Smeggypants: Some capitalist parasite that it claiming giving a photographer only 30% of the revenue from that photographer's own work is a good deal should be reviled.
Any decent photographer wouldn't corrupt themselves with this parasitic model. Boycott 500px, take pics for fun and share them for free.
I'm still making 6 figures in photography as are many of my friends busting their buns.Giving away is stupid.That menas someone is profiting off of you. That's being a real chump and a half and degrading the photography model as a career.How would you like if people took away YOUR job to work for free?
keb27: I ran a search on "Fair Trade Photography" and came up with this company: http://www.photographersdirect.com/. The website is not especially slick, but I like what they are about. Has anyone worked with them? It may be worth checking out.
I've not uploaded to that site in years but have made sales in the past.
Kenc68: 30% for photographers has been the industry standard for years. For those of you complaining, 30% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Most big businesses will go to an organisation rather than an individual for stock images as they will be dealt with in a manner familiar to them. This is how the business operates. It's not personal & certainly not a case of "money grabbing" it's just business.
I'm with agents all over the world and still manage to get 50-60%.I've licensed more than 44,000 rights managed images since 1979. I'm not with Getty and I will not do microstock.
I've licensed stock since the 1970s and this 500px deal is crap.30%..ha! Not much better than rights grabbing Getty.You are better off doing a great blog,getting active on Linkedin and Facebook and having an ecommerce site thru Zenfolio. $150 a year where you keep all but the Paypal fees and you set your own rates,can have prints made and get the name and address of the purchaser.
I'd be afraid my clients images would be hacked just by going thru the Adobe Cloud site for anything!
LaFonte: I like the perspective warp a lot. It is pretty smart.But then again, I am definitely not going to pay a subscription fee for any software.And it isn't even a subscription, it is RENTAL.The biggest reason for me s not to give them or any other company approval that this is the way to sell software, because then soon, everything else will be a RENTAL, Lightroom? Windows? MS office?Once the dollar signs appear in their eyes, the companies will not stop.
Open Office suite is open source and available for ALL systems
HBowman: After years of neglect and abuse by her parents, Adobe begins practising a form of psychoplasmic therapy (i.e. letting go of trauma through changes to the physical body). However, in the process, Adobe unknowingly creates a group of dwarf-like children through asexual reproduction in an external womb - children that, bonded to Adobe through a psychic connection, attempt to kill anyone who upsets their mother.
TitusXIII: There's no way I'd ever trade my X100 for the X100s.While I would like to have the option of the split-screen manual focusing aid, I believe the X100 sensor to be superior to the X100s.
I agree.I had the original x100 and later on the Black limited edition x100 which for some reason was better. I had the x100s earlier this year and didn't care for the IQ of the images. I'm a pro photog so I know how to work a camera. :-)However I thought the macro on the x100s and video were better than the x100.
Too much smoothing on these jpegs.It looks like everything was dipped in plastic.Skies are blown out as well.
Heck,my dslr's can do that for a lot cheaper!
I wanted to love this camera but I see it's no DSLR killer. Maybe checkbook killer though!
I LOVE THIS LENS!I use this lens with the Fuji X-Pro 1 and it rivals my similar Nikon and Canon lenses I've used.I've been a pro photog for 25+ years and really praise the Fuji X system and lenses I've used.Photos are very sharp and it does not hunt as much in low light like my Canon or Nikon long range zooms did.
No subscriptions.I'm using Lightroom Capture One and Gimp.CS6 is on my system but when that no longer works I will not go subscription.
Not a Ricoh user though I like many images from Ricoh cameras I've seen in the past.I'm confused as to the name GR...When I look on Flickr for 'Ricoh GR' I see many photos but obviously not from this camera seeing the photos are a few years old.Do they have previous models named Ricoh GR as well? Kind of confusing for a non user.
JohnyP: all of these "theoretical photographers" who sit in front of a monitor defending rights to their non-existent works of art is quite funny.
Abandonment of the copyright for all works posted on internet should be instituted. Patent and copyright trolling is a waste of everyone's time. This is the only way to make all these trolls switch to something else (hopefully more productive than arguing with people on-line over something).
Waste of time? Not really.I've collected over $75,000 this year alone on copyright infringements. Last year was more than double that.I register all of my copyrights.
Wrong tool for the job. Any camera with a tilting screen and perhaps longer lens would have aced the shot.
Maybe it's just me..I've not seen any shots that impress me from the Olympics with the Panny camera.However,I have seen the news pool photos with the pro camera gear and they really are outstanding.
A writer sent me a letter more than 32 years ago to collaborate on this same subject. I think he fell ill and we did not proceed.I was honored to be asked to photograph the celebrity subjects though!
Glad I looked at the ISO 8000 here as this image does nothing to sell me on the OLY or the lens. Horribly blown out and really not flattering to this lens or camera.
I was covering concerts in the 70s thru early 1990s. The first ones to enforce the photo contract that I recall was the band 'The Police.' I'd received many hideous contracts to sign before a show and a few were not even valid because they did not provide me with a copy of the contract.I had bands ask for photo approval insisting slides/neg's be sent to them.They'd put holes in the ones not approved.Many of the bands that started doing these things are virtually unknown or dead today..One band comes to mind-Missing Persons..Yeah,WHO?
JackM: Seriously what is the point?? If you are willing to spend that kind of money and carry a NOT compact camera/lens combo, why handicap your image quality with a quarter-frame sensor? Go APS-C or FF!
I've been a professional photog for 30 years and I am loving my Oly OLM and the prime lenses.The quality I am getting is better than my Nikon D7000 gear with the best lenses!Can't wait for this lens to come out!
After owning 3 Fuji mediocre cameras I am not sure I can ever trust them again.
Most recent experience was the ORB ORB ORB Fuji X10...Previously had a Fuji X100,lousy macro,stuck shutter blades...
Fuji FZ150 or something like that a few years ago..Every single scene outside was lined in purple or green fringe!
One of my main stock photo agencies has Fuji on their Unacceptable camera list..Too bad they don't iron out their issues before they release a camera!