For those with USPA Calendar, READ THIS!

[ChromeBoy 0]

Put Clay's head on the guy Dave!

[AggieDave 6]

<--------------Like this? "Homer Simpson, smiling politely."

[ChromeBoy 0]

LMAO! Yeah, like that!

[Sebazz1 2]

Dude Clay is the Shiznat freeflier!! No goggles though.......
SEBAZZ.......

[lummy 4]

OMG...
I'm wondering who took the sheep on AFF???
baby's hungry and the money's all gone. the folks back home don't want to talk on the phone.

[Slowfaller 0]

It was that little brown troll guy that opened his main pin flap! You bastard!!

[QuickDraw 0]

Hmmm maybe he should be called fleeceflier29.
..Billions of people living out their lives..Oblivious..

[TheMarshMan1 0]

Quote

n open container is an open container and a falp is either secured or not. It is the job of the flap to protect the pin and the bridle but the container is not open. Not life ending. Geez.........

Quote

Thanks Seb, You hold him while I go get the SIM and hit him with it.

Just got home from work so I couldnt defend myself from flying SIM's. Guys, it was half a joke, and apparently not a very good one, lol. I understand that its not technically an open container, but its more than I care to have open.


"If I could be like that, I would give anything, just to live one day, in those shoes..."

[rapper4mpi 0]

Again, this really isn't that major of a deal, and I'm positive it happens to all containers. BUT once the phorographer submits a photo, it is no longer their property (there are some exceptions to this rule) so the publisher, in this case USPA, can change it any way they see fit. By changing the picture a little they are not doing anyone harm, BUT by leaving it as is, they are contributing to "bad press". That's all, enough said.
-Rap

[Remster 30]

OMG... an opened flap..... if it was England, that rig would be grounded
Remster
Muff 914

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

if it was England, that rig would be grounded

And the jumper would be beaten!
"Homer Simpson, smiling politely."

[skreamer 1]

Uh, which one is Clay again.....

"Don't die until you're dead"

[Jessica 0]

Quote

BUT once the phorographer submits a photo, it is no longer their property (there are some exceptions to this rule) so the publisher, in this case USPA, can change it any way they see fit. By changing the picture a little they are not doing anyone harm, BUT by leaving it as is, they are contributing to "bad press".

That would be dishonest as hell for the USPA to retouch photos. That changes it into a photo illustration.
I won't get very into it, but there have been HUGE flaps (heh) over undisclosed digital manipulation of photos. *pulling out media ethics book* Here's a case right here of a big ole mess when someone photoshopped a diet coke can out of a picture in order to make it asthetically pleasing.
Anyway, the thought of queering a photo, even for a USPA calandar, without disclosing it, gives me the willies.
The door is open
We are way the fuck up here
Might as well get out.
~ FallingMarc

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

BUT once the phorographer submits a photo, it is no longer their property (there are some exceptions to this rule) so the publisher, in this case USPA, can change it any way they see fit. By changing the picture a little they are not doing anyone harm, BUT by leaving it as is, they are contributing to "bad press".

Unless Nancy and Kevin are doing things 180 degrees from the rest of the industry, they are buying first time rights. The Photographer always retains ownership of the photograph.
ex. If I am a staff photographer for the Washington Post and use their cameras and their film to take some great shot that wins a pulitzer, I own that image along with the rest of the roll and every other image I shoot while I work for them. This was a Supreme Court ruling.

Quote

I won't get very into it, but there have been HUGE flaps (heh) over undisclosed digital manipulation of photos. *pulling out media ethics book* Here's a case right here of a big ole mess when someone photoshopped a diet coke can out of a picture in order to make it asthetically pleasing.

Jessica, this is very true in the news media, but magazines and calendars are totally different animals. I was in J school when Photoshop 1.X was out and somebody at the base paper shopped out a cigarette from the hand of a soldier returning from Desert Storm. The photoshopper was disciplined, and his boss, the officer who thought getting rid of the smoke was a great idea was shitcanned.
Magazines, on the other hand, really have nothing to do with news and are primarily seen as entertainment. They are published monthly, usually on content from months prior (although I have no idea how Nancy keeps such fresh product in her book).
Most magazines have design staffs, and it is their job to sit in front of CRT screens running photoshop and Quark all day long manipulating photographs. These are photographs coming from freelancers and staffers alike.
The calendar is even farther removed. It is done purely as an art piece.
If a photographer, just like a freelance magazine writer, submits something, he should expect to see a different product in print.
Interestingly, the very same moment of the photograph in question another was caught from an angle slightly more to the rear of the container by Bobby P (Deland's 4:20 Shindig) This happens to be the April shot in his calendar. It looks to me like a piece of loose taping in both shots, but it's probably the flap.
Ms. GN, btw, it's aesthetically. sheesh.
hehehehehe
mike
The Lord giveth and the M-79 taketh away. Welcome to the world of zero slack.