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!
By doing this Getty has essentially given up protecting its photographers from unauthorized use of their images in a narrow set of circumstances. At the same time Getty is making it possible to monetize unauthorized use and it appears that its photographers won't get a cut of the pie.
As far as the difference between "commercial" and "non-commerical" use goes, here is my definition of a commercial website: If the website generates income in any form it is commercial, period. Be it advertisements or simply promoting a service, the website is generating income for the website's owner. If the website owner makes money and my images are used on the website, then I am going to license my images for a fee, period.
Nikon isn't the only large company that ignores a serious hardware defect that affects many people.
Apple had a problem with a third-party part in some of its MacBook Pro models. The part failure required replacing the entire motherboard which is an expensive repair.
The online reports about the problem continued for over a year before Apple announced a program similar to Nikon's. Unfortunately, Apple replaced the part with an identical part and some people experienced multiple failures.
To add insult to injury the warranty extension wasn't long enough. Some people experienced a premature failure after the warranty expired while others who had the part replaced under the extended warranty got burned again when it failed after the warranty expired.
The only people who think that Apple's solution was fair are those who think that the useful life of a high-end computer is only three years…
I do not recall if Apple was hit with a class-action lawsuit.
Kurt_K: I guess that class-action lawsuit was all the incentive they needed.
People (usually conservatives…) who decry class-action suits just don't get it: class-actions are the only option to obtain redress for average people who have been damaged by large and powerful corporations.
Unions are demonized because they also give some power to workers who would otherwise be at the mercy of their employers.
People who do not see the value in learning history in school and turn-off their minds in class tend to be ignorant about the history of unionization and class-action lawsuits in the U.S. (if that history is taught at all…) Both were instrumental in empowering the lower and middle-classes. Heck, before unions there wasn't much of a middle class in America!
Eric Glam: I've had the D5300 with Nikon 35mm f/1.8G lens for a few months now.I agree with every word in this review.
The still & video quality is very good.But the camera is so frustrating to use and handle, that it takes away the fun and joy of shooting photos. The lack of touch capability, the lack of real aperture control in LiveView, the sluggishness of the LCD when zooming to check focus, the complicated menu, the missing dial - all of these make the camera very hard to use.
One other thing that this review neglected to mention is the fact that the D5300 is almost useless with fast glass, when using the viewfinder. In this review they mainly used the kit lenses which go to f/3.5 max. My lens opens up to f/1.8, and let me tell you - the focus point is never where I intended it to be when I use the viewfinder, even stopped down to f/4.0.
Eric, if you haven't used AF-ON then I think that you will be pleasantly surprised at how well it works. AF-ON combined with AF-C is used by many pro photographers because it gets the job done.
I'm a long-time pro who started out with film and manual focus lenses. I have always disliked the shutter release engaging auto focus. Frankly, I want a DSLR that operates more like a manual focus camera; using AF-ON gives me what I want. All I need the shutter release to do is turn on the camera meter and release the shutter. And using AF-ON replaces the clumsy AF-L button "feature", which is as counter-intuitive as camera controls get...
My main user-interface complaint with the D5300 and similar DXXXX bodies is the lack of a dedicated AF-ON button and the location of the user-mappable AE/AF-L button. It is simply not in the ideal location for my thumb while the AF-ON button is spot-on.
SergioSpain: I sincerely hope that none of the people complaining about this own any Apple products, because nobody is worse than Apple when it comes to locking down their system.
I just received a set of third-party Lightning/USB cords and AC/car chargers to use with my iPhone 5S. I haven't tested the car chargers but the cables/AC chargers are compatible.
$16 for 3 AC, 2 car and 3 6' cables. I found the deal at Dealmac.com.
Confused of Malvern: "Through December 2, 2013...." ? What ghastly grammer!
Come on DPReview, you can do better than that - either "Until 2nd December.." or "Up to and including 2nd December..."
EssexAsh, you are certainly doing your part:
"oh come on, this is america. The mangling of the mother tounge (tongue) continues apace.
Anyway, Adobe are (is) offering this crap to all now? No thanks. Do they get commission off each account that gets stolen?
howardroark: Adobe does not realize that the threshold for many of us to care is not making it cheap to rent, it is making it available to purchase. As I see it Adobe has three options: 1) Rent the software and hack a lot of people off, 2) Sell the software as a perpetual license to one owner, 3) Give the software away for free since that is the only monthly sum many people would be willing to pay as a rental fee.
Adobe, blow it out your a-hole.
victor china: Ti bad that the clowd service isnt international!I cant use it in israel, and i assume many other countries are also not included...
If the cloud service is blocked because of your geographical location you can bypass the restriction by subscribing to a personal VPN service. Witopia.net has VPN servers in many countries; you can select a server location via a drop-down menu that is in a country that isn't blocked.
The monthly cost is between $5-$7 depending on the plan and there is a 30-day refund period. https://www.witopia.net
Sangster: Throw in waterproof feature and expect consumers to pony up $800 for the privilege. Worst of all it is only good to 49'. Basic PADI OW divers are certified to 60'.
Just two posts from Bamboojled and he/she is going on my ignore list. What an arsehole!
I've been a long-time Photoshop user (since PS4, not CS4...) and the rental scheme is a non-starter at any price. I stopped buying Photoshop at CS3.
Fortunately, for most of us there are plenty of alternatives. And Photoshop Elements (add Elements+ for $12 for even more features) really is all many of us need. Simply do the higher bit edits in other software prior to converting to 8-bits. In most cases you won't notice the difference, particularly when producing inkjet prints.
I nabbed Elements 11 for around $40 at Newegg.
Raist3d: Well see how good (or not) the sensor in this camera is, a Panasonic new design. Hopefully no banding. If the sensor is ballpark as good (ditto if better) as the EM-5/Pen5, I just can't see anyone in their right mind picking a Pen 5 over this model.
To Ed Buziak: Take a look at the R Strap. I use it with a D200 and it is a boon for street/travel photography. Your gear is out of the way and out of sight until you need it; getting the shot and returning the camera to its resting place takes a few seconds.
Since switching to the R Strap I am taking more and better street photos while leaving me more time to enjoy my companions and surroundings while traveling.
My "ancient" 80-200 Nikkor AF without an internal AF motor is looking real good after reading this article...
Let's face it... modern lenses are too complex for their own good. Prior to internal AF motors and IS we could count on Nikkors working for years without any problems unless one took a particularly bad hit/drop. I had a couple of lenses (105mm 2.5 and 20-35 2.8) that survived amazing drops and kept on clicking.
These days many Nikkors are fragile beasts that cost a small fortune to purchase. And the cost of repairing lenses has dramatically increased. I'm glad that I resisted the impulse to "upgrade" my lenses when my gear was still capable of doing everything I asked of the glass.
"Jpeg rules. RAW is for posers."
Johnsonj's post is meaningless. It only illustrates his ignorance about the advantages of shooting RAW vs. JPEG.
A knowledgeable photographer will be aware of the advantages/disadvantages of both RAW and JPEG and will select the image file format based on the situation and his/her particular requirements.
Good easily-understandable explanations of the advantages of RAW vs. JPEG can be found at http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml and http://bythom.com/qadraw.htm.
Johnsonj: Jpeg rules. RAW is for posers.
Only thing missing is face recognition.
Johnsonj's post is meaningless. It only illustrates his ignorance about the advantages of shooting RAW vs. JPEG.
appelpix1: If the ”New Optical Design” addresses the problem that Tokina had with chromatic aberration, this one surely will be a success!
I've owned a first-generation 12-24 for over five years. CA is rarely noticeable and when it does occur it is easily corrected. My primary editing program fixes CA automatically so it's a non-issue as far as I am concerned...
I've been photographing for over 30 years, always been a Nikon guy and I own a slew of quality Nikkors. The Tokina 12-24 is my only non-Nikon lens. I would have bought the equivalent Nikkor but at twice the cost it simply isn't worth it; it is only marginally better optically and its build-quality is disappointing. It handles like a typical Nikon consumer-oriented lens while costing $1000+.
xarcex: Bold move! Good on you Sun-Times, good on you.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, a photo is just a photo and, of course, a bad workman blames his tools, so if you're a good photographer you can even use a disposable camera and you'll get good results. People should stop caring so much about insignificant labels, such as "mobile photography" and should start focusing on actual results. DSLRs will never beat neither versatility nor practicality of smartphones.
Times are changing. I'm just saying...
Don't feed the troll.
Just saying... ;)
This interview again raises questions in my mind regarding DPR's editorial independence since it has been acquired by Amazon. Adobe and Amazon enjoy a significant financial partnership so it should not surprise anyone that this move by Adobe is being presented in a most positive light.
If DPR wants to gain some editorial credibility it should start featuring more articles about image editing products other than Adobe programs. Tell us what we can use instead of Photoshop. Better yet, inform photographers that for many of us Photoshop is simply overkill and that essential editing steps required can be done with less expensive and easier to use software.
Stuart Livingston: So as a amateur using CS5, I can either be forced to go to CC, stay atCS5, pay for CS6 at full price (no upgrade seems to be available) or downgrade to elements.
So much for customer loyalty. When a company think that they are the only game in town, it is time to turn ones back on them.........
A most unhappy customer..........
@marike6 I realize that Elements is somewhat restricted when it comes to 8-bit files. But I think that many photographers don't always need 16-bit files and now they have a reason to review their workflow requirements. There are also workarounds for dealing with 16-bit files that will be edited with Elements.
The last several versions of Elements have supported a fair number of editing steps at 16 bits, including levels, shadow/highlight, and hue/saturation (in other words, many of the things that benefit most from the extra bit depth). These adjustments themselves work at 16 bits, but layers don't, so you have to apply the adjustments directly to the image, not via layers, if you want to use the full bit depth.
Here is an interesting article about 8-bit v.s 16-bit files and inkjet printing:
snapperZ: From reputable and respected software company to untrustworthy bad guys in a single move. Nice work. The cloud won't be seeing any of my money.
Adobe started going downhill a long time ago; this is simply another nail in its so-called "customer service" coffin...