Further to my last comment. After further reading into this matter, I am now not that much concerned about the users of the images, but I am now VERY concerned that Getty themselves, with this new arrangement, have taken the place of the general public as the abuser of photographers.
dcdigitalphoto: How does including an image in a page which earns money through advertising not class as commercial use? By using it in a page you're promoting your business because your business revolves around posting pages that have advertising on them.
Aside from that, who in their right mind would embed an image directly in an advertisement, especially if Getty includes their own advertising in it.
To my mind, if a site engaged in commercial activity has images on their site to "pretty up" their site and make it more attractive, then those images are being used for commercial purposes as far as I am concerned. The exception would be using an image when commenting on a news item and even then I would regard that as sailing close to the wind in some cases.
vFunct: This can make money for the photographer if the photographs are newsworthy, which tend to get millions of hits.
If the photos are more of the godawful crap you see on that godawful 500px site, then no, you're not going to make money as no one cares about those ugly godawful 500px photos.
I agree 101% with your comments. Well said!!!
My first reaction to this news was that Getty have thrown in the towel, and along with the U.K. government's intention to legalise and institutionalise copyright theft of photographers' work, this news is the beginning of the end. It is sending the signal that it is open season on photographers' work.
However, reading the remarks, just before mine, of Roland Karlsson it may not be so bad. Mr Karlssson appears to be displeased with what Getty are doing. In my view Getty are doing the right thing; if they are to give folks access to content WITHOUT charging them a fee, they have to instill in the users of these images the notion that the images do have some value and that accessing Getty's library without payment must come with some strings attached. If Getty did it any other way, the way many of the iPhone/Facebook generation would like it done, that is totally unhindered access, it would be sending the wrong signals.
I still have concerns but not as many as I initially did.
plevyadophy: This is a stupid move for a medium format cam maker. Whilst CMOS sensors offer higher ISO settings, CCD sensors are BY FAR superior in image quality at low to moderate ISO settings and medium format should be about quality and NOT bragging rights on a spec sheet.
Hassy would have been better employed commissioning Sony to use their talents to design an improved CCD sensor.
First Hassy buy discontinued Sony cams and pimp them up and sell them at silly prices and now this CMOS thing. It's really sad to see what Hassy is becoming .................. a shadow of its former self.
I hope Phase One ignore this spec sheet CMOS bragging rights nonsense and stick to CCD sensors
Oh well, it looks like the world is coming to an end. :o(
I really don't understand why these guys are being so silly; chasing the popular (ill-informed) vote rather than sticking to THE best and leaving the rabble to try and raise their standards
nathantw: If it's 16-bit color (it should be) and has better IQ at anything other than ISO 400 (which it will) then I think they might have a winner. Unfortunately it'll probably still cost an arm and a leg ($50k - $60k) with lenses in the $5k range. However, if they brought out an affordable CMOS 6x6 camera back that fits the Hasselblad V-series, then dangnammit, I'm there!
Critical focus on a V System cam is EASY..................on stll subjects (no continuous AF)
mpgxsvcd: Serious Question. How many of you shoot Medium Format or would switch to Medium Format if the right camera body was produced?
Got microFT, Sony APS-C, Canon 1D series x 3, Hassy MF film with digital back coming, hopefully, in July.
Price. Whining about the cost of MF is daft, coz whining about the price is like whining about the price of a Porsche 911, wanting it but wanting the price to be about the same as a VW Golf GTi. People keep banging on about how Pentax 645D is cheap (comparatively), well lets see how long that cheapness lasts when (or if) they flesh out the lens selection; let's see if they can avoid pricing lenses in the £3K to £5K range.
CMOS sensors. Daft daft daft, if this is intended to be a gradual replacement of CCD sensor MF cams in the Hassy line-up. MF is about HIGHEST IMAGE QUALITY (which is what you get with CCD) and NOT about spec sheet bragging rights (that you will get with the ISO 1 trillion zillion setting of a CMOS sensor cam).
jonny1976: The beauty of medium format is ccd. Thats what create the magic. Whats the use of a camera that creates the same d800 IMAGES with more pixel? Which professional will use a blad at iso 1600or 3200? The blad, not like pentax645d, is not Made for street.
CCD is inherently superior to CMOS in image quality. It's that a LOT of R&D has gone into CMOS sensors. Given enough development, CCD would/will improve massively in terms high ISO (admittedly not as high as CMOS) and maintain it's superiority over CMOS for image quality (e.g. colour). Medium Format should be about quality first and formost, this CMOS nonsense of Hassy is them giving in to the rabble who are impresssed by high numbers on a spec sheet (ISO 1 million trillion!!) rather then doing what they should be doing which is rising above it all and sticking to the high quality, no the HIGHEST quality, ethos.
This is a stupid move for a medium format cam maker. Whilst CMOS sensors offer higher ISO settings, CCD sensors are BY FAR superior in image quality at low to moderate ISO settings and medium format should be about quality and NOT bragging rights on a spec sheet.
Would have been great to have had the totally unconventional Acratech GP Ballheads tested here as well. Ironically, in the write-up of Induro BHL3 ballhead, Acratech were mentioned so clearly the reviewers are aware of the brand which makes it odd that they didn't test there unique product.
BarnET: the cons............1.In-body stabilization not available for image composition.That's only an issue on long focal lengths. Most of these lenses have in lens stabilisation that DOES work for image composition2.Camera tends to use small aperturesThen use aperture priority mode. 3.no sensor is in movie modeWell got to give you that one that is kinda annoying since fast primes that look great in movie are mostly unstabilized(20mm f1.7, 45mm F1.8 and so on)4.Strong 'rainbow' tearing effect in EVFTried it in the store, and it's not that bad.5.EVF is hard to see outdoors, adds bulk to camerahard to see outdoors?! if your not wearing glasses this is just plain nitpicking.adds bulk?! it's the smallest solution with an EVF this is a pro on this camera.6.No in-camera Raw conversionRaw is meant to be processed on PC anyway.7.Lacks headphone and external mic ports for video shootersThis is not a video tool. And the on board mics are good.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdQ3hVb9qug
In the Western industrialised nations the populations are quite old (longer life expectancy, people not having many children or leaving till late in life or not having any at all).
That means for many camera manufacturers, a considerable percentage, and in some cases, the majority of their customers are old i.e. over 45 years old.
At that age, age related deterioration of eye sight, a condition known as presbyopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyopia), begins to take hold and a sufferer is required to wear glasses.
So your flippant dismisal of the issue of not being able to see the EVF outdoors (your point number 5) is plain silly given that for a great many people how a camera functions when wearing glasses is VERY important (and I actually regard it as absurd that camera companies design cameras, even expensive cameras, with viewfinders that cater for young folk with good vision when in fact the likelihood is that the people who have the money to buy are older)
retro76: Dpreview, I used to worship your reviews, but I feel as though bias now plagues your site. A site that praises the SL1 which uses a dated sensor that can't even produce the dynamic range of many mirrorless models ( a glorified repackages T3i from years ago). A site which gives praise to Olympus mirrorless models which also have quite a steep 'retro' tax applied and many models continue to suffer from shutter shock which in my experience with the EM5 led to countless OOF shots. I don't own the DF, but I can't help to feel as though their is inconsistency and/or bias in your reviews. I dunno, maybe I am wrong, if so I do apologize in advance.
Well they scored the camera over 80%, and you're still whining?!! Wow!! That's a darn sight more than I would have scored it. I think the cam is a mess. Great concept, great looks, great compatibility with old lenses (notwithstanding the lack of interchangeable focus screens), but overall poor in execution (e.g. what's with the falling off battery door?!, the mismatched materials on the top plate of the silver version, and why can't Nikon still not get live view right?!!!)
I think this cam is Nikon's "Fuji X100 moment".
Now the fact that you whine about bias, and Fourt Thirds fanboys whine about bias (in favour of Canikon), and Sigma fans whine too, tells me that there is no real bias here at DPReview, and that they are obviously getting things right overall.
Yeshe: Adobe have yet to present us with an acceptable "Exit-strategy" before I commit to a subscription. Imagine what happens if you want to un-subscribe one year later and try to open your image-catalog you generated in Lightroom during that year in an older LR version from the pre-Creative Cloud era, - you cant! You're stuck with the subscription as long as you live if you want to open you generated libraries again! Lightroom and your libraries are being updated continuously (during the subscription-period) and will not be compatible with previous versions of Lightroom in the event that you would like to opt out of the subscription-plan at a later stage.
For those of us that are lucky enough to have access to excellent software such as Aperture, I say, stick to them!
Really, this is a probelm with ANY software NO MATTER what payment strategy the vendor adopts ............... IF customers depend heavily on the cataloging features of a particular vendor's software product.
Really, my view is, that photographers should rely instead on a robust filing system such that, without cataloging, their files can easily be found. So for example, a photographer could have a directory structure on their hard drive like this: \ [year] \ [month] \ [subject matter ] \ [client] \ [ job number ]\ ....
What would then happen is that the cataloging features of whatever software that the photographer is using would be considered as the icing on the cake rather than the whole cake.
In my own case, instead of relying on star ratings of my images, I go so far as to create separate directories such as "intial selects", "final selects".
I regard it as folly to rely on a vendor's cataloging system, which is, after all, a proprietory database format susceptible to change.
icexe: The only way I can see this working is if Adobe adopted a far more reasonable and guaranteed pricing model.
A more reasonable structure would be $4.99/month for any single product, then offer special "bundle" prices (E.g. Any 3 for $12.99/month, any 5 for $19.99/month, the entire suite for $39.99/month).
But the most important part to get people on-board is to guarantee those prices for a minimum of five years.
Also, if/when you drop subscription for a given product, it should fall back to a "limited functionality mode" that allows you to still open, view, and print your current images but maybe disables most filters, or the ability the save any new changes, etc..
good ideas here.
And i have yet another one.
How about they keep the price as it is but they only charge for a month if you use the product, even only once, in that month.
So for example, you use Ps on the first day of each month of Jan to March but on no other days of those months; you get charged the full month's rental for those three months. Then in April to June you don't use the product at all; in this situation, you don't get charged.
For non paying months the Cloud products good at least allow viewing of files but not saving or editing or any other features of the software; or better still, the Cloud products come with a separate viewer utility for those months when one doesn't want to pay the monthly rental.
This would be great for travelling photographers, who may be away on assignment for months at a time; they wouldn't be lumbered with a bill for something they aren't, and can't be, using.
Mike Dobbs: I'm about to move to LR but not if I must rent it. Anyone know of upcoming discounts on downloadable version?I'm having to move from Corel's Aftershot Pro catalog/RAW Converter/Editting system since I've just picked up a new camera (Olympus E-M1) that has no converter yet in ASP and may be many months before it appears. I do not have PS...ASP & Corel PaintShopPro have suited me fine over the years....way lower cost as well.
Can you not use the FREE Adobe DNG Converer to convert your E-M1 from .orf to .dng and then work on the .dng files in AsP?
carrigman: I think it's a very good offer and I have signed up. For €144 a year I have access to the best image editor there is with automatic updates as they arise. Already, ACR's Radial Filter and Automatic Perspective Correction - to name just two of CC's innovations- make it a very attractive option over previous versions. People may whinge about the concept of renting rather than owning the software but, like it or not, that is the way it's going to be and you either stick with your existing version of PS - which will become increasingly dated as time goes by - or you accept what Adobe are doing and go with the flow. Yes, you could also, of course, opt for another image editor but for me, I am so used to PS that a change was never a realistic proposition.
Is that to reduce the rage induced tremors potential customers are having as a result of this Cloud nonsense?
Blasthoff: Obviously the price is an "enticement" or come on. Ever since I realized the concept as a "wet dream" of Microsoft, I have feared the whole concept of "cloud" applications for years. Now it is here in it's infant stage. The concept of "having a hand in your pocket" has come full circle. You will not be able to fathom the full implication of this process until it is entrenched across the board. A scary thought.
My fears go beyond pricing, which is not to say it isn't enough of a concern. Putting all of ones eggs (tools) in one basket in the form of a "cloud" should be scaring the pants off of most folks. Your computers, in themselves, are nothing more then boat anchors without software. The whole concept is to make software and even the personal computer obsolete. What you will be left with are "services" and appliances to connect to them. Connectivity is all there will be and YOU WILL BE at the mercy of it, FOR EVERYTHING! Metered life with one universal kill switch.
I agree with you. Also, the day we get to the universal kill switch that you talk of is the day that many a government will be ever so happy; just think of the power they will have over their citizens (as if they haven't got enough already!)
David Rossberg: This is a great deal, Adobe finally did something reasonable and ppl are still complaining.
Do you work for, or have shares in,Adobe (or any enterprise that benefits from an association with Adobe)?
Serious question,not intended to be antagonistic (I am just curious as you are doing so much to defend them in comment after comment after comment).
Andrew53: Someone finds a way to migrate my LR work to different software and I'm gone.
And why on earth are photographers using Lr database facilities when the database format is, as far as I am aware (correct me if I am wrong), not an open standard.
That seems daft beyond belief to me; by using the Lr database (a.k.a. Catalog, and internal edits) a photographer is already locking themseleves into Adobe long before this Cloud thing came into being.
Whey not simply use a reasonably organised directory structure to store your images e.g. \ [year] \ [project name] \ [ edits ]