Thread: the magic of photoshop!

Originally Posted by stug

@Dundee write to the publisher and ask for payment for the use of the photo. Just because it is on the internet doesn't mean they can copy it without permission.
This is from the Copyright Council of New Zealand Copyright Council of New Zealand

Internet - Can I print or download material from the Internet?


Copyright laws generally apply to material on the Internet, in the same way as it applies to other material. Many web sites have specific copyright statements that relate to the content on that site and tell you what you can and can’t do with it.
However, where there is no copyright statement, this does not necessarily mean you have an implied licence to copy the material (either by printing or downloading it). In some circumstances you may copy the material without permission for your own research or private study purposes.

This link sets out what to do Copyright Council of New Zealand

This site is also pretty clear that the author has infringed your copyright Xplore · Your Web Agency - NZ Website Design & Web Development • Web smart

ask Dot Com

Thanks Stug but I have copied one of there recipes without permission so I guess we are even.

I knew posting this would be quite entertaining! I think the photoshopping is just plain weird, though obviously was done with boosting sales in mind, ie big public land stags sell mags. The more I think about it tho the more I wonder how much he stretches the truth about other things ie long range shooting DVDs etc. I'm not making accusations and have never considered it til now but it does make you go hmmmm!
His DVD was actually the reason I posted the pic , because in it he gives another bullshit artist stick with his comment about Dawson bliss pretending to be in the kawekas

Dawson bliss is a thief and a conman.

As far as I am aware GD hasn't been publicly busted stealing? but is no less of a conman.

I knew someone who was featured in NZ Hunter and read their original story - which was actually full of hilarious jokes, albeit riddled with grammar mistakes haha. Printed version was butchered down so much it was nothing more than a simple blow-by-blow describing of what happened - although the timeline of events had been altered weirdly.

As someone who has very literally gained qualifications involving photoshop use - the image photoshopped has been done so with very little bother with skill. The perspective is honestly pissing me off haha. Way too many of those magazines have very half-assed design and editing in them (the consistent spelling mistakes in NZ Hunter, anyone?)....

Either way those stories are merely printed as entertainment, and should be treated as such.... can't be too bothered either way. I'll buy them for something to read when I'm bored that's for sure. I can imagine the original author feeling disappointed in the misrepresentation of a great memory be published for all to see. Perhaps they should just complain about it and be issued an apology?

Its the input, contributions and experiences from the hunters that make the magazine. Why should anyone tolerate said times be bastardised therefore belittled. Recently a nz mag article named hunters in nz 'nimrods'. Not very cool.

Originally Posted by kidmac42

Its the input, contributions and experiences from the hunters that make the magazine. Why should anyone tolerate said times be bastardised therefore belittled. Recently a nz mag article named hunters in nz 'nimrods'. Not very cool.

Not seen the article but "Nimrod" was a biblical term for for a great hunter.
Or more probably, a local HB hunter who often uses the alias Nimrod and has had more than one story published in a few rags you may have miss interpreted.

Originally Posted by kiwijames

Not seen the article but "Nimrod" was a biblical term for for a great hunter.
Or more probably, a local HB hunter who often uses the alias Nimrod and has had more than one story published in a few rags you may have miss interpreted.

I must of.

Not sure what the fuss about photoshopping is. Virtually every image in every publication in circulation has been retouched in some way. Look at a woman's magazine or even a "men's" magazine as good examples.

There's no way that they look that "good".

Originally Posted by Ryan

Not sure what the fuss about photoshopping is. Virtually every image in every publication in circulation has been retouched in some way. Look at a woman's magazine or even a "men's" magazine as good examples.

There's no way that they look that "good".

So if I was to pay a few grand to shoot a massive record winning stag in a paddock and photoshop it into the hacket(one of the original releases of fallow now overrun by people and pinetrees and the associated spotlighters) and win trophys and have magazine interviews and storys that would be fine yes?

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

So if I was to pay a few grand to shoot a massive record winning stag in a paddock and photoshop it into the hacket(one of the original releases of fallow now overrun by people and pinetrees and the associated spotlighters) and win trophys and have magazine interviews and storys that would be fine yes?

Sure - if someone chose to believe it.

Originally Posted by Ryan

Sure - if someone chose to believe it.

Does nobody believe in integrity anymore? Just good on ya if you can get away with it?

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

Does nobody believe in integrity anymore? Just good on ya if you can get away with it?

Integrity went out the window a long, long time ago Cam. Publishers don't want stories, they don't want authenticity - they want what sells, which is why they doctor images and all sorts of shit. Like I said, look at women's / men's mags, look at political campaigns. Nobody looks as good as they do, in fact these days you need to look hard to even read a good story.

Integrity has almost become a niche human value essentially.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

So if I was to pay a few grand to shoot a massive record winning stag in a paddock and photoshop it into the hacket(one of the original releases of fallow now overrun by people and pinetrees and the associated spotlighters) and win trophys and have magazine interviews and storys that would be fine yes?

You'd be a fucking hero up with the best, of course that's only until we found out about it, then you'd crash and burn. Funny I was talking to my old mate about guiding Americans shooting in the SI in the 60-70s. One of the other guides had a client that wanted a good head, he was a world renown bow hunter, even got an elephant with a bow! Well hi above Queenstown capping out a couple of heads while the client was dining out this other guide said to my old mate, this ugly 10 pointer taken with the bow was actually shot by him, under the bow hunters instructions. Posing for the photos the guide had to push an arrow into the bullet hole!. Old mate got sent a glossy mag from the States a few months later and low a behold a photo of the bow hunter posing with the ugly ten pointer and a write up on a very difficult and exciting hunt! Been going on for years!

I know personally one of NZ hunters contributors (actually a number of them but one in particular) and know for fact the true story of how big heads were shot.

I had credited the Author with all the bulshit and lies but maybe he had some help also.