She'll make MORE MONEY on these photos if she licenses them for stock. More money than MANY on here have ever made from photography. Like it or not, her photos work.
Commercially, if she makes images of toddlers with barn animals and etc her niche, she wins. She WILL be in demand. NOT the critics who've made not a dime.
She can't please everyone. But she can probably make more money than you can with a camera, if that matters.
Everything is post processed today! It's a part of TODAY'S toolkit. This is DIGITAL photography! If you like shooting manual, winding your advance, and keeping rolls of film in the refrigerator, scanning slides and clearing dust bunnies in Photoshop, go ahead! Cheers to you.
The lens looks like a great deal so far!
Looks like a low light star.
Just look at the Chicago Sun-Times website...
What type of decisions are being made there?
As shown here, good shots can be taken with an iPhone and processed for maximum effect.
It's not the iPhones that can't cut it. It's a capable enough tool.
But your average reporter can't cut it with an iPhone.
Sad day but it is what it is.
Has anyone been to the Chicago Sun Times website? It's terrible. Who would actually go there?
Its in definite need of a makeover. And not just a video makeover. No one wants websites like that.
Marques Lamont: An interesting question I have is this:
In general, how much do you plan on spending on photography per year?
I think this question will make things a bit clearer.
I take it that many here don't plan on spending more than $500 per year?
Thanks for your reply howardroark.
I'm speaking about everything photography related for ONE year. Not 8 years cumulatively or 4 years, but ONE single year. Not "scenarios", but simply ONE year. No offense, hostility, or incivility towards you, but I ask a straightforward question, and you give a "scenario?" I don't get it.
I'm speaking of equipment, software, repairs, training, rentals, travel, model fees, printing, insurance (if it's your thing), legal fees or anything else. Yes, for the hobbyist.
I set aside between $1200 to $2000 each year but I usually never spend that much. The minimum is $500 per year. If I can't afford that, I'm cutting it close because I may not even have enough to replace my own equipment. Or I might have to seriously cut back. Anything could happen.
An interesting question I have is this:
Marques Lamont: I think $20 USD per month is more than doable for the latest version of Photoshop. That's just $5 per week. At least doable for the average hobbyist. If you can go to the grocery store and buy brand name goods, you can most likely afford $20 per month...
UNLESS you are on a considerably strained fixed income or in such a disadvantaged financial predicament where you must choose between prescription drugs or food, you most likely CAN afford $20 per month.
If you don't have to pick between pills or food, Photoshop CC is affordable for you. But really:
- It's *not* pills vs Photoshop. - It's *not* food vs Photoshop.- It's *not* daycare vs Photoshop.- It's *not* gas vs Photoshop.
Many people have an extra $20 in their pocket every month, at least. If you didn't, you'd sell your equipment by now. Is $20 not so disposable anymore? I hate to sound like a snob, and if I do, I apologize. If you really can't afford it, I DO apologize. But many can easily afford, but still complain. IDGI?
No such thing as surplus income? No such thing as money you don't need?
If so, where does giving to charity fall? It falls under the umbrella of disposable income. The same umbrella as hobbies.
If you can afford it, I don't see what the real problem is.
I don't care for Adobe's "character" or to try to assasinate it. I'm not that sensitive. They make industry leading products, it works, I like it. That's it.
The only relationship Adobe has with me is software developer and photographer. It's just really capable software at the end of the day. If I want the capabilities of the latest version of Photoshop, and I can afford it, let's go for it. There should be nothing stopping me because it was only about photos in the first place. If they can hold up their end with the capabilities and I can hold up my end, it's a deal. And that's the name of the game.
If you can afford CC, why is it about more than just software capabilities and photos? If you can afford it and photo editing is your primary concern with Adobe, Photoshop CC will give you results you need... for $20 per month.
Adobe is not your friend. It's just a software company with tools that work.
howardroak, no, it's called disposable income. Your surplus.
Many, maybe even most people have *significantly* more than $20 per month saved at the end of the month and honestly, I doubt people are living paycheck to paycheck, especially if they can afford photography as a hobby. If anything, photography as a serious hobby is something to regularly set aside funds for, at least on a yearly basis.
No hobby should come above anyone's financial health. That's common sense. Or at least I thought.
I think $20 USD per month is more than doable for the latest version of Photoshop. That's just $5 per week. At least doable for the average hobbyist. If you can go to the grocery store and buy brand name goods, you can most likely afford $20 per month...
Marques Lamont: It's interesting. No offense but:
"Some" of the same people who purchase their cameras and UPGRADE their camera body every model or every other model, hate Adobe, when the cloud subscription system cost LESS than those camera body upgrades do.
"Some" of them will still merrily upgrade their camera bodies while cursing Adobe.
^ My point is along the same lines.
Camera body upgrades rarely justify the costs either. CS6 is good enough for MANY users, the same way as your current body is good enough for many users.
Honest truth: If you don't need to upgrade to the cloud, you probably don't need to upgrade your body either. You're fine for a while.
But if you do upgrade your body every new model, why complain? You're still spending money, when you need neither the new body nor the cloud.
For example, I used my 30D until the shutter broke. It went through real estate, weddings, and other gigs just fine until it died in 2012. I got almost 5.5 years out of it.
It's interesting. No offense but:
$49.99 USD per month for 12 months is not bad. It's like renting software.
It's $12.50 per week. That's the same as eating McDonalds twice a week.
This is just to eliminate piracy. I don't think it's a bad thing, as piracy almost KILLED the design industry.
Photos were taken LAST year, licensed to Getty.
Nick Laham is young, creative, and SMART. Check his portfolio.
He's definitely NOT a hack.
Great! We want it here in the USA too. And worldwide as well!
WORLDWIDE RENTALS! Canon should've done this AGES ago!
Deleted pending purge: No such thing like Pro cameras, there's only Pro photographers. And what makes them Pro (besides being obvious where their bread comes from) is sometimes the fact that they can do good photos with any camera. Otherwise, mercantilistic lore or not, there are only expensive, less expensive, not expensive, and cheap cameras. Technically, these will do what their specs say, if you either need or can afford to use them. But in the end, it will always be 10% equipment and 90% author - at any price level.
Nice article. :)
The debate about what is a "pro" and what isn't is endless...
At the end of the day, being a pro is less about photography skills and equipment and more about business management, industry competence, presentation, and people skills. You DO want the best equipment for the job though, if you can afford it.
Many, probably most pros RENT their gear and bill it to the client anyway on a per assignment basis. So being able to personally afford the latest and the greatest isn't that big of a deal. If my gear isn't good enough for an assigment, I rent.
The key is to rent it!
Kodak is DEAD before Pentax.
Who would've thought Pentax would outlive Kodak?!
HOORAY PENTAX! :)
The photos are completely unacceptable and embarassing.
Going against the grain for what?