered into a contract to take photos of an event it was a miserable experience I shall never repeat. What I can say is that I am directly responsible for several friends and acquaintances taking up or resuming film photography and thereby the purchase of around 15 film cameras and 3 fridges full of film. I am rather pleased with that achievement.

I programmed the cameras on Voyager I & II for the Jupiter fly-by at JPL. From my work specifically in the Jupiter Approach movies and the Red Spot Movies I have four movies with more viewers than any movie director and producer plus my many photographs were published. Does that make me a published photographer.

 

[Pieter12]

I programmed the cameras on Voyager I & II for the Jupiter fly-by at JPL. From my work specifically in the Jupiter Approach movies and the Red Spot Movies I have four movies with more viewers than any movie director and producer plus my many photographs were published. Does that make me a published photographer.

And you have to ask? Or is it just to make sure everyone knows?

 

[Sirius Glass]

And you have to ask? Or is it just to make sure everyone knows?

The first for the sake of the thread.

 

[removed account4]

But from a legal standpoint, anyone who posts a photo to social media or any website or otherwise makes it viewable on the internet has published that photo. Any photo publicly available on photrio, for example in a forum area accessible without registering, is published.

That's the definition used by the copyright office too.

 

[removed account4]

That's the definition used by the copyright office too.

. its probably easier to say published than the oh so contemporary upload when talking about the inter web.

 

[BrianShaw]

‘Published’ is a state; ‘upload’ is a verb.

 

[removed account4]

‘Published’ is a state; ‘upload’ is a verb.

can't uploaded be a state ? I saw that Johnny Depp movie Transcendence wasn't he uploaded ?
I think both area a state of mind ... like being an influuencer and utubber with the algo rhythms being kind.

 

[BrianShaw]

Okay. I guess you are right too.

 

[flavio81]

I programmed the cameras on Voyager I & II for the Jupiter fly-by at JPL. From my work specifically in the Jupiter Approach movies and the Red Spot Movies I have four movies with more viewers than any movie director and producer plus my many photographs were published. Does that make me a published photographer.

This deserves a thread of its own, where you can tell us more. Genuinely interested.

And, its amazing that you haven't mentioned the H-word yet. I'm witnessing the surfacing of the serious side of Sirius.

 

[Pieter12]

‘Published’ is a state; ‘upload’ is a verb.

'Publish' is a verb; 'uploaded' is a state if you'd like.

 

[BrianShaw]

'Publish' is a verb; 'uploaded' is and adverb art state if you'd like.

Yes...

Perhaps this thread should be moved to the Grammar forum!

 

[MattKing]

Yes...

Perhaps this thread should be moved to the Grammar forum!

I refuse to moderate that forum!
When the practical means to publish to a wide audience were expensive and limited to a relative few, to be published meant something rare and special.
Now, with publishing being available to almost everyone, you need to use a few more qualifying words - such as "profitably" or "juried and to great renown" or "selected for an award" or "broke even and actually made a few dollars" to mean the same thing.

 

[BrianShaw]

I refuse to moderate that forum!
When the practical means to publish to a wide audience were expensive and limited to a relative few, to be published meant something rare and special.
Now, with publishing being available to almost everyone, you need to use a few more qualifying words - such as "profitably" or "juried and to great renown" or "selected for an award" or "broke even and actually made a few dollars" to mean the same thing.

Smart boy... that forum would be the Wild West.

For books, I consider an ISBN or LCCN number to be the difference between "published" and "formally published". Either profitable or vanity press books, self-published or via publishing company, can achieve that for credibility. On the internet, or corporate publications, "published" becomes quite a bit more open-ended. If it's printed or made publicly available... it meets the generally-accepted definition of "published".

Those qualifying words you propose... are a value judgement for the most part. I'm not sure that I can agree with them. "Juried" has its own connotation of credibility over-and-above mere publishing, as in academic journals. "Selected for award" means it was a good/great publication, but crap content (and there seems a lot of that) that was published was still published. The amount of money a book made has nothing to do with its publication status. But I see where you were trying to go. I don't think the concept is quite ripe yet.

 

[removed account4]

Banksy is self published and distributed widely, world-wide ...

 

[BrianShaw]

Banksy is self published and distributed widely, world-wide ...

LOL... yes... indeed... as are all "graffiti artists". Legality has little to do with things at times. It's graffiti art if you like it; its tagging if you don't.

 

[Pieter12]

Smart boy... that forum would be the Wild West.

For books, I consider an ISBN or LCCN number to be the difference between "published" and "formally published". Either profitable or vanity press books, self-published or via publishing company, can achieve that for credibility. On the internet, or corporate publications, "published" becomes quite a bit more open-ended. If it's printed or made publicly available... it meets the generally-accepted definition of "published".

Those qualifying words you propose... are a value judgement for the most part. I'm not sure that I can agree with them. "Juried" has its own connotation of credibility over-and-above mere publishing, as in academic journals. "Selected for award" means it was a good/great publication, but crap content (and there seems a lot of that) that was published was still published. The amount of money a book made has nothing to do with its publication status. But I see where you were trying to go. I don't think the concept is quite ripe yet.

Anyone can obtain an ISBN for a small fee. In the book-selling world (to the extent that bookstores still exist) a self-published book will usually not be carried. Being physically published by a publishing establishment carries a certain weight behind it. It means that someone looked at the material and judged it suitable and possibly profitable enough to print and distribute it. Self-publishing has existed long before digital publishing and the internet--it was called vanity publishing, and for a good reason. Not to say that all publishers can accept all good material or that all rejected material is poor, but it does count to a certain extent to those who buy and collect. Same thing goes for being invited to be shown by a gallery or museum vs entering one of the hundreds (thousands?) of photo contests whose source of income is those entry fees.

 

[Don_ih]

I think the legitimizing use you people are all looking for is the phrase "published by x" where x is some legally defined entity that either acquires or preserves the copyright of the material in question, possibly for profit but also possibly for no-profit (such as a publicly-funded) museum.

At any rate, "published by" not me. This has long been the objective validation of worth.

"Publish" will always mean "to make public".

 

[BrianShaw]

This reminds me of a similar discussion: the difference between an “expert” and a “know-it-all”. LOL

 

[removed account4]

This reminds me of a similar discussion: the difference between an “expert” and a “know-it-all”. LOL

Not many experts on the inter web, I would imagine its all self proclaimed experts and know it alls... I'm more of a know nothing!

 

[Don_ih]

The thing about experts: they're not always right. This forum has many experts, but they disagree. There is no advancement without disagreement.

I'm more of a know nothing!

The tenacity of your expressed opinions tends to suggest otherwise.