So photons just started doing this in recent years?

They have always done that.

The less complicated the lens, the less it controls for flaring, aberrations, loss-of-sharpness etc etc.

Why are modern prime lens so big and heavy?

Simple (not really): Every time a photon passes through a medium, like say - glass - that photon gets distorted, at least to some extent. You must now correct for that distortion and you do so by… wait for it… passing it through another medium.

Uh oh. You’ve distorted it in an entirely new and exciting way. Which must now be corrected for. Guess how that’s done?

It’s enough to make an engineer weep.

Read this: https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/9236543269/why-are-modern-50mm-lenses-so-damned-complicated

Pixabay’s usage restrictions are virtually identical to everyone else’s including iStock.

" You cannot use any Content on or in conjunction with anything pornographic, obscene, offensive, illegal, immoral, infringing, defamatory, hateful, threatening or libellous in nature "

The clause is there specifically to keep the images from showing up on adult web sites, which is exactly the use the OP wants (even if the site is fake and made-up just for the film)

There is no copyright on AI images

Nitpick: Be sure to check that first as some of the online generators absolutely do restrict usage of the content you create using their tools.

So my question is are there any stock image websites that would allow such use of their images? Or is my best bet trying to find a photographer who takes such images and making a deal with them?

Neither.

If this is just going to flash by with little time for critical examination of each image then why not just generate the content yourself? There are plenty available at the end of a google search. They produce results good enough to get thousands of thirsty followers on instagram so they’d be more than good enough to use in a film where viewers aren’t even being given the chance to really look at them before they’re gone.

Double check the usage restrictions (if any) of generated content and just make whatever you want.

No licensing issues, no model records to maintain etc etc.

In addition to what has already been mentioned: Have you ever heard someone mention that an image looks like it was “airbrushed” ?

Today the word is “photoshopped” but Back In The Days the meaning was the same - used to describe an image that appears to have been overly manipulated in post.

They used to literally spray paint the master.

Look at any of the old propaganda photos from Germany in the late 30s and early 40s, because they in particular were really heavy-handed with it.

https://cdn.britannica.com/13/11413-050-75DC0AD1/Hermann-Goring-Storm-Troopers-1933.jpg

The technique was used (and improved/refined) all the way up to the digital age. Any of the old magazine advertisements from the 70s & 80s - especially any kind of hair care or make-up products used it extensively.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/62/28/e9/6228e989947af398d362d574c2df892c.jpg

It’s a major US company

OK - the cruise ship (and by extension the line) is probably not at fault. Whomever they bought it from is the actual infringer.

First things first - before contacting a lawyer you have to register the copyright on your image, presuming you haven’t already.

You can not litigate copyright infringement or even threaten to without registering the copyright first - and it has to be registered, not simply filed for. File for the copyright and then contact an attorney - they can send a demand to the cruise line to reveal the source they bought the print from. The cruise line does not have to answer that demand because there’s no litigation yet - but they will. Once you know who to go after, your lawyer will take it from there.

Note that this is worth litigating - willful infringement of a copyrighted work is worth treble damages and it’s per infringement… and if it’s in one cruise ship it’s probably in more than one, and elsewhere as well. All kinds of infringements might come to light once subpoenas start getting tossed around.

tl;dr – file for your copyright today, then call an attorney.

But the real problem is that even the pictures i take myself, outside work, let’s say i call a friend out or take pics of my girlfriend and want to post them on my page, they won’t let me post without their presets as well

If they’re willing to pay you for those shots too then I’d milk them for every nickel.

Then start up a completely different IG (you’re allowed to have more than one you know) - and post your own creative stuff there, using a different business name.

There is nothing intelligent about “A.I.” and letting it make decisions for you is a recipe for disaster.

Sometimes the mistake makes the photo rather than breaks it.

I was hoping this would solve my problem of culling thousands of pictures thst i take for events each week

You already have something better. It is usually located somewhere between the keyboard of your computer and your chair.

So to repeat the advice you’ve already been given - do your own culling. Not only are you actually intelligent about your selections, but you’ll be able to recognize what no “A.I.” can - the potential in an otherwise flawed image.

Yea culling is work - it’s a grind - but that’s why it’s called work in the first place.

how do they get light without addind too much gain an grain ?

With the giant ball of plasma in the sky you can shoot at 1/3200ths, f/5.6, ISO 400 - or 1/800ths and ISO 100.

I don’t see what the problem with either of those would be?

Not only have I been a victim of someone editing out my watermark and not paying for the package

If you’re feeling vindictive…

Send them an invoice for triple the original package price.

Removing a watermark is an automatic win if you have to take this in front of a judge (you won’t) - as it constitutes what is to a judge a magical phrase: Willful Infringement.

It means the person cannot claim ignorance or “innocent” infringement, like they didn’t know what they were doing was wrong. They knew it was wrong to do that, they did it anyway, automatic /gavel for you. (Edit: Oh, and you get to claim triple because it was willful)

So anywhoo - send them an invoice for triple the price, and if they don’t pay it, file against them in small claims. If the treble amount is high enough, you can just sell the debt to a collection agency for 10 cents on the dollar. You earn a little money from that bad debt, and the collection agency gets to hound them for the next 7 years or so - and it shows up on their credit history.

1. Years of experience - in most cases, decades worth.
2. Professional lenses that cost North of $12,000
3. Planning and patience so they can…
4. FILL that frame.

You think they gear up in camo from head to toe, crawl into a pup-tent at 3am to shoot through a tiny hole cut in the side whilst dousing themselves in stanky deer piss because any of that is fun?

You should watch some of the BTS for the camera operators that did the various BBC “Planet Earth” shows. What they do to get the shot in some cases is insane… but given the quality of the footage they brought back, absolutely required.

If you’re just heading down to the local lake and strolling around with a $300 lens attached, well, you’re not going to get what they get.

How did I end up here on /r/im14andthisisdeep ?

Mirrorless cameras surely represent the future

I have two mirrorless cameras right now. Given how smartphones work - people have been using mirrorless cameras for 16+ years.

does photography simply revolve around techy specifications and cool gadgets ?

It has never revolved around that. Go on flickr and look at the images and tell me, without looking at exif data, what took that picture?

You can’t do that.

… but to try and separate photography from the equipment required to actually do photography is literally impossible.

Through the lens, we capture not just images, but the essence of human emotion and experience, inwards and outwards.

To look through that lens, you need a lens. That lens must be attached to… a camera.

If you’re here doing your Stand-up Philosopher routine because you think /r/photography or any other sub talks too much about gear you need to remember that the gear is a REQUIREMENT to do photography.

Not entirely sure why that even needs to be explained.

Paid Gig: Forever

The culled shots are already gone, I not only don’t keep them, as far as I’m concerned they Never Happened in the first place.

But anything else? I’ll eventually convert the RAW to DNG for long term storage to save space but otherwise there’s no real reason to delete anything.

Copy #1 on my workstation. Copy #2 is backed up to my NAS, and Copy #3 is on CrashPlan off-site.

If Auto will do it for you - sure. Remember that you’re not hurting anything by shooting at the ISO the shot needs, and on older, variant sensors you don’t hurt yourself in post by shooting at too low of an ISO, which can end up giving you even more noise when you correct those shots in post.

There are times when pushing in a bit of Exposure Compensation is needed, some amount of -Ev to defend against blowing out your highlights or the opposite, dealing with backlit scenes where you need more ISO and +Ev than auto wants to give you.

Iso causes noise.

Oh for crying out loud.

Stop spewing the Bs northrup Invents.

Difficulty: He didn’t invent that, he literally parroted it.

Ultra bright outdoors, shoot at 1/4000 f22 iso 26000 it will be noisy. And don’t give me the “1/4000 f22 makes little light hit the sensor, it’s lack of light”

OK - I won’t.

Little green men from Mars caused the noise!

OR… it could just be Signal vs Noise and if you do not have enough signal you will have noise… and all the signal you will ever have is gathered before ISO is applied.

Thus it is proved - all the noise is also gathered before ISO is applied.

Lack of light makes you use high iso to expose correctly, therefore noise. Of course

You realize you just reversed your position, right? Lack of light does indeed force you to use high ISO, and that lets you see the noise that was already there.

Today after blocking the 15th number they found a way to get a new one and call me with a discount, 2k for a in person chat on zoom

Why are you even staying on the line long enough for you to find out the details of their offer?

Them: “Hi! This is Kevin Michael Schmitz’s sales weenie calling!”

You: “Die in a fire.”

*click*

So generally, I’ve always understood that the lowest ISO is best to shoot at.

This is a myth that hammers way too many new shooters.

The correct ISO is the best to shoot at, regardless of what that ISO might be.

Though with newer cameras, they usually have a higher base ISO and in some cases Dual ISO.

Dual ISO is not so much about noise as it is about dynamic range. It’s important, but it’s about maximizing details in your shadows when taking poorly/dimly lit photos.

Base ISO is an arbitrary number. If it’s 200 or 100 it means the same thing: “I have all the light I need, boss!”

It feels odd to take portraits at 800 ISO because I’ve always been told it should be as low as possible.

It should be as low as possible, but not for the reasons you’re thinking.

In and of itself ISO has no adverse effect on your shot. (Heads are exploding everywhere right now)

ISO does not cause noise. The noise is because you did not have enough light and had to raise the ISO… but the noise was already there because you were not capturing enough light. Raising the ISO just lets you see that noise.

Assuming ISO 100 is the correct ISO for a shot the reason it is better is because your sensor is being completely saturated with light - more than enough light to hide the noise that’s there - and you therefor do not need more ISO.

ISO is the alarm bell that tells you that you are not saturating your sensor with enough light, and so you will have visible noise in your shot. ISO 800 is telling you that you’re missing 3 stops worth of light.

tl;dr – If you do not have enough light you will have noise. It is just that simple. If you have to raise the ISO, do it, because you’re not hurting anything by doing so. A better option when doing portraiture however is to gather enough light that you do not need to do that in the first place. A longer shutter speed, a wider aperture, or add light via flash/reflector (or some combination of these) is what is needed… but if all else fails, raise that ISO without fear - and deal with the noise you’re going to have in post.

Photographers do reach out to prospective clients and TFPs - it’s not uncommon at all.

It is however far more commonly the reverse with clients reaching out to photographers.

That said, your instincts do you credit as the photographer that reaches out to the client/model can be somewhat sketch and deserves to be very carefully vetted.

“I always like to bring wine to my shoots just to kinda relax and ease your nerves”

That… is not professional, and you’re absolutely right to turn down that gig.

No professional I know of would ever even think of doing that. We’re all too concerned about getting sued or accused of something we did not do.