79 replies to this topic

[luca]

The search for period racing photo's is for many enthusiasts a time consuming passion. There are a few collection on line like Mike Haywood's which gives every enthusiast the opportunity to view and purchase if they wish.
I sent a request for some possible photo's about a year ago, it took about a hour to prepare the information so as to make it easy for the person to search and I have had no response. There are many enthusiasts missing out on the archives held in private collections and with the internet now the main way to try and find anything is it not now time that archives are put online so they con be enjoyed by everyone.

Regards .

Edited by luca, 29 October 2011 - 10:29.

[D-Type]

The trouble with putting them on line is that people will persist in reproducing them without permission or payment.

[Giraffe]

The trouble with putting them on line is that people will persist in reproducing them without permission or payment.

The trouble with not putting them on line is that nobody gets to see them, and nobody receives payment.

[Allen Brown]

Unless you take the option of walking up to Ted's stand, rifling through his drawers - if you'll excuse the expression - and parting with some of your hard-earned readies.

[TooTall]

Speaking as someone who has a few thousand slides of '70s and '80s So. California racing, the REAL problem is getting the stuff out, sorting it, scanning it, and then getting it online in a semi-organized usable manner. If someone could find a way to PayPal me a few hundred hours of spare time I might be able to make a dent in the problem.

Cheers,
Kurt O.

[luca]

If going on line then spoilers and downsizing, adjusting quality is the way to go and expected. I'm sorry but the fact is as stated above that these rare images will not be seen again which is a shame. L.A.T. are very good but only if you have an old magazine with a photo you would like. All they need is reference i.e. Autosport and give them the page number and date, they will however research the information and come back in many cases with the image. The bottom line is it's the same with much archived material. Joe public misses out. The people who have collections ether want to share them or they don't. If they do then the internet is the perfect tool. I for one can't be off down to Goodwood or Silverstone in the hope of finding an image of selected subject. It would cost me to much.

I have spent a few hundred hours researching for the love of it. The biggest buzz is finding images. If your in it for the money that's fair enough then your few hundred hours put in scanning will be fruitful in the end when you sell you images. If you can't be bothered then you should sell your collection on.

Edited by luca, 29 October 2011 - 18:29.

[Doug Nye]

Just last week I had to spend three days to be instrumental in shutting down a Flickr site which was pointed out to us as displaying many of our copyright GP Library collection images without permission, without reproduction payment and while also inferring that copyright was held by that site! What's more they also displayed many images we recognised as being the property of the Cahier Archive, similarly treated. This was plainly in our view common theft. Once satisfied that we were telling the truth, I must say that Flickr/Yahoo actually reacted very quickly to end the infringement and close the site.

Our GP Library collection includes something like 1.7-1.8-million images, 1902-2002. Running our own website proved beyond our very limited knowledge of internet operation, and our available time. Many scans of our material may be browsed on <www.motorgraphs.com>. That they survive at all is thanks largely to our predecessors who invested enormous time, effort, skill and cash in creating them, preserving them, salvaging them and collecting them. We have followed their lead, investing much more time, trouble and treasure, over the past twenty years.

How then can it possibly be reasonable for any outsider to expect - and in effect to demand - free access to such material, merely because "It interests me..."?

As I have declared here several times, we happen to be perfectly happy to post images on here from time to time for the enjoyment or interest and edification of fellow enthusiasts, but we do that more or less on trust that nobody will then abuse the access we provide by either presenting or seeking commercial gain from capturing these scans without first having the common decency to seek our permission, since this material is our property, bought and paid for over many years.

Is this unreasonable? And if some consider it is, well tough cookies, because we will...and do...pursue unreasonable infringements, and will continue to do so.

DCN

Edited by Doug Nye, 29 October 2011 - 18:26.

[TooTall]

The trouble with putting them on line is that people will persist in reproducing them without permission or payment.

Case in point, my photo below which I have posted both here and on my Facebook page;




And, this auction on Ebay

Now,mind you, I have never printed this photo nor been asked or given permission for it's use in any way shape or form. I emailed the seller and he said that he bought the print form a vender at a literature sale. I would make a big deal of it but, 1) I'm in the US and he is in the UK, and 2) I figure what he is mostly marketing is the autograph and the photo is photo is secondary. That is why I now put big ugly watermarks on the photos I post. That won't completely stop them as there is software that can make quick work of most watermarks, but it may slow them down a bit.

Right, rant off. Back to the garage for some therapeutic metal beating.

Cheers,
Kurt O.

[Doug Nye]

I for one can't be off down to Goodwood or Silverstone in the hope of finding an image of selected subject. It would cost me to much.

I rest my case.

DCN

[luca]

Maybe you have to be part of the Goodwood set to archives looked at.

[Paul Parker]

Just last week I had to spend three days to be instrumental in shutting down a Flickr site which was pointed out to us as displaying many of our copyright GP Library collection images without permission, without reproduction payment and while also inferring that copyright was held by that site! What's more they also displayed many images we recognised as being the property of the Cahier Archive, similarly treated. This was plainly in our view common theft. Once satisfied that we were telling the truth, I must say that Flickr/Yahoo actually reacted very quickly to end the infringement and close the site.

Our GP Library collection includes something like 1.7-1.8-million images, 1902-2002. Running our own website proved beyond our very limited knowledge of internet operation, and our available time. Many scans of our material may be browsed on <www.motorgraphs.com>. That they survive at all is thanks largely to our predecessors who invested enormous time, effort, skill and cash in creating them, preserving them, salvaging them and collecting them. We have followed their lead, investing much more time, trouble and treasure, over the past twenty years.

How then can it possibly be reasonable for any outsider to expect - and in effect to demand - free access to such material, merely because "It interests me..."?

As I have declared here several times, we happen to be perfectly happy to post images on here from time to time for the enjoyment or interest and edification of fellow enthusiasts, but we do that more or less on trust that nobody will then abuse the access we provide by either presenting or seeking commercial gain from capturing these scans without first having the common decency to seek our permission, since this material is our property, bought and paid for over many years.

Is this unreasonable? And if some consider it is, well tough cookies, because we will...and do...pursue unreasonable infringements, and will continue to do so.

DCN

The unauthorised display of Bernard Cahier's work you mention Doug is presumably in addition to the posting on TNF earlier this year of over 260 such images, which when I raised the issue on here, I was castigated by somebody (no names, no packdrill) for complaining about such abuses of copyright.

Unfortunately we live in an era where internet access makes this possible together with the concomitant 'all property is theft' philosophy.

[fbarrett]

Running any photo archive is a huge task: acquiring, sorting, storing, protecting, and making images accessible, as well as guarding copyrights, paying staff, and keeping the whole affair afloat (insurance, rent, computers, utilities, etc.). Some archives (especially manufacturers) may offer priority to steady customers such as magazine and book publishers. If you have the personal opportunity, why not offer to assist an archive, either as a volunteer or with a donation of money?

Frank

[luca]

I don't see it a huge task at all. What's the rush. Just add material and feed material over time. To enthusiasts this is a hobby but all I hear is cost. Rubbish just make the images small enough that there not worth stealing. It's more a case of knowing what your doing.
collection

Edited by luca, 29 October 2011 - 19:02.

[Morris S]

I don't see it a huge task at all. What's the rush. Just add material and feed material over time. To enthusiasts this is a hobby but all I hear is cost. Rubbish just make the images small enough that there not worth stealing. It's more a case of knowing what your doing.
collection

As a (pseudo) club journo I'm totally with Luca here and I think Doug's is an over reaction to his request, I don't think he is suggesting decent resolution photographs are splattered all over the internet for all and sundry to steal (despite it being impossible to save images on Flickr if it's set up properly). I have had some very nice photos to write about from several sources over the years (thanks to Ted,Mike H, Maureen Magee,John Adams, Eddie Whittham etc etc) but by the same token I have been shown 'the hand' many a time by others or just had no reply at all.
Online galleries may take some work to set up but no less work than rummaging through contact sheets, index cards or even negatives and a worthwhile shop window in which to display and promote historic motorsporting images. Better to be seen and discussed than gather dust.

[E1pix]

The trouble with putting them on line is that people will persist in reproducing them without permission or payment.

The trouble with not putting them on line is that nobody gets to see them, and nobody receives payment.

This is the quandary at hand for us stock shooters.

Speaking as someone who has a few thousand slides of '70s and '80s So. California racing, the REAL problem is getting the stuff out, sorting it, scanning it, and then getting it online in a semi-organized usable manner. If someone could find a way to PayPal me a few hundred hours of spare time I might be able to make a dent in the problem.

PM me if you wish, I have created a great numbering and filing system that makes it much, much easier. I'm in your same boat, and your images are too strong to not be getting sold.

If going on line then spoilers and downsizing, adjusting quality is the way to go and expected...

...If you can't be bothered then you should sell your collection on.

No offense, Luca, but this is really a misunderstanding of the issues we photographers face. For one, if success is expected, there is no point at all in displaying any piece of our work, ever, in less than everything it can be. In the case of old motorsport photographs, preparing these images takes an extraordinary amount of time. I spend roughly one hour each to scan, clean, and correct each image to publishing standards‚ and have 11,000 racing images to do. That's 5.5 years of a normal work schedule, up front and without payment. I ask, in what other profession does anyone face such a task, and how many of us share such a commitment in our work?

Many of my associates in this business do just the same. In my case, I am mainly a stock nature photographer (50,000 images there, 7,000 of which are 4x5 images and ultimately over 2,000 of them need scans of 500mb or greater) and that occupies extraordinary time, eight years so far just to make my life's work in sell-ready condition. All this to bring back my files back to "sellable," exactly like they already were before digital came along and made everything better for the amateur, or the peruser, or the person who downloads everything for "personal use" such as printing scrapbooks from our toil at no benefit to us who trusted people not to do this exact thing. This is a fine time for the amateur, and a brutal one for the professional.

All this said, there are shortcuts the professional can and must take, in scanning everything sellable at full-res (the smallest time-taker of all), then downsizing and correcting in Photoshop Layers, then copy-pasting Layers to the "master" files later. I have resigned myself to having to do this if I ever hope to archive my racing files, the savings in clean-up alone make this necessary.

Just last week I had to spend three days to be instrumental in shutting down a Flickr site which was pointed out to us as displaying many of our copyright GP Library collection images without permission, without reproduction payment and while also inferring that copyright was held by that site!... This was plainly in our view common theft.

Our GP Library collection includes something like 1.7-1.8-million images, 1902-2002. Running our own website proved beyond our very limited knowledge of internet operation, and our available time. Many scans of our material may be browsed on <www.motorgraphs.com>. That they survive at all is thanks largely to our predecessors who invested enormous time, effort, skill and cash in creating them, preserving them, salvaging them and collecting them. We have followed their lead, investing much more time, trouble and treasure, over the past twenty years.

How then can it possibly be reasonable for any outsider to expect - and in effect to demand - free access to such material, merely because "It interests me..."?

As I have declared here several times, we happen to be perfectly happy to post images on here from time to time for the enjoyment or interest and edification of fellow enthusiasts, but we do that more or less on trust that nobody will then abuse the access we provide by either presenting or seeking commercial gain from capturing these scans without first having the common decency to seek our permission, since this material is our property, bought and paid for over many years.

Is this unreasonable? And if some consider it is, well tough cookies, because we will...and do...pursue unreasonable infringements, and will continue to do so.

DCN

Doug, I have nothing to add to that, you are 100% correct. Make no mistake, fellows, using our work without permission is thievery in any and every sense of the word.

I don't see it a huge task at all. What's the rush. Just add material and feed material over time. To enthusiasts this is a hobby but all I hear is cost. Rubbish just make the images small enough that there not worth stealing. It's more a case of knowing what your doing.
collection

Ever heard of "upsizing software?" Any size image on the web is now fodder for thievery. That you don't see the task involved is understandable — but you might learn why it is before telling us what to do with our life's work. "The rush" you are overlooking is sheer time, time to prepare, and time left in our lives. Most of us with motor racing archives are not 20 anymore. Suggesting we don't know what we are doing, but that you do, is downright rude.

[jj2728]

If going on line then spoilers and downsizing, adjusting quality is the way to go and expected. I'm sorry but the fact is as stated above that these rare images will not be seen again which is a shame. L.A.T. are very good but only if you have an old magazine with a photo you would like. All they need is reference i.e. Autosport and give them the page number and date, they will however research the information and come back in many cases with the image. The bottom line is it's the same with much archived material. Joe public misses out. The people who have collections ether want to share them or they don't. If they do then the internet is the perfect tool. I for one can't be off down to Goodwood or Silverstone in the hope of finding an image of selected subject. It would cost me to much.

I have spent a few hundred hours researching for the love of it. The biggest buzz is finding images. If your in it for the money that's fair enough then your few hundred hours put in scanning will be fruitful in the end when you sell you images. If you can't be bothered then you should sell your collection on.

If I may be blunt, one of the most off-putting things is this sense of entitlement. Just go over to the "Great F1 photos" thread on the RC section and you'll see just how many nicked photos are there with 0 credit to the photog. I have and am spending a great deal of enjoyable time sorting through and digtalizing my father's archives and whether or not I make his images public are my business and no one elses'. Joe Public has nothing to do with it, its Joe i-want-it-for-free-cause-it's-the internet-and-I'm-entitled-to-it that irks the s*** out of me.

[D-Type]

Where Luca does have a valid point is when he states, if I understand him correctly, that he sent a request to one photo archive owner describing clearly the subjects he wanted to purchase pictures of and they did not reply. Not only is that extremely discourteous it is also bad business practice.

To extend this to demand that all archives should publish the pictures they own on line, if that is what he is requesting, is totally unreasonable.

[E1pix]

Where Luca does have a valid point is when he states, if I understand him correctly, that he sent a request to one photo archive owner describing clearly the subjects he wanted to purchase pictures of and they did not reply. Not only is that extremely discourteous it is also bad business practice.

To extend this to demand that all archives should publish the pictures they own on line, if that is what he is requesting, is totally unreasonable.

A reasonable and honorable assumption, D-Type... if assuming said letter was written in a less-offensive manner than most else I've read of his here. I despise "non-replies," though even in this case personally I'd have replied with a simple, "No, Thank You" if written in the manner I assume it was. Or, maybe not...

But you're right in bringing up the one valid point that for me was drained by the rest of his offensive "points."

[Giraffe]

Where Luca does have a valid point is when he states, if I understand him correctly, that he sent a request to one photo archive owner describing clearly the subjects he wanted to purchase pictures of and they did not reply. Not only is that extremely discourteous it is also bad business practice.

Astonishingly (to me anyway) I have done the very same on several occasions to photo archive owners and prominent photographers with similar results. However, this applies to many & various business sectors online......

Edited by Giraffe, 29 October 2011 - 22:40.

[garyfrogeye]

On my photographic database of UK registered Mk1 Sprites, the vast majority have come from images other than ones I've taken myself. Those include members of this forum, ebay, flickr and other personal websites. In all cases I have asked their permission. There are other images which I can't upload because I don't have the permission of the photographer.
Most people who I ask are delighted to allow me to use their images (the database has no commercial element and is purely an extension of my hobby. In addition, their images are right click disabled and I offer to stamp the images "copyright xxxxx" with their name or website). On many occasions the owners of these images seem surprised and grateful that I have actually asked for their permission. It seems this is a rare occurance!

Edited by garyfrogeye, 29 October 2011 - 23:51.

[luca]

I'm sorry if this has offended anyone, or taken the wrong way it's not meant to. I can see your points and concerns.

As for not going to Goodwood or Silverstone I would if I thought there would be enough material to search through to make the trip worth while. From my point of view L.A.T. is and has been my main way of finding material and to do this all volumes of Autosport and other period magazines were purchased. In all about five years research. I'm at the point where I ether should stop or hope a collection goes on line. I would like to think the photographers back in the 60's who took the original photo's I'm interested in would want there work seen and shared.

From to use Doug's words, an outsider.

Edited by luca, 30 October 2011 - 01:20.

[Doug Nye]

On my photographic database of UK registered Mk1 Sprites, the vast majority have come from images other than ones I've taken myself. Those include members of this forum, ebay, flickr and other personal websites. In all cases I have asked their permission. There are other images which I can't upload because I don't have the permission of the photographer.
Most people who I ask are delighted to allow me to use their images (the database has no commercial element and is purely an extension of my hobby. In addition, their images are right click disabled and I offer to stamp the images "copyright xxxxx" with their name or website). On many occasions the owners of these images seem surprised and grateful that I have actually asked for their permission. It seems this is a rare occurance!

EXACTLY right! We might still say no, but equally we would quite likely say yes.

DCN

[Ted Walker]

Glad the clocks went back last night !!! It means I can spend an extra hour in the darkroom today doing what I love,printing photographs to sell face to face to actual people.

[Giraffe]

Glad the clocks went back last night !!! It means I can spend an extra hour in the darkroom today doing what I love,printing photographs to sell face to face to actual people.

And IMHO no historic race meeting or event is complete without the presence of Ferret Fotographics. (Even the GP wasn't quite the same for me this year )

Edited by Giraffe, 30 October 2011 - 08:52.

[Graham Gauld]

Just last week I had to spend three days to be instrumental in shutting down a Flickr site which was pointed out to us as displaying many of our copyright GP Library collection images without permission, without reproduction payment and while also inferring that copyright was held by that site! What's more they also displayed many images we recognised as being the property of the Cahier Archive, similarly treated. This was plainly in our view common theft. Once satisfied that we were telling the truth, I must say that Flickr/Yahoo actually reacted very quickly to end the infringement and close the site.

Our GP Library collection includes something like 1.7-1.8-million images, 1902-2002. Running our own website proved beyond our very limited knowledge of internet operation, and our available time. Many scans of our material may be browsed on <www.motorgraphs.com>. That they survive at all is thanks largely to our predecessors who invested enormous time, effort, skill and cash in creating them, preserving them, salvaging them and collecting them. We have followed their lead, investing much more time, trouble and treasure, over the past twenty years.

How then can it possibly be reasonable for any outsider to expect - and in effect to demand - free access to such material, merely because "It interests me..."?

As I have declared here several times, we happen to be perfectly happy to post images on here from time to time for the enjoyment or interest and edification of fellow enthusiasts, but we do that more or less on trust that nobody will then abuse the access we provide by either presenting or seeking commercial gain from capturing these scan without first having the common decency to seek our permission, since this material is our property, bought and paid for over many years.

Is this unreasonable? And if s

ome consider it is, well tough cookies, because we will...and do...pursue unreasonable infringements, and will continue to do so.

DCN

Quite right Doug. I feel the same way. I have kept some of my negatives and transparencies for more than 60 years and I am generally reluctant to post for the very same reason. In my case it is my only legacy and I too get furious if my images are stolen and used elsewhere. Mind you in times gone by without the internet there are many magazines including Autosport and Classic and Sports Car who have often failed to return original colour transparencies even though reminded of it. For example I had one rare colour shot of the Bartoletti transporter that Maserati had in 1957 that was identical to the Ferrari one. That transparency was never returned by C and SC and I keep my eyes peeled to see if it should be published anywhere and I will then pounce.

[Ted Walker]

Here here Doug and Graham,we have said this time and time again.

[elansprint72]

Here here Doug and Graham,we have said this time and time again.

And it's here here from me too!

"Right click disabled" now, I had no idea that was an option; can a techno-chappie explain how to do this, please?

Edited by elansprint72, 30 October 2011 - 16:00.

[Peter Darley]

Hear hear Doug and Graham,we have said this time and time again.

I add my name to the above comments.

All my negatives are held by Coterie Images, who have a good system for showing the photos overwritten with a watermark.

[Vitesse2]

"Right click disabled" now, I had no idea that was an option; can a techno-chappie explain how to do this, please?

No idea how to implement it, but if you google "right click disabled" you'll find lots of ways to get round it! It might deter a few, but not the determined.

[bradbury west]

Quoting from Pete Lyons back in 2009 on TNF
"While I'm a cost-sensitive person myself and have sympathy with those who may feel that historic photographs can seem overpriced, I would ask them to consider this equation:

To purchase a roll of film and have it processed, the last time I did so the cost per exposure was approximately 50 cents;

To cull out only the best quality, most useful exposures at a (possible but very high) success rate of 50 percent, the price of each good shot goes to...you can do the math;

To spend years of your life in cramped airplanes and uncomfortable road vehicles and seedy motels and/or friends' vacant sofas, exposing yourself and your own personal camera equipment to rain and wind and sun, tramping around racetracks, lugging your gear, thinking hard about your photography and how to do it better next time...well, I'm not saying I didn't love it, but dammit it was work;

To store and retain all those bits of film through numerous moves of residence, keeping them dry and light-fast despite flooded basements and fires in the nearby forest, is it fair to value that at another dollar per image per year? Through, say, 40 years?

To one day go through all those cardboard boxes and paper bags, pull out all those rolls of negs and sheets of slides, identify and sort and label and properly refile them so you can go back and find them again on demand, what would you say is a reasonable price per image for such labor?

Upon receiving an inquiry, to revisit the archive, locate and pull out all the images that could answer the request, bend over the light table evaluating them, then take the most promising to the workstation, operate the scanner, open the new digital images on the computer, examine and—to the extent possible—correct them for issues of focus, exposure, color, dust, scratches, framing, etc., then prepare thumbnails of the best images to send to the client for evaluation, await a response... how much would you ask to be paid?

And, when the prospective client complains about your prices, to not retort—as a crusty colleague tells me he does—"If you don't think that's fair, then you go down to the airport and you buy a ticket back to 1969 and you take the picture yourself."
Having such self restraint...priceless.

However, visiting www.petelyons.com to see all our pretty pictures...well, that is perfectly free.
You'll be warmly welcomed. "

Nuff said, eh? I am also aware of the efforts of certain people who rescued boxes and boxes of glass plate negs, pre-1920s in the main, to prevent them going into the skips. What price those, then? The fact that anything is posted on the net is an act of generosity, even with watermarks IMHO.
Roger Lund

[Doug Nye]

Right click disabled and watermarks are beyond my primitive IT 'skills' - so I would be fascinated to hear how? But while I recognise the benefits of watermarking, I must say it deeply offends me aesthetically, because it ruins the photograph as 'a picture'. There's just no satisfying some people...and I am one of them.

DCN

Edited by Doug Nye, 30 October 2011 - 20:46.

[Giraffe]

The web is still in it's infancy and resembles the Wild West in many respects. In time, all this stuff will be sorted, believe me. Such is the way of the world.

Edited by Giraffe, 30 October 2011 - 21:12.

[chdphd]

Snip...

Edited by chdphd, 30 October 2011 - 22:33.

[E1pix]

You've let a cat out of the bag here, I respectfully add that it might be best to re-consider keeping your post...

[chdphd]

You've let a cat out of the bag here, I respectfully add that it might be best to re-consider keeping your post...

I did wonder that...

Done.

[E1pix]

I did wonder that...

Done.

THANK YOU! I certainly don't like telling anyone what to write, so I appreciate your professional reply.

[Morris S]

All my negatives are held by Coterie Images, who have a good system for showing the photos overwritten with a watermark.

...and that's a great illustration how to display your images Peter, that's all Luca was attempting to explore before the thread swerved dramatically and somewhat defensively into copyright protection . I have looked through those images tonight and will be ordering several around which I intend to build a number of interesting articles.

Regards

Pete

(a real person)

Edited by Morris S, 31 October 2011 - 01:58.

[Ted Walker]

I assume that after these articles are finished and are reproduced that the photo repro fee will be paid ???????

[Giraffe]

Astonishingly (to me anyway) I have done the very same on several occasions to photo archive owners and prominent photographers with similar results. However, this applies to many & various business sectors online......

I am prompted by this thread to attempt once again to purchase images online today. I'm not holding my breath and will report back on my level of success (or otherwise).

[elansprint72]

I am prompted by this thread to attempt once again to purchase images online today. I'm not holding my breath and will report back on my level of success (or otherwise).

I look forward to receiving your enquiry, Tony.

Pete.

(another real person).

[Bjorn Kjer]

Pete , I would like to see some of your offers , but going to your website my computer says :

NO (answer) !

[alansart]

Pete , I would like to see some of your offers , but going to your website my computer says :

NO (answer) !

It works ok for me

[alansart]

I buy online images on a regular basis as part of my work. Not motor racing, but more mundane stuff for advertising and and design work.

I tend to use iStock.com but have access to several others if needed. Not only can you buy images but you can also add images to the database which, if accepted, give you a cut of any income made from sales. There is obviously a system in place to make it all work so would it be possible to run a Motorsport Image Bank on those lines?

[Giraffe]

Our GP Library collection includes something like 1.7-1.8-million images, 1902-2002. Running our own website proved beyond our very limited knowledge of internet operation, and our available time. Many scans of our material may be browsed on <www.motorgraphs.com>.

DCN

At the GP Library site, i am unable to enter the gallery & the Motorgraphics site is very limited as to what it displays. Where am I going wrong, Doug?

[275 GTB-4]

If going on line then spoilers and downsizing, adjusting quality is the way to go and expected. I'm sorry but the fact is as stated above that these rare images will not be seen again which is a shame. L.A.T. are very good but only if you have an old magazine with a photo you would like. All they need is reference i.e. Autosport and give them the page number and date, they will however research the information and come back in many cases with the image. The bottom line is it's the same with much archived material. Joe public misses out. The people who have collections ether want to share them or they don't. If they do then the internet is the perfect tool. I for one can't be off down to Goodwood or Silverstone in the hope of finding an image of selected subject. It would cost me to much.

I have spent a few hundred hours researching for the love of it. The biggest buzz is finding images. If your in it for the money that's fair enough then your few hundred hours put in scanning will be fruitful in the end when you sell you images. If you can't be bothered then you should sell your collection on.

Vast quantities of images have already been destroyed in attic clearouts post old Uncle Lens demise etc....gone

However, the situation is not as bad as you have painted...Governments (bless their little cotton socks) around the world have invested in acquiring and maintaining their nations images from days gone by. In Australia, for example, the National Library, the National Film and Sound Archive, National Archives and many state based libraries all host image collections.

Kurt...have you considered going down this path with your collection? Cheers, Mick

[Doug Nye]

At the GP Library site, i am unable to enter the gallery & the Motorgraphics site is very limited as to what it displays. Where am I going wrong, Doug?

Well, for starters we used to have a GP Library website which we thought we had killed about ten years ago because neither my colleague nor I had the time, the skill nor the inclination to keep it up to date and run it to any advantage. So we thought we had closed it down. Certainly no - what's it called - service provider? platform? - has been paid to make it available on line for probably ten years. And yet despite this - almost like Marley's Ghost - there is something of the old site left suspended out there somewhere in cyberspace, a Flying Dutchman of this mysterious incorporate world... Various people seem to discover it and then complain to us that it isn't working. Not working? We killed and buried it a decade ago! We thought. We cannot understand it at all.

Neither do I understand what you perceive as a problem with 'motorgraphs.com' - there should be hundreds of images posted there, many from the Gaydon Industry Heritage body, many from Spitzley-Zagari, a lot from us. If people want prints or whatever we will always respond - even if only to say, sorry, we're too busy to oblige. On-line the motorgraphs site is meant to be set up to take orders and provide prints pretty much automatically. We know it works. But from brief experience thus far we now really doubt there's actually a viable market out there. Most of you buggers simply seem to want everything a) now yet b) for nothing.;)

In every other respect we hold you all in high esteem.

But by the way - the line, from Luca, "If you can't be bothered then you should sell your collection on" REALLY makes the back of my neck go hot - which doesn't often happen, but I have to say that I really do find this intensely offensive. This, for me, is a first here on TNF. But hey ho - keep on smilin'... this is only the transient internet...

DCN

Edited by Doug Nye, 01 November 2011 - 22:45.

[jj2728]

Shameless plug I know, but a few George Monkhouse 1937 Donington GP photos reside, framed, on the walls in my studio courtesy of Motorgraphs and their superb service. Highly recommended to fellow TNFers.

[elansprint72]

Well, for starters we used to have a GP Library website which we thought we had killed about ten years ago because neither my colleague nor I had the time, the skill nor the inclination to keep it up to date and run it to any advantage. So we thought we had closed it down. Certainly no - what's it called - service provider? platform? - has been paid to make it available on line for probably ten years. And yet despite this - almost like Marley's Ghost - there is something of the old site left suspended out there somewhere in cyberspace, a Flying Dutchman of this mysterious incorporate world... Various people seem to discover it and then complain to us that it isn't working. Not working? We killed and buried it a decade ago! We thought. We cannot understand it at all.

Neither do I understand what you perceive as a problem with 'motorgraphs.com' - there should be hundreds of images posted there, many from the Gaydon Industry Heritage body, many from Spitzley-Zagari, a lot from us. If people want prints or whatever we will always respond - even if only to say, sorry, we're too busy to oblige. On-line the motorgraphs site is meant to be set up to take orders and provide prints pretty much automatically. We know it works. But from brief experience thus far we now really doubt there's actually a viable market out there. Most of you buggers simply seem to want everything a) now yet b) for nothing.;)

In every other respect we hold you all in high esteem.

But by the way - the line, from Luca, "If you can't be bothered then you should sell your collection on" REALLY makes the back of my neck go hot - which doesn't often happen, but I have to say that I really do find this intensely offensive. This, for me, is a first here on TNF. But hey ho - keep on smilin'... this is only the transient internet...

DCN

Not just me then? I've been trying to kill off a freebie web-site for 8(?) years
What we need is a Blood Pressure thread.

[Option1]

Ahhh Luca, still on the same track of believing you should be free take whatever images you want eh? For those who don't remember him he's posted in a number of threads similar views to those he's espousing now and asking for pics to be posted so that he could add them to his collection. At most he's learning to be slightly more tactful, but only just.

For those thinking about disabling right click, don't bother. Sadly, it won't deter a soul.

Watermarks can help, and at least also help show you that it's your pic someone's nicked. Of course, it doesn't deter some. I love the story told by our own MacZippy, better known as Andrew Wheeler, now a top-notch motoGP snapper. When we first met he was a professional equine photographer. He was invited into a client's house to discuss a shoot, and there proudly framed and sitting on the mantleplace was a beautifully framed image of the client's daughter on her horse. What was of most interest was the large PROOF with Andrews watermark appearing diagonally across the image. He turned down the job and wrote out on the spot an invoice for the shot stolen from his website.

Neil

[Terry Walker]

Unless your last "upload" to your website was to delete all files from the "public html" folder, they're probably still out there somewhere, gradually disappearing as those disk sectors get re-used or replaced. I had a quick scope at The Wayback Machine but couldn't find "gp library" using search, because I don't know the URL. But there may be copies there. I expect Doug has tried that out.

EDIT: Take 2: I found it easily enough using Google, took the URL to the Wayback Machine and found there are two editions of it there. Which is why it can still be found using searches. Which is probably how Luca found it - it does indeed have a ghostly existence in the Archives.

Edited by Terry Walker, 02 November 2011 - 02:34.