jimread: Hello all,
I would agree with the posters here that the above are good, very good indeed. Maybe and this is just my personal opinion of course, the photographer should look through their work and look for a theme, or thread and find something that they can turn into a coherant project.
If you make series of images, photo essays, or bodies of work jpgmag is a good place to post them. They allow what they call 'Stories' where you can post 10 images and some text next to them. I've not found any other site that does it in this particular way, all the others seem to concentrate on the single image. I was very pleased to have found it.
This is one of my offerings: http://jpgmag.com/stories/19757
Cheers - Jim
 tried to get the link to work, there doesn't appear to be anyway of doing it, ah well, such is life
Have you checked out Exposure? https://exposure.co/
buginarug: Jim Estrin got hired because he was a friend of a photo editor who he had worked with at another paper. That is how you get hired. It is not so much about how good a photographer you are as how good a networker you are. It also helps if you are not a white male. The NY Times has had a one for one hire program in place for years. One white male then next a choice of female or minority and then back to a white male and so on. I am not sure what really qualifies Jim to be giving career tips but I hope he at least tells the truth about how a photographer gets hired. There is no secret way. It is being in the right place at the right time and being good enough not necessarily the best or the hardest working. Remember that it is photo editors that hire photographers and editors are not always the best judge of good photography. 'Most' photo editors are photographers that were not great shooters.
Congrats buginarug! You just described how life works. Oh, and photo editors DO NOT hire photographers. Pretty much everything you posted are your own (incorrect) assumptions---except for that life thing, it was a pretty astute observation.
mumintroll: And the most important fact is MISSING as usually. This killer pronounced, that he was killing as a revenge of NATO bombing his village.
Reading all the comments on this post clearly explains why the Taliban, NATO and war exist. Pure and simple ignorance with dangerous results.
javidog: So if I am framing a shot of those trolleys and a person walks into my frame, what happens?
Thanks for the info. Very educational you must be a great teacher. But will i get arrested?
So if I am framing a shot of those trolleys and a person walks into my frame, what happens?
thomas2279f: They should do a joint venture like joining up with Nikon = sell for both company...
Nikon and Canon are so narrow minded and outdated. Pentax and Olympus--even Fuji have better ideas. A joint venture with one of these would be killer.
Jogger: Can they change the law of physics can make a 1/3.2 sensor capture as much light as an FF? If not, gtfo.
Better is subjective, and irrelevant. Do you actually think that 'better' matters to Instagram or Getty? Critical mass, social, sharing: money!! That is what matter. No one cares about F-ing Full Frame!
wb2trf: Apple's rewarded history is to think big. In this case the entire camera industry is geriatric and ready to be knocked over. Phone cams are taking the low end and mirrorless (all-electronic cameras after eshutters reach the high end) will knock out dslrs. Further, China manufacturing with Apple design can knock out Japanese, as it has in so many other areas. So, they could be looking to make a dedicated imaging peripheral, ie. a camera. Make it software e-compatible with all lenses, using merely mechanical couplers, if necessary. Lastly, the big untapped factor in camera design now is 3rd party software apps inside the camera. A few camera companies have timidly hinted in that direction, but the old guard camera makers are clueless about this. That is the big apple ready to be grabbed. So, I say , think big Apple, the camera industry is yours for the asking.
or taking! ;)
(unknown member): What amazes me is that any photographer with half of a brain would agree to Getty's terms and conditions. Essentially, the photographers assume all of the risk and cost of creating the images. Then Getty pays a fee that comes nowhere close to covering those costs, much less the photographer's time. Getty is doing very well under its business model while its content creators earn very little.
When stock licensing started out photographers saw it as a way to earn more income by licensing images that were outtakes from paid gigs. Then some photographers began producing images on "spec" in the hope that they would recoup their investment. The downside of stock photography is that clients can license images at less cost than assigning someone to create the photos. It didn't take long for companies to switch from assignments to sourcing images from stock agencies and photographers.
Now that images have been commodified and fees are so low stock is lose-win business model. Guess who wins!
Pond5 splits 50-50 with photographers
chillgreg: Sorry DPR. Another boring, paint-by-numbers review. Regurgitated. The reviewer lacks even a modicum of enthusiasm, almost as though forced to perform the review as punishment. You really need to lose the hyper-defensive chip-on-the-shoulder attitude when the overwhelming majority of comments disagree with your findings.
Nuisances like these two are nauseating. You both have incredible supernatural powers to be able to detect 'enthusiasm' and 'punishment' via your monitors. Just shut up and shoot. Or better yet, start your own websites and come up with your own standards and awards. @R Butler keep up the good work despite the hating trolls.
thx1138: Hadn't realised the M1 had no EVF or option. I had just assumed that was the A1. Oh well another coulda shoulda woulda camera.
Not really sure what Fuji's thinking is here. One the one hand they think you are sophisticated enough to understands the benefits of a big sensor, and IL, and DoF and manual control, but think you are still so amateurish as to hold a camera at arms length to frame a scene, in bright sunlight where the VF can hardly be seen and the camera is far less stable and more prone to shake.
So is it still a P&S or a serious camera?
I did not know that holding a camera at arms length to frame a scene was amateurish. Thanks for the heads up-- now I have to start sending some money back and reduce my rates.
JadedGamer: Amazing, you people are...
When you get a good meal at a restaurant, do you ask what kind of stove the cook used? Sheesh!
Are you sure that camera is directly related to the quality of the outcome?? Are you certain of this fact?
siberstorm27: You can get anyone to use your device and say anything about it if you throw enough money at it. From pop stars like Katy Perry to photographers for Vogue. The more desperate you are, the more money you throw. HTC has already sunk billions on Robert Downey Jr., even though their company and device portfolio is imploding. I've seen stunning photoshoots with the iPhone 3GS. It's all about lighting and preparation and professionalism. I am not impressed that Nokia and Microsoft continue to use misleading and/or distasteful marketing ploys when the actual Lumia 1020 phone isn't so hot and the camera quality is overblown compared to other phone cameras.
The desperate ones are clearly all who think like you. Skeptics have been around forever and they always, always, lose. Photography is forever evolving. Embrace technology people! Or get out of the way.
I am all for IG and mobile photography but these pictures are just bad. No other way to say it. Composition, colors, choice of filters--very poorly done.