Reading mode: Light Dark

Why didn't Microsoft use pro's work?

Go to last post
On some of the images at the flicker links there are comments from different (pro) photographers. Many of the comments end in 321. Some write it 321, some 3-2-1 and some 3.2.1

Is this some sort of code?

-Najinsky
 
I've seen shots from "pros" that are rather sad - my daughter's softball team picture last year, for example - backdrop is cut off in the bottom of the frame, lighting that didn't cover the entire shot, out of focus, etc.

And I've seen amateurs who generate phenomenal work. I don't doubt that some of the poster here could sell work if they wanted to.

No doubt the "average" pro is immensely more talented than the "average" amateur, but there is also certainly overlap. The design firm that was engaged my MS was probably looking for the best skills and images, and didn't worry about a label.
 
I'm glad to see a follow Kuwaiti do such amazing work.

but i'm sad that he's one year older than me and done so much while i'm still stuck at no where :p
 
Technically, being paid would make him a pro, but my own opinion is that a "professional photographer" should be defined someone who derives a non-trivial portion of his regular income from photography. I've had more than five of my photos published, and I don't consider myself a pro by any means. (Although, I admit, none will have near the exposure that even one of his will...)

My day job is still engineering, and that's still what pays the bills. All said and done, the photos I've sold have just about paid for my gear over the years, but not the thousands of hours and thousands of gallons of gas that have gone into making those images (and hundreds of thousands more). It's still just a hobby for me - one with a very negative cash flow.
 
Kai Hui said:
http://www.istartedsomething.com/20070203/interview-hamad-darwish/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/darwishh/111246412/

I am sure Microsoft can afford a lot of money, but it seem it
doesn't choose a professional photographer for their desktop
wallpaper. Why?
Click to expand...
I use wallpaper from an amatuer all the time - me! ;> )
Kai Hui said:
Maybe pros are not not any better than amateurs.
Click to expand...
My guess is the price was a lot better. Imagine what a pro would charge for millions of copies of Windows shipping with their photo. Then multiply that by each photo. The amatuers probably gave the photo for free or accepted a lot less money than a pro would. Besides, there are a lot of great photos by amatuers out there; many as good as any pro could do. The main difference between a pro and a good amatuer is the pro has a lot more time to get good photos.
Kai Hui said:
BTW, the guy uses 20D.

Kai
Click to expand...
--
Greg
http://www.pictureroanoke.com

The hardest thing a person has to do is live by their own words. - Me 2006
 
I almost worked for a photo mill where a "lead" would setup the props, background, and lights at sporting events, and then the rest of button-pressing-monkeys (me) would get paid minimum wage to mash the shutter button, with aperture and shutter speed all pre-selected by the "lead" photographer.

If that's your vision of a "professional," re-evaluate that image. They also work on yearbook photos.

--
All you need in life is photoshop and photo mechanic.
 
everyone can have their own wallpaper of their kids or places they've been. Click on any photo and instantly make it your wall paper.
 
For specialties such as wedding photography, professionalism (i.e. professional appearance and experience) is important in the marketing.

But for areas such as stock photography and in this case, Microsoft's Vista wallpapers, it all boils down to who produces the best images. In this case, Microsoft considered Hamad's work suitable for its uses.
 
simple bright colors, great clarity (the vista marketing theme) in technical execution and ideas. no wonder he was chosen. if only this talent would turn pro
 
I'm surprised they just didn't directly steal photos posted by someone. That's what they do to Apple with Windows.

:D

Frank
 
Microsoft would rather get something for free from an amateur that is glossy-eyed about "giving" their imagery to MS. A true professional would license their work to MS. MS isn't in the business of paying money to anyone for anything. And they certainly don't want to be bothered by restrictive legal agreements as stipulated by a pro photographer.

MS is in the business of having people pay them, and MS gets to tell them what they can do, not the other way around.

--

'In 1983, the game of golf had a firm grip on the waist of my boxers and was administering the death wedgie. I had a dose of the atomic yips and after missing 10 of 11 cuts by a single shot, I was ready to quit and apply for a job as a wringer-outer for a one-armed window cleaner.'
  • David Feherty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top