Peter K Burian

Peter K Burian

Lives in Canada Toronto, Canada
Works as a Photographer, RETIRED writer, editor
Joined on Feb 11, 2002
About me:

Stock photographer; Retired now (formerly, Contributing Editor to PHOTO LIFE, PhotoNEWS, and Australian Photography magazine).

Also, Author of Magic Lantern books about Sony and Pentax DSLRs (but I test all brands of products for the magazines.) Co-author of some David Busch Guides as well.

www.peterkburian.com

Comments

Total: 270, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Peter K Burian: BAD EXPERIENCE WITH GETTY: Recently, 500px gave Getty rights to sell images from the 500px catalog. I agreed to allow that for my Royalty Free images https://500px.com/peterkburian . BAD IDEA ... they made three sales recently. My commission was under $1 for two of them, and under $2 for the third one.
I asked 500px about that; they said that high volume Getty clients get low prices and do NOT pay the minimum of $50 per image. I have removed the OK TO SELL feature from my images but it takes a couple of months for that to be effective. Such is life.

Some Getty Web sites show even higher prices for Royalty Free images, but that is not true for high volume buyers. If it were, I would not be getting pennies per sale. his Getty page claims that LOW res Royalty Free images start at $175. https://www.gettyimages.ca/plans-and-pricing

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2019 at 16:04 UTC
In reply to:

KAllen: It would please me no end if Getty disappeared up its own backside. Mind you not entirely their fault.
If photographers are so stupid to value their images at a few cents, who can blame them. While there are so many dumb camera jockeys around that think a few cents is better than nothing it can only get worse.

This Getty page claims that LOW res Royalty Free images start at $175. https://www.gettyimages.ca/plans-and-pricing Another one says $50. If that were actually true, I would be getting more than $1 per sale.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2019 at 15:54 UTC
In reply to:

KAllen: It would please me no end if Getty disappeared up its own backside. Mind you not entirely their fault.
If photographers are so stupid to value their images at a few cents, who can blame them. While there are so many dumb camera jockeys around that think a few cents is better than nothing it can only get worse.

I do NOT value my images at a few cents. The Getty Web site claims that the minimum price for a LOW res Royalty Free Image is $50...and much, much higher if a buyer wants HIGH res.

So, why am I getting under a dollar? (For my 500px images that Getty was able to sell https://500px.com/peterkburian ) The reply from 500px:

"As I have stated, our distributors have the right to set their prices. While the list price is $50 that doesn't always mean that that is what the sale price will be. It depends on what that the client wants to pay for the photo, and they also might request large volumes of the photo which also changes the price.
I understand your position and if you would like to not license your photos anymore, you will have to disable licensing from your settings."

I have disabled licensing now.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2019 at 15:50 UTC

BAD EXPERIENCE WITH GETTY: Recently, 500px gave Getty rights to sell images from the 500px catalog. I agreed to allow that for my Royalty Free images https://500px.com/peterkburian . BAD IDEA ... they made three sales recently. My commission was under $1 for two of them, and under $2 for the third one.
I asked 500px about that; they said that high volume Getty clients get low prices and do NOT pay the minimum of $50 per image. I have removed the OK TO SELL feature from my images but it takes a couple of months for that to be effective. Such is life.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2019 at 15:35 UTC as 6th comment | 1 reply

Yeah and the sales of buggy whips and lightning rods will also increase. or not ....

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2018 at 21:11 UTC as 79th comment
In reply to:

taktak91: It was a system with everything but the right answer. Sensor too small to be taken seriously by enthusiasts, and priced way above what entry users expected. It was welcomed by no one.

AND it came out too late... by then, Sony, Panasonic and Olympus had made major strides in their system: great recognition of the brands, lots of lenses AND larger sensors.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 20:55 UTC
In reply to:

miksto: For those who conceitedly believe that Mac OS X is more secure should look at US government's National Vulnerability Database where Mac OS X reigns supreme as having by far the most vulnerabilities - roughly 4-5 times more than different recent versions of Windows. So Mac OS X is most vulnerable to security violations OS.

Same database shows that Apple's mobile OS - iOS - is second most vulnerable.

For those Linux boys who believe Linux is more secure they should think again as the same database shows Linux core is only second to Mac OS X on having most vulnerabilities among laptop/desktop OSes.

Windows is most secure OS despite being most popular on laptops/desktops. The tide has turned around 2012-2013 - prior to that Windows used to have more vulnerabilities than Mac OS X which was still not bad for Windows given how much more popular it is compared to 3.49% market share that Mac OS X holds.

Well, I do use malware and virus detection software with my Windows PC and would recommend that to everyone. I have never had a problem. Of course, I do get warnings from the software but it does not allow a virus of malware to actually enter my PC.

Windows is secure enough? Not in my view. Windows 8 and later includes a Malicious Software Removal Tool but I have never needed it because the anti-virus and anti-malware software *prevents* the need to use a removal tool.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 15:22 UTC

Well, I have been using a Windows PC forever and have no problems with crashing etc. when I use Photoshop CC.

I do have the touchscreen option with Windows but never, ever use it.

What exactly does this mean? That you need to buy an adapter to connect a USB card reader, for example? "2.Ports – The new MacBook Pros have been lambasted for their lack of ports, and Manny doesn't hold back either. The dongle life is not for him."

If it is that simple, why would anyone complain about the need to use an adapter?? Heck, if you pay $1000 more for a Mac vs. Windows computer, who cares about a few extra dollars for an adapter?

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 15:17 UTC as 8th comment
On article SanDisk 1TB SDXC card prototype unveiled at Photokina (107 comments in total)

btw, the Extreme cards are very rugged but with one potential problem. I have had two such cards now where the little lock/unlock switch on the side of the card has broken off.

Did I step on them or something? Nope. No idea why this happened.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 13:40 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
On article SanDisk 1TB SDXC card prototype unveiled at Photokina (107 comments in total)

Do 99% of us need this much capacity?? Or is this a Solution looking for a problem?

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2016 at 13:37 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

(unknown member): I thought Audun Rikardsen's photo wasn't real until I read the blurb beneath. Simply superb!

What blurb under it do you mean? It's hard to believe the orca whale just happened to be there.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2016 at 19:26 UTC
In reply to:

RonHendriks: One thing is for sure. The total sales of images for this Olympics will be a lot less then for the 2012 London Olympics. Less magazines and news papers have survived over the past 4 years.

True and the on-line magazines pay peanuts for the use of photos.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 01:21 UTC
In reply to:

George Zip: Getty really should give me a job.

Really? You would not get all those cameras, and for $300 you could rent one of those big lenses.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 01:15 UTC
In reply to:

Markie77: In my opinion (and I may be wrong) National Geographic magazine today is just another starving magazine that is barely scraping by. Nobody buys magazines anymore, the magazine in its current state is mostly pretty pictures with hardly any written content, in addition to that, the images are over processed and don't reflect reality. Even people who appreciate good photography don't buy the magazine anymore, because reality and the internet is where it's at. How the magazine manipulated their images 30 years ago is irrelevant, and what they do today is irrelevant, because their audience today is very tiny and continually shrinking. This generation's attention is currently focused on facebook, buzzfeed, twitter and snapchat, they don't care or have the patience to appreciate artsy manipulated reportage photos from 'masters' either from 30 years ago or from today.
To sum up, how they search for altered photographs is about as relevant as what brand of coffee they drink at their offices.

Newer info from Wikipedia (with info from The Washington Post) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geographic_(magazine)

"As of 2015, the magazine was circulated worldwide in nearly 40 local-language editions and had a global circulation of approximately 6.5 million per month according to data published by The Washington Post (down from about 12 million in the late 1980s) or 6.7 million according to National Geographic. This includes a US circulation of 3.5 million."

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 17:10 UTC
In reply to:

Markie77: In my opinion (and I may be wrong) National Geographic magazine today is just another starving magazine that is barely scraping by. Nobody buys magazines anymore, the magazine in its current state is mostly pretty pictures with hardly any written content, in addition to that, the images are over processed and don't reflect reality. Even people who appreciate good photography don't buy the magazine anymore, because reality and the internet is where it's at. How the magazine manipulated their images 30 years ago is irrelevant, and what they do today is irrelevant, because their audience today is very tiny and continually shrinking. This generation's attention is currently focused on facebook, buzzfeed, twitter and snapchat, they don't care or have the patience to appreciate artsy manipulated reportage photos from 'masters' either from 30 years ago or from today.
To sum up, how they search for altered photographs is about as relevant as what brand of coffee they drink at their offices.

You're partly right: many people no longer buy magazines. But it's not fair to say "nobody" does. I do, for example and National Geographic still sells numerous copies each month.

In fact, they sell roughly 3.1 million copies per month, in the US alone, according to a spring 2015 audit. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/mediakit/pdf/ng-magazine/NGM_Media_Kit_2016.pdf

And another 3 million in foreign languages https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/national-geographic-magazine-shifts-to-for-profit-status-with-fox-partnership/2015/09/09/7c9f034e-56f0-11e5-8bb1-b488d231bba2_story.html

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 16:42 UTC

It's important to note that some photography is for purposes of art (pictorial) and that may be totally impressionistic. If so, any modifications in software are fine. (Just as a painter does not necessarily strive to produce an exact replica of a scene.)

Of course, when it's photo journalism - to illustrate an event or scene - it must be true to the original. We have a right to expect the New York Times, Washington Post, National Geographic, etc. to publish only such truly accurate images. But those who do not shoot for such purposes should not be bound by those constraints.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 16:29 UTC as 6th comment

Yeah! I never did understand why they would spend so much money on such a concept. I did test an early version and it was definitely Not Ready for Prime Time ... apparently, newer models were not either.

This was NOT the proverbial "better mousetrap".

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2016 at 14:54 UTC as 16th comment
On article Top 5: Hands-on with Nikon D500 (770 comments in total)

The XQD memory cards have been around for a while but very, very few cameras accept them. Unless that changes -- and soon -- this card format will be another one that is obsolete.

I have a memory card reader that accepts many types of cards but not XQD. So that is another drawback; would need a new card reader.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2016 at 14:32 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
On article Nikon D5 real-world low light, high ISO samples (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

bernardly: DPR should be going to the Olympics with the Nikon D5 and Canon 1DX Mark ll for the ultimate real world head to head challenge. So DPR, are you up to it?

They could not get a press pass.

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2016 at 13:10 UTC

They should be smaller and pocketable? Well, that aspect is already taken care of by cell phone cameras. .... Camera makers won't even try to compete with those, so larger, more versatile and capable of much better image quality makes sense as the development goal.

btw, we were on a Caribbean cruise with 2900 other people recently. We went ashore on islands and I watched to see what kind of camera they were using. Some days, I did not see a single person with a DSLR. Overall, I would say that 90% were using cell phone or iPad cameras. It was almost surprising to see a real camera in use ....... Scary for the industry.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2016 at 12:48 UTC as 26th comment | 2 replies
Total: 270, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »