Exactly my point. But look at some of the examples and you'll be
amazed. How'd they do that?
Chuck Norcutt
On 7/20/2011 4:55 PM, Paul Laughlin wrote:
> I guess it is kind of like a zero tolerance rule in schools these days.
> It does seem a bit ridiculous. Most of the images that I looked at are
> a bit beyond me. I can do quite well if there is something there to
> work with. An artist with a paint brush I am not. Some of them have 50
> or 60 % virtually obliterated. More like salvage part of the image, I
> would think. A patterned shirt with the collar and complete shoulder
> and arm gone due to water stain and the other side hidden behind another
> person would be extremely hard if not impossible for me. I do have
> somewhat of a collection of faces that I can use parts of for
> replacement. But that only goes so far. One that I tackled, a while
> back, was of around a hundred soldiers in WWI. There were complete
> faces missing. But there were a lot of faces to use for parts. LOL A
> little gentle work with the liquify filter can make them look a lot
> different. Also, most of the uniforms were alike. And in most of those
> old photos, no one knows just what they looked like anyway. VBG
> Paul in Portland OR
>
> /20/2011 12:44 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> There should be no concern about copyright violation in an image that's
>> about 130 years old and whose owners have been out of business for 65-70
>> years. Furthermore, if there was actual concern about copyright it
>> would have been sufficient to simply say so.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|