Abrak

Joined on Sep 29, 2010

Comments

Total: 55, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

I find the whole concept of a 'lifelogging' camera with a '3 hour battery life' rather amusing....

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2018 at 04:23 UTC as 13th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

RMGoodLight: I enjoyed the read and think the author made very thoughtful points about using Unsplashed and social media for photography work. The www is changing and will keep changing and will keep influencing the real world like photographers and their work.

The author pointed out how Unsplash can help you to reach a wider audience. And thats the point. Nobody can force you to give away anything for free. You can do it or you can ignore Unsplashed all the way. Does Unsplash "hurt the photo industry"? Possibly but it helps the industy too. Its like a discussion of free software, apps and complete OS hurting software developing companies and freelancers. The world keeps changing and people will give away things for free (apps, literature, cloth, artworks, photos, graffiti...).

Actual, unsplash.com doesnt help you reach a wider audience. The 'views' arent real and the downloads arent real - it is just the author doesnt know it.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2018 at 12:16 UTC
In reply to:

Abrak: As an aside, I rather question how unsplash.com is 'calculating' the views one receives. Again taking the Op's stats, he says that his photos receive on average 677,000 views a day (I average 40,000 with my token contribution.)

However if you go to this link....
https://www.yourwebsitevalue.com/site/unsplash.com.html

You will find the entire unsplash website only generates 387,000 'daily page views'.

This makes an interesting read - https://www.wired.com/2017/05/unsplash-api/

To quote 'The company (unsplash.com) just made its primary developer tool available to everyone for free. The tool, called an API, allows anyone to write a program capable of downloading photos from Unsplash. This spares designers, developers, and others the tedium of browsing the website and downloading images individually. They can just write a bit of code to download whatever they need.'

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2018 at 03:41 UTC
In reply to:

Abrak: As an aside, I rather question how unsplash.com is 'calculating' the views one receives. Again taking the Op's stats, he says that his photos receive on average 677,000 views a day (I average 40,000 with my token contribution.)

However if you go to this link....
https://www.yourwebsitevalue.com/site/unsplash.com.html

You will find the entire unsplash website only generates 387,000 'daily page views'.

@georgiew If you go to the main 'unsplash.com' web page you will find it is labelled 'new' but it is impossible to get to the bottom of it. My guess is that every photo uploaded is posted there and so everytime, anyone goes to the main page every photo from every photographer gets a 'view'. The reason I think this is that my oldest photo (3 months old) seems to gain 'views' just as fast each day as a new photo I post.

I also suspect that people (especially the 'sell high res photos as wallpaper' sites have written scripts to 'download' photos automatically.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2018 at 03:10 UTC
In reply to:

Abrak: I joined unsplash.com about 3 months ago and have uploaded 8 photos. It is certainly true that you get decent exposure. In that time, I have had about 4 million views and 40,000 downloads. Quite exciting right?

But it isnt all good news. Look at the Op's stats above 1.8m downloads of his photos and 43,000 'likes' a ratio (of 1 like (free token of appreciation) for every 40 downloads of a high resolution photo. (My ratio is the same 1,100 likes for 43,000 downloads.)

And I have precisely zero in the way of interaction. I have never seen that my photo has been given a credit (and watermarks are not allowed) and never received an email. What I do find is that the photos are posted a lot on instagram (often with the implication that the poster took it themself) or as part of a 'photos from around the world' feed as well as used by people attempting to sell high res wallpapers.

None of this really bothers me, though - I like seeing my views tick up.

https://unsplash.com/@robbie36

@AlanG Actually my assumption is more along the lines, that as my photos are now valued as 'a pat on the back' their value has increased rather than been 'reduced'.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2018 at 02:12 UTC
In reply to:

Yake: How exactly does Unsplash pay their bills and how long will it be around?

"The images I share on Unsplash don’t lose value...." Of course, it's hard to lose value when they start at zero value. Can't get lower than zero, right?

I would have thought having a database of over 400,000 high res photos (which is continuing to grow) and which can be used for commercial purposes will be something that unsplash.com can monetize.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2018 at 02:08 UTC

As an aside, I rather question how unsplash.com is 'calculating' the views one receives. Again taking the Op's stats, he says that his photos receive on average 677,000 views a day (I average 40,000 with my token contribution.)

However if you go to this link....
https://www.yourwebsitevalue.com/site/unsplash.com.html

You will find the entire unsplash website only generates 387,000 'daily page views'.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2018 at 01:06 UTC as 114th comment | 8 replies

I joined unsplash.com about 3 months ago and have uploaded 8 photos. It is certainly true that you get decent exposure. In that time, I have had about 4 million views and 40,000 downloads. Quite exciting right?

But it isnt all good news. Look at the Op's stats above 1.8m downloads of his photos and 43,000 'likes' a ratio (of 1 like (free token of appreciation) for every 40 downloads of a high resolution photo. (My ratio is the same 1,100 likes for 43,000 downloads.)

And I have precisely zero in the way of interaction. I have never seen that my photo has been given a credit (and watermarks are not allowed) and never received an email. What I do find is that the photos are posted a lot on instagram (often with the implication that the poster took it themself) or as part of a 'photos from around the world' feed as well as used by people attempting to sell high res wallpapers.

None of this really bothers me, though - I like seeing my views tick up.

https://unsplash.com/@robbie36

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2018 at 00:50 UTC as 117th comment | 7 replies

65mb/s speed of transfer? Not exactly SSD is it?

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2018 at 00:22 UTC as 22nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: I guess everyone wants to know the price. My friend got the Zhiyun Crane for her Sony A6300. It works very well. Currently it sells on Amazon for $550, so if the DJI is comparatively priced, that will be sweet.

The Feiyutech a1000 which is great for the Sony a6300 can be bought for just under US$400.

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2018 at 03:09 UTC
On article Our favorite gear, rewarded: DPReview Awards 2017 (526 comments in total)
In reply to:

bowserb: Looks to me like the nominations were designed to assure that all advertisers were represented. As proof, two Canon mirrorless cameras were nominated, neither of which has an eye level viewfinder. Honestly, how can an enthusiast forum ever take seriously a camera than can only be used in "dirty diaper" style. Worthless in the sun or for moving subjects.

I'm long disappointed in Canon and will not buy another until the company catches up to 2010 mirrorless technology. I'm only now disappointed in DPReview, even though I understand cowtowing to advertisers. Ad revenue rules, but when you honor the likes of the M6 and M100, you dishonor yourself, DPReview.

Mirrorless cameras without EVFs are very popular in parts of the world especially Japan. And the EOS M100 is the only mirrorless to come in at sub US$500 with lens. In the 'entry level ILC' that should count for a lot. The EM10 mkiii is too expensive to be considered 'entry level' in my book.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 01:27 UTC
On article Our favorite gear, rewarded: DPReview Awards 2017 (526 comments in total)
In reply to:

havoc315: Kinda nice validation having recently purchased 4 of the winners...Godox flash, A7riii, Sony 85/1.8 and 12-24

Good to see Godox on the list. IMHO they have revolutionized consumer flash in terms of features, innovation, compatibility and product range over the last couple of years.

I see it as some validation of Sony's improving lens line up in that they have 3 lenses shortlisted and I didnt buy any of them as I have very good alternatives already.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 01:18 UTC
On article Nikon D850 vs Sony a7R III: Which is best? (1079 comments in total)
In reply to:

Suntan: In my book, cameras come in two sizes and weights. Ones that can fit in your pocket, and ones that need to be carried in their own bag.

In this regard, the size and weight of these two cameras is pretty much the same.

In Asia, all us men have manbags. Big enough for a mirrorless but not really large enough for a D850.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 23:31 UTC
On article Nikon D850 vs Sony a7R III: Which is best? (1079 comments in total)
In reply to:

xPhoenix: Wow, that picture really demonstrates the size difference between those bodies.

@Nextlupus Unless you attach a small prime in which case the Nikon looks unwieldly and unbalanced

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2017 at 23:27 UTC
On article These are the best cameras you can buy right now (476 comments in total)
In reply to:

tkbslc: I'm continually shocked that Canon M series keeps making DPR's best of lists. They have the worst specs list, lens selection and sensors of any current mirrorless product.

The simple fact is that the Canon M100 retails for just under US$500 with a kit lens. Cameras from Oly, Pana, Fuji and Sony dont come close to matching that price point. So it pretty much deserves to be in the list from price point alone. Admittedly I would choose a secondhand M43 at that price point instead.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2017 at 03:50 UTC
On article Gear of the Year 2017 - Richard's choice: Sony NP-FZ100 (246 comments in total)

Sony pulled off a very neat trick with this battery. Battery-wise, Sony users fell into 2 Groups - those that didnt want a bigger battery because they didnt want a bigger camera and those who wanted a bigger batter necause the 'needed' longer battery life. Sony satisfied both Groups by increasing battery life without a sizable increase in the battery or camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 01:56 UTC as 31st comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Photo Pete: Try taking some images of a busy, tree lined street on a windy day and see how that veil comes back down again.

Strange how that problem was just briefly mentioned in this glowing Sony review but was made the focus of a whole article for the Panasonic G9.

Presumably you can brush in anything moving (say a flag) from a single image in the stack.....

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2017 at 04:01 UTC
In reply to:

Terrible Photographer: I get that this is technically news, but who cares (or shoots with) an EOS M?

Well the Japanese for starters. 2 out of the top 20 best selling cameras (DSLR and mirrorless) in Japan during July were variations of the EOS M10. My guess is whatever camera you shoot with didnt get a mention.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2017 at 04:46 UTC

This camera wont do well in the US - due to the lack of EVF. It looks squarely aimed at the Asian market (particularly Japan) where I suspect it will sell really well.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2017 at 04:41 UTC as 175th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

dialstatic: Yeah I don't buy this at all. It takes some serious imagination to see the lines in the photo's coincide with his weird star shape thingy - to the point where I'm convinced I could draw arbitrary lines and make the same video.

He makes some good general points about composition that are unrelated to his 1:5 ratio thing (regarding contrast and stance), but in terms of geometry I really see nothing that can't be explained by the rule of thirds he hates so much, and simple corner to corner diagonals. It's all a bit esoteric to me.

And the part where he centers Cartier-Bresson's tree picture using content aware fill is just near sacrilegious ;-)

The reason many people hate the 'rule of thirds' (which is a relatively modern concept) is because it is 'non-dynamic' by virtue of being made up of horizantal and vertical lines. Dynamic symmetry is about the symmetrical relationship of diagonals.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2017 at 10:23 UTC
Total: 55, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »