login info join!
Forums > Digital Art and Retouching > Favor to ask - See if this can be recovered Search   Reply
Photographer
JMHSPhoto
Posts: 412
Windsor, Ontario, Canada


I have an image here with a watch face that has been blown out.

if anyone could bring back as much detail as possible on this, I would really appreciate this.

http://www.sharkcomputersystems.net/DL/unknown.jpg
Feb 04 13 10:54 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
The Invisible Touch
Posts: 707
Tarragona, Catalonia, Spain


I don't think there is a lot of info let there, as it looks totally fried.. :-( but do you know the brand of this watch?? If so.. download an image from google and add the face to your image, it should be fairly easy!!
Feb 04 13 12:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Matt Knowles
Posts: 3,556
Ferndale, California, US


First question is did you shoot it in raw or jpeg? If you shot raw, you might have a chance of recovering it, if it's a jpeg, then you're screwed, and let with trying to recreate such as the previous poster mentioned.
Feb 04 13 12:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
JMHSPhoto
Posts: 412
Windsor, Ontario, Canada


Its a one of a kind Rolex Cellini with a coat of arms from the British Columbia Government coat of arms on it. Doubtful on an image search.

I know it's blown out. I was just fishing to see if anyone can pull anything back.

My restoration side of Ps is poor at best.
Feb 04 13 12:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Rob Mac Studio
Posts: 1,105
London, England, United Kingdom


http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8085/8445987148_fc12498e9a_z.jpg

The channels are pretty blown but there is a little more detail. If you have a raw version more would be possible.
Feb 04 13 12:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mask Photo
Posts: 1,382
Fremont, California, US


The Invisible Touch wrote:
I don't think there is a lot of info let there, as it looks totally fried.. :-( but do you know the brand of this watch?? If so.. download an image from google and add the face to your image, it should be fairly easy!!

technically copyright infringement...

Feb 06 13 02:45 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
The Invisible Touch
Posts: 707
Tarragona, Catalonia, Spain


Mask Photo wrote:

technically copyright infringement...

I don't agree with you... I do understand what you mean if you were using the whole image, I am only adding details missing from the same brand/watch... I am not suggesting to just comp the image in... just the missing details!! I bet this is done very often.!

Feb 07 13 10:30 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mask Photo
Posts: 1,382
Fremont, California, US


The Invisible Touch wrote:
I don't agree with you... I do understand what you mean if you were using the whole image, I am only adding details missing from the same brand/watch... I am not suggesting to just comp the image in... just the missing details!! I bet this is done very often.!

you don't, but a judge might, since creating derivative works (composites) requires permission from the copyright holder (whoever shot the image you're cutting from, or whoever they granted the copyright to).

It's the same reason I need to go shoot a picture of a prison to put in the background of a photo I'm working on, rather than just google image search it.

Same reason Dave Hill shoots all his own layers for his composites. You can't just grab part of a copyrighted image for your own purposes.

ESPECIALLY since what you advocated was taking a very important part of the image (the face of a watch, the best pic of which would likely come from the manufacturer's website, which is dedicated to selling watches, so you're advocating taking the (arguably) most important part of an image for a composite).

Very unlikely that fair use would be an effective argument in this case.

Feb 07 13 09:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
The Invisible Touch
Posts: 707
Tarragona, Catalonia, Spain


Mask Photo wrote:

you don't, but a judge might, since creating derivative works (composites) requires permission from the copyright holder (whoever shot the image you're cutting from, or whoever they granted the copyright to).

It's the same reason I need to go shoot a picture of a prison to put in the background of a photo I'm working on, rather than just google image search it.

Same reason Dave Hill shoots all his own layers for his composites. You can't just grab part of a copyrighted image for your own purposes.

ESPECIALLY since what you advocated was taking a very important part of the image (the face of a watch, the best pic of which would likely come from the manufacturer's website, which is dedicated to selling watches, so you're advocating taking the (arguably) most important part of an image for a composite).

Very unlikely that fair use would be an effective argument in this case.

Oh God, you are stubborn... I have never said to use the whole image... ONLY small details from that watch... how on earth would you or a judge or anybody would know that you took that image...?? How on earth you are going to think... oh yeah that's right they have borrowed those details (very tiny ones) from such image... come on mate!! :-)

Feb 08 13 12:26 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mask Photo
Posts: 1,382
Fremont, California, US


The Invisible Touch wrote:
Oh God, you are stubborn... I have never said to use the whole image... ONLY small details from that watch... how on earth would you or a judge or anybody would know that you took that image...?? How on earth you are going to think... oh yeah that's right they have borrowed those details (very tiny ones) from such image... come on mate!! :-)

*shrug*

lawsuits are won and lost based on small details, and I'm not convinced that the best argument for copyright infringement is "i'm not likely to get caught".

The use you described doesn't sound like it would satisfy the 4 criteria for fair use (u.s. convention; OP, do they have anything similar in canada?), so i felt like I should say something.

and, for the record, you did NOT advocate copying "only small details." You suggested to "add the face to your image," which suggests a major part (perhaps the most important part) of the watch.

ESPECIALLY if the ways is, as OP noted, a "one of a kind Rolex Cellini". Any web-searchable photograph that shows enough detail of the watch to copy is likely going to feature the watch exclusively.

I also am not familiar with property release law in Canada, but if the watch is as unique as is claimed, any photo that features it exclusively may have been property-released, which adds another shade of liability to just infringing on a convenient web image. Imagine if the retoucher was discovered, and the publisher they provided the image to was sued by the original copyright holder AND the owner of the watch. OP would explode in a fine mist of blood and bone by the lawsuit the publisher would bring.

I'm not stubborn, I'm cautious. We all should be, as we're treading the very choppy waters of intellectual property. If you don't know the currents well enough, you're always in danger of catching a riptide and being pulled under. I have no intention of drowning in a lawsuit, but I guess you don't mind the idea of being sued for everything you own. Would be nice if you didn't advocate legally dangerous activities to other forum member, though.

Feb 09 13 02:38 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RSM-images
Posts: 4,225
Jacksonville, Florida, US


.

Ask Rolex for an image of the watch.

.
Feb 09 13 02:53 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
The Invisible Touch
Posts: 707
Tarragona, Catalonia, Spain


Mask Photo wrote:

*shrug*

lawsuits are won and lost based on small details, and I'm not convinced that the best argument for copyright infringement is "i'm not likely to get caught".

The use you described doesn't sound like it would satisfy the 4 criteria for fair use (u.s. convention; OP, do they have anything similar in canada?), so i felt like I should say something.

and, for the record, you did NOT advocate copying "only small details." You suggested to "add the face to your image," which suggests a major part (perhaps the most important part) of the watch.

ESPECIALLY if the ways is, as OP noted, a "one of a kind Rolex Cellini". Any web-searchable photograph that shows enough detail of the watch to copy is likely going to feature the watch exclusively.

I also am not familiar with property release law in Canada, but if the watch is as unique as is claimed, any photo that features it exclusively may have been property-released, which adds another shade of liability to just infringing on a convenient web image. Imagine if the retoucher was discovered, and the publisher they provided the image to was sued by the original copyright holder AND the owner of the watch. OP would explode in a fine mist of blood and bone by the lawsuit the publisher would bring.

I'm not stubborn, I'm cautious. We all should be, as we're treading the very choppy waters of intellectual property. If you don't know the currents well enough, you're always in danger of catching a riptide and being pulled under. I have no intention of drowning in a lawsuit, but I guess you don't mind the idea of being sued for everything you own. Would be nice if you didn't advocate legally dangerous activities to other forum member, though.

You win, you are right and I am wrong!!! Good for you!!

Feb 09 13 05:48 am  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
C Benjamin Design
Posts: 10
San Diego, California, US


Mask Photo wrote:

*shrug*

lawsuits are won and lost based on small details, and I'm not convinced that the best argument for copyright infringement is "i'm not likely to get caught".

The use you described doesn't sound like it would satisfy the 4 criteria for fair use (u.s. convention; OP, do they have anything similar in canada?), so i felt like I should say something.

and, for the record, you did NOT advocate copying "only small details." You suggested to "add the face to your image," which suggests a major part (perhaps the most important part) of the watch.

ESPECIALLY if the ways is, as OP noted, a "one of a kind Rolex Cellini". Any web-searchable photograph that shows enough detail of the watch to copy is likely going to feature the watch exclusively.

I also am not familiar with property release law in Canada, but if the watch is as unique as is claimed, any photo that features it exclusively may have been property-released, which adds another shade of liability to just infringing on a convenient web image. Imagine if the retoucher was discovered, and the publisher they provided the image to was sued by the original copyright holder AND the owner of the watch. OP would explode in a fine mist of blood and bone by the lawsuit the publisher would bring.

I'm not stubborn, I'm cautious. We all should be, as we're treading the very choppy waters of intellectual property. If you don't know the currents well enough, you're always in danger of catching a riptide and being pulled under. I have no intention of drowning in a lawsuit, but I guess you don't mind the idea of being sued for everything you own. Would be nice if you didn't advocate legally dangerous activities to other forum member, though.

if it is solely for a personal photo, I don't think it would be a problem.  if he is doing it for money, then possibly.

Feb 09 13 08:26 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mask Photo
Posts: 1,382
Fremont, California, US


The Invisible Touch wrote:
You win, you are right and I am wrong!!! Good for you!!

more like good for the people who read this, who now have a little better understanding of the possible dangers inherent in casual infringement.

I don't get into arguments to win them, i do it to prevent dissemination of false or dangerous information.

Feb 09 13 01:59 pm  Link  Quote 
  Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers