pdk42
Moderator
L-MOUNT Forum
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
*** October 2025 Images & Videos Thread ***
- Thread starter GeorgeHudetz
- Start date
pdk42
Moderator
I just got the Viltrox DG-L Macro Extension Tube ring:
viltrox.com
Lumix S5 ii + Lumix 100mm macro
1/125 - f/6.3 - ISO 800
Viltrox DG-L Macro Extension Tube Ring
The Viltrox DG-L Micro Extension Tube is a macro adapter ring used on Panasonic/Leica/Sigma L-mount system camera models. There are three ways of combination consisting of the 12mm and 24mm tube rings. Your ideal choice for micro photography or product details shooting!
viltrox.com
- Microsoft - Surface Duo 2
- 4.4 mm
- ƒ/1.7
- 1/280 sec
- Average
- Auto exposure
- ISO 33
Lumix S5 ii + Lumix 100mm macro
1/125 - f/6.3 - ISO 800
GeorgeHudetz
Well-Known Member
GeorgeHudetz
Well-Known Member
GeorgeHudetz
Well-Known Member
Thank you! I was processing the first image when I looked up and saw the second. Time to jump up!
pdk42
Moderator
Yeah, the sky can change in seconds at this time of day.
pdk42
Moderator
Last edited:
pdk42
Moderator
CharlesH
LMF-Patron Gold
Do you have a LUT for that look Paul? I'd like to buy it.
pdk42
Moderator
You could try the new Lumix Flow "AI" detection of a LUT from a photo.Do you have a LUT for that look Paul? I'd like to buy it.
I just asked Gemini if there is any copyright law or regulation about Lightroom presets or LUTs
I copy and paste:
This is a complex area, and the answer is not a simple "yes" or "no." The legal protection for Lightroom Presets and LUTs depends heavily on how they are viewed under copyright law, which can vary by country.
Here is a breakdown of the general consensus and legal challenges for both:
1. Lightroom Presets (e.g., XMP files)
The most common legal perspective is that Lightroom Presets themselves are generally not eligible for copyright protection as "original works of authorship" in the same way a photograph, painting, or piece of software code is.
* The Argument Against Copyright: A preset is often considered a mere list of parameters or instructions (slider positions, numerical values for tone curves, etc.). In many jurisdictions, simple data, short phrases, or purely functional settings are not protectable by copyright. You generally cannot copyright a "recipe" (the steps) or the idea of a look (e.g., a "dark and moody" look).
* The Argument For Copyright/Protection (Licensing):
* Original Expression: Some legal arguments suggest that a highly complex or unique custom tone curve, combined with other specific settings, might cross the threshold into a protectable "original expression."
* Licensing and Contracts: Creators primarily protect their presets through licensing agreements and Terms of Use that buyers must agree to. These licenses:
* Prohibit Redistribution/Resale: Even if you buy it, you are prohibited from sharing, modifying for resale, or reselling the original file.
* Specify Usage: They define whether the preset is for personal use only or commercial use (for client work).
* Copyright on the Output Image: Crucially, the images you create using the preset are protected by your copyright. The creator of the preset does not own the copyright to your final photographs.
2. LUTs (Look-Up Tables, e.g., .cube files)
The legal status of LUTs is similar to that of presets, and arguably even less certain regarding direct copyright protection.
* The Argument Against Copyright: A LUT is fundamentally a "lookup table" of mathematical values (a set of numbers) that tell a program how to transform one set of color values (input) into a new set (output). Because they are a series of numerical conversions or a "color-based formula," many believe they are too functional to qualify for copyright protection.
* The Protection Mechanisms:
* Licensing and Contracts: Just like presets, creators sell LUTs with licenses that forbid redistribution, sharing, and resale. This is the main legal protection used by vendors.
* Trade Secrets: For high-end colorists, a unique or complex LUT might be treated as a trade secret, protected by non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and limited distribution.
* Other IP (Less Common): The underlying process used to generate a very complex LUT might theoretically be patentable, but this is rare and highly technical.
Summary of Best Practices
| Action | Legal/Protection Status |
|---|---|
| Selling a Preset/LUT | You primarily rely on licensing agreements to prevent buyers from reselling the file. The original file itself is difficult to protect with traditional copyright. |
| Using a Purchased Preset/LUT | You must always follow the seller's license (e.g., Commercial vs. Personal Use). |
| Selling a Photo/Video Edited with a Preset/LUT | Yes, you can. The copyright belongs to you as the creator of the final image/video, regardless of the tools (including presets/LUTs) used in the editing process. |
Disclaimer: I am an AI and cannot provide legal advice. If you are selling or distributing presets or LUTs, you should consult with an attorney specializing in intellectual property law to ensure you have the appropriate licensing and protection measures in place.
I copy and paste:
This is a complex area, and the answer is not a simple "yes" or "no." The legal protection for Lightroom Presets and LUTs depends heavily on how they are viewed under copyright law, which can vary by country.
Here is a breakdown of the general consensus and legal challenges for both:
1. Lightroom Presets (e.g., XMP files)
The most common legal perspective is that Lightroom Presets themselves are generally not eligible for copyright protection as "original works of authorship" in the same way a photograph, painting, or piece of software code is.
* The Argument Against Copyright: A preset is often considered a mere list of parameters or instructions (slider positions, numerical values for tone curves, etc.). In many jurisdictions, simple data, short phrases, or purely functional settings are not protectable by copyright. You generally cannot copyright a "recipe" (the steps) or the idea of a look (e.g., a "dark and moody" look).
* The Argument For Copyright/Protection (Licensing):
* Original Expression: Some legal arguments suggest that a highly complex or unique custom tone curve, combined with other specific settings, might cross the threshold into a protectable "original expression."
* Licensing and Contracts: Creators primarily protect their presets through licensing agreements and Terms of Use that buyers must agree to. These licenses:
* Prohibit Redistribution/Resale: Even if you buy it, you are prohibited from sharing, modifying for resale, or reselling the original file.
* Specify Usage: They define whether the preset is for personal use only or commercial use (for client work).
* Copyright on the Output Image: Crucially, the images you create using the preset are protected by your copyright. The creator of the preset does not own the copyright to your final photographs.
2. LUTs (Look-Up Tables, e.g., .cube files)
The legal status of LUTs is similar to that of presets, and arguably even less certain regarding direct copyright protection.
* The Argument Against Copyright: A LUT is fundamentally a "lookup table" of mathematical values (a set of numbers) that tell a program how to transform one set of color values (input) into a new set (output). Because they are a series of numerical conversions or a "color-based formula," many believe they are too functional to qualify for copyright protection.
* The Protection Mechanisms:
* Licensing and Contracts: Just like presets, creators sell LUTs with licenses that forbid redistribution, sharing, and resale. This is the main legal protection used by vendors.
* Trade Secrets: For high-end colorists, a unique or complex LUT might be treated as a trade secret, protected by non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and limited distribution.
* Other IP (Less Common): The underlying process used to generate a very complex LUT might theoretically be patentable, but this is rare and highly technical.
Summary of Best Practices
| Action | Legal/Protection Status |
|---|---|
| Selling a Preset/LUT | You primarily rely on licensing agreements to prevent buyers from reselling the file. The original file itself is difficult to protect with traditional copyright. |
| Using a Purchased Preset/LUT | You must always follow the seller's license (e.g., Commercial vs. Personal Use). |
| Selling a Photo/Video Edited with a Preset/LUT | Yes, you can. The copyright belongs to you as the creator of the final image/video, regardless of the tools (including presets/LUTs) used in the editing process. |
Disclaimer: I am an AI and cannot provide legal advice. If you are selling or distributing presets or LUTs, you should consult with an attorney specializing in intellectual property law to ensure you have the appropriate licensing and protection measures in place.
pdk42
Moderator
A minefield!I just asked Gemini if there is any copyright law or regulation about Lightroom presets or LUTs
I copy and paste:
This is a complex area, and the answer is not a simple "yes" or "no." The legal protection for Lightroom Presets and LUTs depends heavily on how they are viewed under copyright law, which can vary by country.
Here is a breakdown of the general consensus and legal challenges for both:
1. Lightroom Presets (e.g., XMP files)
The most common legal perspective is that Lightroom Presets themselves are generally not eligible for copyright protection as "original works of authorship" in the same way a photograph, painting, or piece of software code is.
* The Argument Against Copyright: A preset is often considered a mere list of parameters or instructions (slider positions, numerical values for tone curves, etc.). In many jurisdictions, simple data, short phrases, or purely functional settings are not protectable by copyright. You generally cannot copyright a "recipe" (the steps) or the idea of a look (e.g., a "dark and moody" look).
* The Argument For Copyright/Protection (Licensing):
* Original Expression: Some legal arguments suggest that a highly complex or unique custom tone curve, combined with other specific settings, might cross the threshold into a protectable "original expression."
* Licensing and Contracts: Creators primarily protect their presets through licensing agreements and Terms of Use that buyers must agree to. These licenses:
* Prohibit Redistribution/Resale: Even if you buy it, you are prohibited from sharing, modifying for resale, or reselling the original file.
* Specify Usage: They define whether the preset is for personal use only or commercial use (for client work).
* Copyright on the Output Image: Crucially, the images you create using the preset are protected by your copyright. The creator of the preset does not own the copyright to your final photographs.
2. LUTs (Look-Up Tables, e.g., .cube files)
The legal status of LUTs is similar to that of presets, and arguably even less certain regarding direct copyright protection.
* The Argument Against Copyright: A LUT is fundamentally a "lookup table" of mathematical values (a set of numbers) that tell a program how to transform one set of color values (input) into a new set (output). Because they are a series of numerical conversions or a "color-based formula," many believe they are too functional to qualify for copyright protection.
* The Protection Mechanisms:
* Licensing and Contracts: Just like presets, creators sell LUTs with licenses that forbid redistribution, sharing, and resale. This is the main legal protection used by vendors.
* Trade Secrets: For high-end colorists, a unique or complex LUT might be treated as a trade secret, protected by non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and limited distribution.
* Other IP (Less Common): The underlying process used to generate a very complex LUT might theoretically be patentable, but this is rare and highly technical.
Summary of Best Practices
| Action | Legal/Protection Status |
|---|---|
| Selling a Preset/LUT | You primarily rely on licensing agreements to prevent buyers from reselling the file. The original file itself is difficult to protect with traditional copyright. |
| Using a Purchased Preset/LUT | You must always follow the seller's license (e.g., Commercial vs. Personal Use). |
| Selling a Photo/Video Edited with a Preset/LUT | Yes, you can. The copyright belongs to you as the creator of the final image/video, regardless of the tools (including presets/LUTs) used in the editing process. |
Disclaimer: I am an AI and cannot provide legal advice. If you are selling or distributing presets or LUTs, you should consult with an attorney specializing in intellectual property law to ensure you have the appropriate licensing and protection measures in place.
Travis Butler
Well-Known Member
If not a minefield, how about a wastefield?
20251008-SDIM8434 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
Sigma fp, MD 35-70/3.5
(Complete with sensor dust, yay.)
Mission Center Mall was a little mall that I kinda liked, despite them not having many stores I was interested in. It bucked the usual mall architecture trends by not being a two-story rectangular box with a long aisle of stores, but something more squarish arranged around a central atrium, with interesting nooks and crannies.
Unfortunately, I wasn't the only one unsatisfied with the mix of stores, and the mall started going downhill, closing in 2006.
And then things went to hell.
20251008-SDIM8427 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
In the last 20 years, the site has moved through multiple failed development attempts, most of which crashed and burned before things got beyond the conceptual rendering stage. These pics are from the latest and last attempt, which actually started construction before COVID helped bring the project to a screeching halt.
20251008-SDIM8430 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
This was a parking garage that got surprisingly far along before construction stopped; frankly I'm amazed the framework has remained standing this long without being finished.
20251008-SDIM8433 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
This staircase framework in particular.
20251008-SDIM8439 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
I think the pillars are sadder, though.
20251008-SDIM8448 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
20251008-SDIM8434 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
Sigma fp, MD 35-70/3.5
(Complete with sensor dust, yay.)
Mission Center Mall was a little mall that I kinda liked, despite them not having many stores I was interested in. It bucked the usual mall architecture trends by not being a two-story rectangular box with a long aisle of stores, but something more squarish arranged around a central atrium, with interesting nooks and crannies.
Unfortunately, I wasn't the only one unsatisfied with the mix of stores, and the mall started going downhill, closing in 2006.
And then things went to hell.
20251008-SDIM8427 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
In the last 20 years, the site has moved through multiple failed development attempts, most of which crashed and burned before things got beyond the conceptual rendering stage. These pics are from the latest and last attempt, which actually started construction before COVID helped bring the project to a screeching halt.
20251008-SDIM8430 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
This was a parking garage that got surprisingly far along before construction stopped; frankly I'm amazed the framework has remained standing this long without being finished.
20251008-SDIM8433 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
This staircase framework in particular.
20251008-SDIM8439 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
I think the pillars are sadder, though.
20251008-SDIM8448 by Travis Butler, on Flickr
pdk42
Moderator
Interesting story. Shopping malls were never as popular in the UK as the US, but they’ve been suffering decline too - especially smaller, in-town sites. Personally I absolutely hate malls and avoid them at all costs!
But talking of minefields - your sensor looks like it’s been in the wars!
pdk42
Moderator
Travis Butler
Well-Known Member
I used to do more shopping at malls, but not so much lately. Not that big-box stores like Walmart and Target are much improvement…
The real tragedy is that the old mall was destroyed in 2006, the lot sat as a vacant eyesore for more than a decade, and now it’s sat as an even worse ruined eyesore for almost 5 years. No one in the area wants it to stay ruined - it’s at a fairly busy 3-way intersection - but the ownership and bankruptcy mess means no one can do anything about it.
Hah. Yes. ^^;; Thankfully, a bulb duster seems to have done the trick without needing a wet cleaning.
Travis Butler
Well-Known Member
I particularly like the stream here; it adds a lot to the forest.