primeshooter

primeshooter

Lives in United Kingdom Scotland, United Kingdom
Joined on Jun 13, 2012

Comments

Total: 100, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

primeshooter: As someone that has produced stock photography for years with some of the big players, it is frustrating to see a lot of people giving their product away; as Zack rightly said this is truly a race to the bottom. Big corporations etc really see these people coming. Big woop if you got printed in a newspaper / used in a magazine with your name next to it and did not get paid. You got worked over! It is amusing to see on the unsplash site the part about you do not have to credit the photographer but we like it if you do. Photographers that are on their giving away their stuff; have no illusions it's not going to magically turn into paid work etc. If you are good at something; never do it for free.

Teila I wasn't responding to what you said. I agreed with you. Many stock guys, (myself included) are out taking those shots anyway. Stock just gives them another revenue stream.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2018 at 18:00 UTC
In reply to:

primeshooter: As someone that has produced stock photography for years with some of the big players, it is frustrating to see a lot of people giving their product away; as Zack rightly said this is truly a race to the bottom. Big corporations etc really see these people coming. Big woop if you got printed in a newspaper / used in a magazine with your name next to it and did not get paid. You got worked over! It is amusing to see on the unsplash site the part about you do not have to credit the photographer but we like it if you do. Photographers that are on their giving away their stuff; have no illusions it's not going to magically turn into paid work etc. If you are good at something; never do it for free.

Many shooting stock are doing just that, yes.
Work for free if you want, big business likes that sort of thing.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2018 at 21:41 UTC
In reply to:

primeshooter: As someone that has produced stock photography for years with some of the big players, it is frustrating to see a lot of people giving their product away; as Zack rightly said this is truly a race to the bottom. Big corporations etc really see these people coming. Big woop if you got printed in a newspaper / used in a magazine with your name next to it and did not get paid. You got worked over! It is amusing to see on the unsplash site the part about you do not have to credit the photographer but we like it if you do. Photographers that are on their giving away their stuff; have no illusions it's not going to magically turn into paid work etc. If you are good at something; never do it for free.

(Cont...) You have the opposite end of the spectrum on unsplash; from what I have seen so far clients are not able to get releases, the photographers there do not even understand nor have even heard of model releases. The clients I am dealing with will not be risking litigation on a couple hundred pounds for something they actually use and require.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 13:13 UTC
In reply to:

primeshooter: As someone that has produced stock photography for years with some of the big players, it is frustrating to see a lot of people giving their product away; as Zack rightly said this is truly a race to the bottom. Big corporations etc really see these people coming. Big woop if you got printed in a newspaper / used in a magazine with your name next to it and did not get paid. You got worked over! It is amusing to see on the unsplash site the part about you do not have to credit the photographer but we like it if you do. Photographers that are on their giving away their stuff; have no illusions it's not going to magically turn into paid work etc. If you are good at something; never do it for free.

Teila Day, thanks for commenting. I sell a variety of images every month, many just require low resolution for web use and are priced accordingly. I also make singular sales that amount to up to and over $485 (pounds - sign isn't working on this keyboard). These are for ultra resolution and with extended rights to use them in more places and more freely. And rightly so it should cost more, there will always be a place of stuff like this, but the market is tightening up, more competition. So no, I do not agree that $400 or whatever is out of place in today's market. I've had images bought by large conglomerates and you can believe they get their money's worth, I will not be working for free I can assure you!

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 13:08 UTC
In reply to:

Mark Turney: I’m perfectly ok with anyone using my images for anything EXCEPT COMMERCIAL USE. Once an entity uses something that I created for making themselves an income, then I want to be compensated.

Think of it this way: would you share food with someone? Most of us would. No issues if they’re hungry and we have the means. But if they turned around and sold the food for a profit, that’s WRONG.

I think this is fair point Mark. But with unsplash that is not how it's going to play out. You are going to get commercial use, and the photographer will rarely if ever be compensated IMO.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 12:56 UTC
In reply to:

Ian: As a part-time pro, I'm seeing the impact of Unsplash in terms of getting less work. Even the niche and specialized stuff I shoot is starting to appear on Unsplash. I had thought it was reasonably safe, but apparently not. I fear it's going to be rough road ahead for full-time photographers.

It does remind one of the Napster days, but I fear people won't see the value of paying for photos. Not everyone can record music, but EVERYONE is a photographer, or a professional photographer as Yahoo's Marissa Mayer told us. If you (believe) can do something yourself, it's hard to justify paying someone else.

In a world where likes and followers are considered currency, why should any of us be surprised, though?

Slightly more complex issues arise with stock photography sites like unsplash. I know many of my clients could not use that website. They need properly released models; without the fear of a lawsuit down the line. As Zack goes over in the video, he had a very bad experience trying to get released models from the site, which means they simply cannot be used commercially without a potential lawsuit down the line.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2018 at 12:55 UTC
In reply to:

primeshooter: Looks like it was shot on an iphone too. Unlimited depth of field, doesn't look very cinematic to me.

It's one of the things that gives video a cinematic feel though, that's the point.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2018 at 15:25 UTC

Looks like it was shot on an iphone too. Unlimited depth of field, doesn't look very cinematic to me.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2018 at 08:46 UTC as 61st comment | 2 replies

As someone that has produced stock photography for years with some of the big players, it is frustrating to see a lot of people giving their product away; as Zack rightly said this is truly a race to the bottom. Big corporations etc really see these people coming. Big woop if you got printed in a newspaper / used in a magazine with your name next to it and did not get paid. You got worked over! It is amusing to see on the unsplash site the part about you do not have to credit the photographer but we like it if you do. Photographers that are on their giving away their stuff; have no illusions it's not going to magically turn into paid work etc. If you are good at something; never do it for free.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2018 at 17:25 UTC as 54th comment | 15 replies

Can people please stop referring to mirrorless cameras as MILF. It's just...not right.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2018 at 22:17 UTC as 84th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

cosinaphile: insanely large and unwieldy that single stop beyond 2.8 is costly to your wallet and your back

still the lovely group portrait in the woods is a winner

Maybe it's all that protein in your reconstituted chicken balls?

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2018 at 12:22 UTC

"the sexiest camera and lens combo" he has ever held?

Perhaps focusing on the wrong things here. I do not know if anyone else feels similar but I am tiring of this constant hyperbole from these reviewers / ambassadors etc. The last post was some bloke that was "blown away" in every paragraph. Why is "BEAST" in capitals? Why does it matter the size or thickness of a lens? Is thicker better? Strikes me as new toy syndrome at it's worst,

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2018 at 21:40 UTC as 54th comment | 7 replies

I also don't remove CA. I've had plenty clients ask how I got the "cool purple glow". Possibly proof that some folks priorities are very misplaced when it comes to finding or taking a good picture. It's not about sharpness and CA removal!

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2017 at 21:02 UTC as 109th comment
In reply to:

Crypt Keeper: Was it a condition to win to show only sad faces?

Jezz....one can get depressed looking at these photos..

There is also beauty, happiness and joy in this world.

Such a bigot.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2017 at 20:16 UTC
In reply to:

Crypt Keeper: Was it a condition to win to show only sad faces?

Jezz....one can get depressed looking at these photos..

There is also beauty, happiness and joy in this world.

Im aware alot is not a word my phone groups a lot together. Again you fail to realise we can disagree regarding our opinions but with regards to the personal attacks; you are indeed a poor ambassador for Scotland.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2017 at 12:25 UTC
In reply to:

Crypt Keeper: Was it a condition to win to show only sad faces?

Jezz....one can get depressed looking at these photos..

There is also beauty, happiness and joy in this world.

Deal with the fact their are alot more moody faces in portrait galleries. Using a phone here and you're jumping in about some spelling. You seem to be intent on lowering yourself to slagging someone because of their location. Firstly mentioning a slur against Scottish people then going on about if they 'teach English up there'. I notice you haven't disclosed your location. You can attack my sentiment and disagree with me but it's the fact you lower yourself to personal insults and telling me my spelling is wrong; says a lot about you.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2017 at 09:08 UTC
In reply to:

Crypt Keeper: Was it a condition to win to show only sad faces?

Jezz....one can get depressed looking at these photos..

There is also beauty, happiness and joy in this world.

Badscience. Alot more moody faces in portrait gallery's. Deal with it.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 22:37 UTC
In reply to:

Tonkotsu Ramen: It's odd that camera buttons aren't lit up by default!

The lower end is getting slaughtered by phones and they're just starting to figure out back-lit buttons?

Yeh kinda like they forgot it's 2017. Same for nikon. This stuff should have been in there from the first dslr or at least the 2nd to 3rd gemersion.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 21:09 UTC
In reply to:

Crypt Keeper: Was it a condition to win to show only sad faces?

Jezz....one can get depressed looking at these photos..

There is also beauty, happiness and joy in this world.

Show me one really good world renouned portrait or painting where the main subject has a big cheesy grin...

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2017 at 21:07 UTC
On article Nikon D850 Review (2101 comments in total)
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: A few months ago DPR was up in arms about the inaccuracies of one of the mirrorless camera's autofocus (sorry don't remember which one) , but now they're back to hammering on the DSLR autofocus.
What are we going to do now that neither system is up to the challenges of 21st century resolution demands? What is the third way???

Exactly. I very much doubt it'll get anywhere near to the D5 or d850 AF systems ability with moving subjects or in low light. PS the umbrella shot is useabe. (To the poster below)

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 17:20 UTC
Total: 100, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »