JohnEwing: Engagement shoots are stupid, lame, false and slightly nauseating.
I have awards to my name and I charged as much as $10k just for wedding photos. So I know what I am talking about. I have photos that you would drool over.
At the end of the day check has to clear so that you can pay for the next camera, computer, lens and god know what other things you have to upgrade. Let's not forget food on the table.
When I say even the "In photographers" talk about money. I know because I hung out with the nationally known names (can't name them here) ... the ones that you want to be like. The ones who win at WPPI competition every year for their excellent work. They all talk about clearing the check being #1 priority.If you enjoy doing weddings, good for you. And if you want to do it for nothing, good for your clients.
One has to be really good (directing skills) to make it look like it is real. Otherwise it is a cheesy undertaking. I did quite a few in my old wedding photography days. I got some of my signature images from these sessions. And yes the good ones happen to be of good looking people… a 6'2" groom and a 5'10" bride. But most of the people were either too heavy or too short or too something to make a nice portfolio piece.
I agree with DotCom Editor, as long as the check clears... Let them have their day.
One more thing… I am tired of photographers pretending that this is their life's mission and they love doing it. Come on, WPPI is full of old timer high paid pros on tour for one camera manufacturer or another who proclaim in public that they were born to do this. In private, the story is totally different. It is about the money or non of them would do it.
Akpinxit: Judging by samples , there was no need for new model\sensor release : same soft JPGs with "glowing" high saturated details (reds , blues) , same fine detail artifacts , added with clearly visible CA and bad corners (party lens fault too) , as for RAWs - can't see much difference (not even advantage) from D7100 or 70D in terms of ISO noise or details .
I forgot to mention that I shoot RAW exclusively. Therefore I have not experienced the JPEG shortcomings of the K3
FYI, I went to WPPI to test the Tamron 70-200 for my K3. Someone had dropped the lens and the focus was stuck and not working at all. So just to get a feel for the lens and it's quality, they gave me a Canon 60D with the old Tamron (non VC) version to shoot with. I must say I am totally spoiled by the quality of my 6D and now the K3. The 60D which essentially has the same sensor of the 70D was so bad I could not believe my eyes. The images had no life to them and since I had to crank up the ISO to 3200 to get a steady shot, the image quality fell in the unacceptable range for me. If that is the caliber of image the 70D delivers, then K3 is indeed in a totally different league and should not be even mentioned in the same sentence as the 70D. A friend of mine who is a Canon and Nikon shooter just bought the 7100. He and I will do a shoutout with the K3 to see who wins.
As a recent convert from Canon and 6D which I think is unmatched for price/performance ratio, I must say that my first purchase, K5IIs is great in its own right and the K3 is simply fantastic.
I did buy the K5IIs with all three FA Limited lenses when Pentax had the discounted package. If I had to buy it today, I probably would not have spent the money on the limited lenses. Not because they are not good but the simple fact that zooms are really good these days and more practical in the world of event photography.
The K3 is more feature rich than the Canon 6D I used to own. But at high ISO Canon 6D is still king, no questions asked. Although upto ISO 1600 the K3 keeps up. After that point Canon rules.
Am I unhappy about the switch, not even by a long shot. In K3 I have a capable body which when matched with the Limited lenses is simply divine.
The mention of Pentax in the same sentence with Leica and Zeiss is a good feeling.
Is the controller capable of programming multi-row panoramas?
paddyrags: Why not 70% for the photographers.
Unless 500px is taking care of the following:
1. The photographers insurance - medical and general2. Sponsor his all equipments - cameras, lens, other peripherals3. Pays for the travel, lodging and other incidental costs
Guys please feel free to add to the above list..
Cheers Happy Clicking
4. Paid vacations5. Four-day work weeks6. On-site day care7. Not any camera, 80MP Hassy with Zeiss lenses (augmented #2)8. Catered lunches
That is it for now! Will add more later!
danieljcox: They're beating their chest about giving the photographer 30%???? WTH, We used to get 60% of all sales when it was much more difficult and costly to market photographs. Today, anybody suggesting it's more expensive to market images is obviously making excuses for taking more for themselves (500px). The internet has made all things less expensive and that includes marketing photos. They should be paying more than what agents did in the 70's, 80's, 90's and early 2000's. This offer is offensive and even worse with them trying to sell it by ANNOUNCING 30% as if that's a wonderful deal. It's not. Tell them to forget it. Take your pictures out.
Daniel J. Coxwww.naturalexposures.com
You have an excellent point. It should cost less to market and more needs to go to the photographer. But you are forgetting a couple of principles.
Principle one - Rip off someone (photographers in this case), build up a sizable business, then sell it to Getty or Corbis for a handsome payday and millionaire lifestyle at age 30 something.
Principle two - You remember when Nike, Reebok, etc. used to be made in this country. You paid $150 for a pair of Air Jordans that cost $40 to make here in the US. Now take the same shoe and make it for $10 a pair in China or Bandladesh or some place like that. Do we pass on the extra $30 savings to the customer? of course not. It is all about greed and there is no limit.
If someone can figure out a way to make pictures remotely from China or some other developing country, then the photographers' take might go down to 2-3% and the agencies get to keep all of the money.
BTW, your site and photos are spectacular.
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.
The artist in me says do not sell out. The bean counter in me says take the money and run!I am not sure if I would equate this to the slave trade. Slavery was/is inexcusable. It was/is a human tragedy.Selling out to these big agencies is a form of slavery after all. However, it is not a human tragedy!!The option of going direct is always there but next to impossible to succeed. Believe me. I have tried.
645D: If the new 645D adds all those new features in the K-3, such as 200,000 shutter cycles, focus peaking, metering and focusing sensor, I don't see any reason to keep my Canikon system. Great move, Pentax:-)
I am about to let my 6D go and start building on my K5IIs and FA limited lenses. I hate to sell my EOS mount Tamron 24-70 VC lens though. It is a gem but it has to go as well.
Anastigmat: That is unexpected. I read that Sony had signed agreements to supply COMS sensors to Hasselblad and Phase One exclusively for 1 year. If the 645D with CMOS sensor is scheduled for spring release, it may be a money maker for Pentax, since the Hass and the Phase One are so darn expensive. Would like to see a mirrorless 645D in the future though All Pentax needs to make existing lenses compatible is to add an extensive tube of the appropriate length.
If it is indeed the same sensor, then Pentax has a major cost advantage. They have enough lenses to get going and introduce more as the market demand builds up.I would not want to be a Hassy or Phase executive when the Pentax 645 ships. The cost gap will be too much and almost impossible to close. Can you imagine Hassy and Phase discounted to 30% of the original price just to compete.All of this is of course dependent on Pentax delivering and at the $10K price.We have to wait and see.
Gaëtan Lehmann: Tilt screen! Pro don't want tilt screen!That and the touch screen from phase One...all these medium format makers have gone crazy ;-)
Anastigmat, Your point is right on. I was wondering why a tilt screen in a medium format. Your explanation makes total sense.
BNapa: D's30% for the photographer sucks. That is true. But do you know how hard it is to market directly to the marketplace.1. You better have spectacular photos2. You need a web site to show the stuff3. You have to create and manage the contracts4. You have to have a web site that is capabale of commerce5. You have to get the word out as in all the marketing work.6. You are going to fight the fact that you are an unknown and anyone who has the money to license your work will be hesitant to work with an unknow (rightfully so) photographer7. You have to secure your site, e-commerce from hackets... and the list goes on. So you see, it is not that easy to go direct.I know because I have tried.In 2003, I came up with the idea, photographed, designed and did limited print run of 2,500 copies of an oversized B&W calendar. By the time I paid all the vultures and ate the cost of all the unsold copies, I came up on the loosing end big time. And this was for a calendar which everyone thought was an Ansel Adams calendar. I identified local retailers, presented to store managers and got them to agree that it was going to sell like hot cakes only to be overridden by a jerk out of New York who killed the idea because hedid not Iinitiate it. So I ended up dealing with Borders and Barnes and Nobles of the world. Sure they gave me my 35% but wait, out of that I had to take out the cost of printing, shipoing the inventory to them, pay for shipping back to me what did not sell. And the time it took to creat the work. Lets not go there.As I said, it is not easy to go direct.The biggest lesson (albit an expensive one) I learned was that it is all about distribution not the work. That is why you see so much sub standard work (at least in calendars) out there. The are crappy photos printed for pennies in China and on the shelves where you are going to make money.
AbrasiveReducer,You have an excellent point. My calendar did go through price reduction and the works. But at the end of the day it is a calendar and it is a dated material. So, it has to come off the shelves.My point was that going direct has its perils. In the case of calendars, there is no chance of selling direct. I tried and got shot down.I have been a photographer all of my adult life and then some. I have also been involved with consumer goods and the retail world. In either case, art or hard goods, it is about distribution. Being on the shelves or being in front of the intended audience can make or break you.So these guys take a lions share of the money. At least you get to be seen by the masses who might buy your stuff.As much as I hate the thought, I must agree with another poster that 30% of something is better than 100% of nothing.The artist in me says do not sell out. The bean counter in me says sells, sell, sell at any cost!
D's30% for the photographer sucks. That is true. But do you know how hard it is to market directly to the marketplace.1. You better have spectacular photos2. You need a web site to show the stuff3. You have to create and manage the contracts4. You have to have a web site that is capabale of commerce5. You have to get the word out as in all the marketing work.6. You are going to fight the fact that you are an unknown and anyone who has the money to license your work will be hesitant to work with an unknow (rightfully so) photographer7. You have to secure your site, e-commerce from hackets... and the list goes on. So you see, it is not that easy to go direct.I know because I have tried.In 2003, I came up with the idea, photographed, designed and did limited print run of 2,500 copies of an oversized B&W calendar. By the time I paid all the vultures and ate the cost of all the unsold copies, I came up on the loosing end big time. And this was for a calendar which everyone thought was an Ansel Adams calendar. I identified local retailers, presented to store managers and got them to agree that it was going to sell like hot cakes only to be overridden by a jerk out of New York who killed the idea because hedid not Iinitiate it. So I ended up dealing with Borders and Barnes and Nobles of the world. Sure they gave me my 35% but wait, out of that I had to take out the cost of printing, shipoing the inventory to them, pay for shipping back to me what did not sell. And the time it took to creat the work. Lets not go there.As I said, it is not easy to go direct.The biggest lesson (albit an expensive one) I learned was that it is all about distribution not the work. That is why you see so much sub standard work (at least in calendars) out there. The are crappy photos printed for pennies in China and on the shelves where you are going to make money.
waxwaine: Seems that 135mm, aka FF, is not Nirvana anymore, ha?
waxwaine, you are right.
With Pentax K3 looking so good and Fuji kicking butt with their APS-c offerings, I guess full-frame may not be a big deal anymore.
I have a Canon 6D and a the Pentax K5IIs. I shot a recent assignment using both. I cannot tell the difference in the images in terms of resolution. Although Pentax has better color. 6D has the edge in high ISO (above 3,200) though.
Donnie G: IMO, it would make no sense at all for Pentax to produce a 35mm based full frame camera when all they really need to do is keep polishing the capabilities of their excellent 645D medium format system. Sell to high end enthusiasts and pros at around $10,000 new, and leave it to the used camera market to acquaint other users, in particular, those who are thinking of investing in a 35mm FF model, with the image quality to be had from an affordable medium format system that handles as well as 35mm systems. In the Pentax world, leaping from APS-C straight to medium format could prove to be a competitive advantage that no other manufacturer can offer. Pentax just needs to get their 645D into as many hands as possible. Word of mouth will do the rest.
Anastigmat, you have two excellent points. I thought Pentax was always late to the party. They announced a full-frame a few years back when no one had one. But they never delivered it. Now as you said, it might be too late for an FF.
Pentax however, is in a unique position. They have APS-c DSLRs and a full fledged medium format. The key is that they are both competitive in term of quality in their respective spaces and "cheap" on top of that. Tell me they do not have a corner of the photography world that no one else is occupying. No wonder rumor mill has it that Canon is scrambling to get into the medium format world.
Hassy just took a Sony and re badged it to get into DSLRs. Albeit and expensive proposition.
I guess we have to wait and see. The game is just beginning to heat up.
BNapa: If they price the 645D around $10K, it is going to put a major dent in Hassy and Phase One business.
I for one would save up for it for my landscape work.
If Pentax does not botch this one up and takes advantage of the momentum of the K3 buzz and the all the lens intros, they are going to rule the MF and DSLR world.
Can you imagine Pentax coming back from the dead. I for one wrote them off a couple of years ago based on their pathetic presence at WPPI, and their poor showing or lack of existence in any photo related shows.
Now they are back with a vengeance... Go Pentax!
Anastigmat, you have a point as far as pros go and the fact that they can afford a Hassy.
I am talking about the masses of Canon and Nikon and Sony owners that cough up $6,7 or 8K for a body to get a maximum of a 36MP sensor. The Pentax with a 50MP 645 can scoop those guys up which is the "mass market." Hassy will always have its niche fan and user base. Pentax 645 at $20k to include three decent lenses can easily justify its existence against a Hassy of the same specs reaching $50k+ price range.
What lenses do you need for landscape, studio product and portrait work? A wide angle, a normal and a tele or macro lens. If you had a couple of decent zooms, that would be a bonus.
I am going to see the camera at WPPI in a few weeks and check it out for myself. I have tried the current Pentax 645D. It is a clunker compared to any DSLR. But for pure image quality, it is in a different league. With the new camera, they have upped the ante.
If they price the 645D around $10K, it is going to put a major dent in Hassy and Phase One business.
tommy leong: very NICEi just love Pentax cameras
I agree. We "NEED" more cameras!!
Absolutely spectacular. WOW...WOW...WOW. This is so surreal. It is hard to describe. I would love a print. Is this at Ding Darling?
nikos aikaterinis: Same as EOS M1.....
As long as it is produces a clean image past ISO 3200, I do not care if it does not pack a lot of MP.
7D's sensor which I owned two, was useless past ISO 1600. I hear the M sensor is derived from 7D's sensor with better high ISO performance. If so, I am game for one.
I will take clean 18MP sensor over mushy and noisy 24 or 36MP sensor any day.