Restricted viewing

[Heath Bennett]

Hi everyone.

A little frustrated by the way posts in image critiques are visible to anyone that visits this site. Is there a spot here that we can post images that may be more restricted? Out of the public eye and for members only. I feel that I could share more of my work this way.

Opinions? Insults? Obvious directions to where this already exists?

[gstark]

Heath,

We have no such area at present, but what is your concern with this?

I can easily restrict any area to any particular group, but I'd like to see (and understand) the issues that you're concerned about.

[Heath Bennett]

Two reasons mainly -

• Photoshoots of people or places that I'm not keen to broadcast on easily accessible channels, but still want comment on.

• Piracy.

[gstark]

Heath,

Piracy should not be an issue - simply post low resolution images that are not able to be reproduced in any form of high quality format.

In fact, with the guidleines for posting, that's effectively what we're saying and encouraging you to do. The images should be fine for the web and viewing, but really not much else.


Reading between the lines though, are you perhaps suggesting that you'd like a high resolution critique area, where the images that one might post might be of a significantly higher resolution than as per normal, and where, say, posting and viewing of those images would be to a more restricted/select group?

I'm thinking of something along the lines of the way the members group works, but additional to that, and, for want of a better description, a premium critiques section ....

Am I on the same wavelength as you? Or am I on a totally different planet?

For the moment, I'm just trying to fully understand your needs.

[macka]

Why would there be any need to post high res images?

[gstark]

I'm not sure that there is, but Heath has raised piracy as a potential issue, and that (to me) implies that the images posted should be worthy of piracy, at least from a resolution PoV.

From the content PoV, there are many images posted here that, IMHO, are indeed worthy of .... publication (and therefore subject to potential piracy) .... so while I conceed that issue, the first point (and the point you're making, of course) is that lower res images shouldn't suffer that fate.

So for the moment I'm just trying to get a handle on what Heath's asking, so I can make a better decision.

[phillipb]

I could be wrong, but the way I interpreted Heath's first reason is that he has enough trust in our members to post photos of say a family member for them to see, but not to broadcast it to the general web.

[Oz_Beachside]

what about hosting pics somewhere where they can only be viewed if the direct link is known, ie. cant be "browsed".

pbase for example have a few options for protection etc. then people need the password from you.

or somehting like, dare I raise it, myspace, which can place restrictions on who can access your albums...

or, a combination of these ideas?

[Heath Bennett]

I'm not a high flying photographer, but it would have seemed like I thought that of myself if I went in to too much detail about the things I'd like to post... Now it seems I need to mention a little in order to make more sense.

I just don't feel comfortable posting images of a private room in the presidents house in Mauritius, or an image from a small set celeb shoot that I'd like feedback on before sending, or a CEO shot that the client wants complete exclusivity with, or a concept that I think is fantastic that I only want to share with people inside a club mentality.

The high res thing is a good point also that could come in handy. Sometimes small images just aren't sufficient.

[the foto fanatic]

I'm not a high flying photographer, but it would have seemed like I thought that of myself if I went in to too much detail about the things I'd like to post... Now it seems I need to mention a little in order to make more sense.

I just don't feel comfortable posting images of a private room in the presidents house in Mauritius, or an image from a small set celeb shoot that I'd like feedback on before sending, or a CEO shot that the client wants complete exclusivity with, or a concept that I think is fantastic that I only want to share with people inside a club mentality.

The high res thing is a good point also that could come in handy. Sometimes small images just aren't sufficient.

You mean shots that aren't supposed to be in the public domain? Pix that you have undertaken to keep private? Shots that you have been paid for on an exclusivity basis?

You want a special place in this forum for you to break your commercial agreements?

I don't think so!

(But hey, I'm only one person!)

[gstark]

Trevor raises a couple of interesting points.

Aside from those, what Im hearing is that you're wanting to have a place where you can perhaps pre-publish your commercial work (let's ignore Trevor's concerns for a moment ) in order to help you better prepare it for presentation to your clients.

Again ignoring Trevor's points, you'd be asking members not simply for their opinions, but also for their trust - especially if we go with high res issues.

My thoughts here are merely points that I can think of for discussion; nothing more. I still have no opinion on this, and I'm truly interested in exploring and understanding this idea further, which is why I'm taking time to answer this with as many points and questions as I can come up with; I welcome other points of view, issues, suggestions and concerns as well.

Let's look now at some potential clients - you've mentioned a couple of examples, and that gives me better guidance to your needs and concerns.

But let's, if we may, open that up a bit: let's presume you've taken a money shot of some so-called celeb, and let's say that this has big $$$ earning potential.

How well do you trust the people here?

I'm not suggesting any level of distrust at all, and I think it's fair to say that our members display a very high level of respect towards the images of others.

That may not always be the case, though.

That's one aspect ....

What about those doing the critiques?

At the moment we sometimes have members complain that their images do not seem to recieve a critique. While this does occur, we need to keep in mind that all critiquing is done on a voluntary basis, and on the basis of what each member sees within any image posted. IOW, there's no guarantee that any image (or image set) will actually get critiqued, and thus you run the dual risk that (a) your image might be ignored, and (b) even within a closed section, it may be pilfered.

But the primary question here becomes do we, and if so, how can we, guarantee a critique for any (every) image that you post?

Let's take this a step further: some here are qualified to offer critique, others perhaps less so. How do you discern the value of any critique offered, remembering that a critique is always just, like a restaurant or movie critique, one person's opinion.

So ... there's a few thoughts that I have. I think Trevor's points are valid, and I probably have some further concerns regarding liability issues should an image be illegally taken.

Over to you, everyone, for your further ideas and discussion.

And Heath, do you think I have a handle on your question now, or do I still need further steering towards your points of concern?

[Reschsmooth]

Given the potential commercial sensitivity of the shots in question, would Gary be personally liable for breach of the protected portion of the site? If not Gary, who? Is this something that Gary (or anybody else) should have to deal with, particularly given current revenue's this site's admin and moderators receive.

I am not suggesting the idea doesn't have merit, but I think it maybe placing unnecessary liabilities on people who aren't rewarded for taking on the risk.

A short term option is to simply pm or email the photos you want critique on to the members you want the critique from.

Just some thoughts.

[big pix]

Doing work for a commercial client, and having said work published in a private or public forum, before being presented to the client, does open up a lot of questions.......

The loss of income if they ever found out, as you would be dropped as a supplier, does come to mind, for a start.......

Yes I have commercial work on my web site, but said work has the permission of the client for this use and my self promotion.....

[MCWB]

Heath I see where you're going and have gone down this path at other forums. The bottom line is that no matter how much you trust people here or anywhere, if you post it on the internet you have posted it publically (even if it's posted on a private forum). If you can't afford to take that risk (because of confidentiality agreements, moral obligations etc) then you can't afford to post them on the internet for critique. Emailing or PMing the pics to people you trust is less risky but there's never zero risk. If you shouldn't post them publically then don't, a "private" members-only area isn't going to change this.

[Heath Bennett]

Now I think that I have taken it too far!

It is not that I have been required to sign confidentiality agreements, for if I had, I would never post the images on the web. If there was a chance of a leak that would have me dropped as a supplier it would be very sensitive content that would hold me back.

It is more where there is an assumed level of concern - even slight - and not for paparazzi style shots which I don't have a desire to take. For example, our shoot with Jackie O last week for a new product she is promoting. There is no real reason why anyone would want to use the pics for personal gain, and there is no big secret to protect. It is just nice to have comments for images before mainstream release. Perhaps there was something that I or the team here had not yet seen. Also it is just fun to share what is going on. Perhaps you guys are right though, any kind of image release on the web before the client has seen them isn't wise.

I guess where the idea came from is if this were a non-online club, I would be able to show a select few people without the concern of leaks.

Furthermore, this probably comes from frustration that I don't yet have our planned website online (BigPix), from commercial use for self promotion.

Well Gary - I am happy that we got to consider the options

[the foto fanatic]

Another option might be to use a place other than this forum.

If you have your own web-site, you could set up a page where you gave the URL only to people you trust.

Or, to have it further removed from yourself, a Smugmug (or similar) account would give you the opportunity to have your pix under a nom-de-plume if necessary. Once again, a password protected gallery, or only releasing the gallery's URL to those whom you considered were safe to view & critique your images would do the trick.

Both of those options give YOU the control over the images, and also the liability for any sensitivity if things do happen to go wrong.

[gstark]

Heath,

I guess where the idea came from is if this were a non-online club, I would be able to show a select few people without the concern of leaks.

In which case, you'd have hard copies of the images in question that you'd be handing around to those whom you trust, wouldn't you?

Trent has suggested sending an email or PM to those whom you trust. I know members here have done pretty much that with me, on occasions where they've sought my opinion on some images that they've made.

I do believe that that is probably the cyber-version of handing physical images to a select few people. Furthermore, you're always in control of who gets to see the images, which I think, within this context, is an important point as well.

I think that this is probably the correct solution to your delimna.

Well Gary - I am happy that we got to consider the options

As am I. It was an interesting discussion, and it's given me something to think about: I certainly don't believe the exercise was without merit.

[Heath Bennett]

Hi Gary - good stuff, that is what should be done. Thanks everyone.

[jamesw]

Jumping in on the discussion after its finished... sorry if I'm beating a dead horse.

I too would appriciate a members only forum. I shoot a lot of photos for magazines, and it is somewhat of an unspoken rule not to flash the photos around too much before they are published. Common sense really.

It would be nice to get a crit in an open forum, where you can get a wide variety of opinion. Right now, I have to hold back from crit a lot of my A+ shots...

Now I do understand your point RE email and PM, although I do not think that you would disagree when I say that having a crit in a forum is much more productive (or at least more discussive) than a one way conversation.

Like I said, sorry if I am beating a well and truely dead horse, but this is something that I too would be interested in and use.

[radar]

One way to setup a members only discussion list:

-setup a password protected gallery, such as smugmug, gallery2, etc. They all have that feature.

-setup a mailing list of the members you want for critique. This is what you want for critique. You want the members of the list to see what others are saying. That way you don't have duplication and you have discussions. You can also easily keep an archive. Something like mailman works great.

-have the mailing list subscription moderated. By this, you allow only the people you want to participate. That way, you don't have "strays" on the list.

The technology is easy and there to be had. A hosting company like Dreamhost has all the tools already.

Cheers,

André