what about the 6D? Should be in the list!Best DSLR I ever used!Much nicer than 5D3
Besides - there is no such thing as best camera. diff tools for diff tasks... :)It's not about the gear silly! (well maybe it is - about the lens)
Has anyone here ever contributed to Getty? I would LOVE to hear from a photographer who uses them, what's it like, why, how much, how many etc...They use be getting all these millions of images from somewhere.
nitroman: This is what we should do Rashomon - create our own library that puts photographers first.
Why can't this be done ? Without new stock Getty would go out of business. We need some solidarity amongst the ranks.
For the life of me, I can't understand how photographers allow Getty to take the 75-80% lion's share of an image sale after we've paid for the shoot, edited and submitted.
This is why photographers are now going out of business as Getty has canibalised the photographic industry and raped their contributors to reap their own rich rewards.
Couldn't agree more! Wouldn't even need solidarity. Just follow the model prevalent in so many tech giants. Photographers = software developers. Even huge capitalist corps like google and Facebook have a substantial share holdings in the hands of their staff....Photographers must be the least savvy ppl in the world unfortunately.
Would be so much fun to take them out of business by creating a 'contributors get equity' agency and poaching all their decent photographers.
philipspeakes: Fascinating. Would this put the Carlyle Group in a position to control the availability of certain images?
Of course, Getty already have that ability given the huge archive they control. Our collective visual memory is owned by a private equity bunch. And the creators of all that value barely see any revenue from the spoils...Mmmm gives me that warm fuzzy feeling.
Paul B Jones: Interesting, workers (photographers) create the value, but a large percentage of that value is expropriated by capital - sort of like what Karl Marx said would happen.
Maybe it is time for photographers to create a stock image collective of our own. After all, without our work Getty is nothing.
I despise Getty, they are the worst kind of broker, they add no value other than squeeze producers and consumers. Their technology sucks and their self congratulating smugness makes me sick. Their model is built around ripping photographers off. Plain and simple.
But the saddest and most pathetic part of the story is that the real fault lies with us, the looser photographers who tolerate our work being sucked on by the likes of Getty, making hundreds of millions in revenues and seeing only a tiny fraction of that fed back.
I do believe that if we photographers are dumb enough to allow Getty to exist than we probably deserve the fate they will endevour to impose on us.
> > > > Why would you call these guys real photographers? Is it because his photography seems to tell more of a story and contain some controversial subjects? Or, is it because he has traveled around to take pictures with meaning? I mean it is true that their pictures tell a story and touch on some real life subjects, but I would not put another's photo down just because you don't think their photo tells a story as touching as those you idolize. True the winning photo might not tell a story of poverty, or people's lives in other countries, spread the truth, etc. but it does indeed tell a story even if it is just a beautiful landscape. You are obviously looking at this in a biased manner because it does not live up to YOUR standard of what you call real photography and therefore IMO you have not opened your horizons. >
Ok ok let me explain. even though I find yours and others aggressive stance towards those who are surprised by this win a bit annoying. it is a free country(ies), we do have a right to our opinions just as you do... ok now to the winning image and why I find it fine but not deserving to be the winner of the 'Challenge of challenges de la challenginto' (LOL even the title smacks of cheap populism)Its not because it doesn't have humans (Nichols doesn't shoot people) or wasn't shot at an exotic and full of poor lives destination. Ansel Adams and Edward Weston shot many of their greatest images in pretty boring parts of California, the great Lee Friedlander spent most of his time shooting bloody gas stations. any subject can be made into an interesting and evocative photo - thats the art of the great masters of photography!The problem with this particular shot is that its basically made up of a set of technical gimmicks... there's very little originality or depth or subtlety to it. lets look at what makes it pretty for all these content voters, its basically a combination of technical simple factors:WideangleBold Sunset coloursSlow shutter 'making everything look cool'Low contrast ratio due to use of ND filterTogether these are the elements that give this pic that wow factor where people who look at it (especially people who are not versed in the technical craft of making photos) go - 'damn, I could never shoot this myself - its so amazing...' but when you understand the technique of how to make it, its all there and one can replicate it quite easily. its just a nice technical shot. and indeed many people do, all the time, in shot number 13 of this mega superduper challenge and in every cheap photo mag you may buy in your local Wallmart or Tesco while attending to the rest of your household shopping. like i said in my original post - its pretty, its nice, it would probably do great as a poster for many of us. but i find it disappointing that it got picked as the best of the best.
IMO A good photo is a capture of a moment that transcends the sum of its technical components, it doesn't have to have a story in a narrative way, it's doesn't have to have 'people' or animals or be shot in exotic or war torn locations; but it must have some emotional content or impact that goes beyond the simple 'WOW thats so pretty - how did this guy do this?!'. just like a good book takes you places you never been before and shows you the world through the interesting eyes of another, often wiser, human being. this photo is a bit like a Dan Brown novel - effective, entertaining and hugely populist, yet dull same'ish, predictable and ultimately - disappointing and vacuous. compare that with a Hemingway or a Gabriel Garcia Marquez and maybe you'll understand my point...
Compare Spice Girls' pretty, glitzy and melodic pop with Jimi Hendrix or Dave Brubeck or Depeche Mode or Brahms LOL.... get my drift?
Far better than the winning image IMO, so full of atmosphere and mystery... and not same'ish like a million other images. well done!! thanks for sharing with us.
Yes its an ok sunset landscape slow shutter ND kinda shot... seen a million of them, every week on the front of your fav photo mag... give the punters a bit of colour and slow shutter sunset and bingo, votes come in :) been there done that seen it all before.
Yes its a lovely shot, don't get me wrong. but if this is the best that DPR readers can do than I find it a bit sad.
Go here to look at some real photography...