RSS
 

Posts Tagged ‘opinion’

Getty Is An Insult To Photographers. Introducing Stocksy [OPINION]

27 Mar
BadwaterDV-L

Not Represented By Getty

I’ve never liked Getty. I’ve gotten through about 80% of the submission process on multiple occasions but could never convince myself to pull the trigger. Sure there are a select and very elite few that make their livings to this day on stock photography. But those photographers have been at this stock game a LOT longer than most of us. Every time I started to submit my work to Getty, I always stopped just short of hitting send. I couldn’t get past the thought of the 20% commission that I would receive for my work. This goes right along with the frustration of getting emails from companies, magazines and the like wanting to use my images for free in exchange for “credit and a link to my website.” But that’s a whole other article…

We as photographers spend an ungodly amount of money and time on our craft. We spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on camera bodies, lenses, CF cards, SD cards, camera backpacks, camera shoulder bags, straps, extra batteries, laptops, desktops, software, websites, hosting, training, workshops….the list goes on and on and on. We put in all this time and effort and then a company like Getty wants to pay us some slave labor wage of 20%. It’s nothing short of ridiculous. It’s insulting to photographers.

Thomas Hawk is a very well known photographer in the photo community. He’s one of the most followed photographers on Flickr, Google+ and Facebook. He’s also a very established stock photographer and has had his images licensed/represented by Getty for years now. Well, on Monday Thomas announced (very publicly) that he is quitting Getty and moving to Stocksy. You can read Thomas’ post at his website or over at PitaPixel.

In his article, Thomas goes over in detail much of what I talked about above. About how absurd it is that Getty is undercutting photographers so drastically. He then goes on to describe the culture behind Getty; how they excommunicate photographers who speak up and express their distaste for what it has become. One photographer who made much of his entire living from Getty recently got ‘fired’ and banned for voicing his opinion. Thomas points out that “At Stocksy; editors and management do Google+ hangouts with photographers. While at Getty all they seem to do is fight.”

So What Is Stocksy Already!?

Screen Shot 2013-03-25 at 4.20.47 PMStocksy could very well be the future of stock photography. Instead of a lousy and insulting 20% for all the hard work that goes in to making stock photographs, Stocksy is going to pay 50%. Right down the middle. You provide the work, they put it in front of buyers. This is fair. Would I like more than 50%? Um, yes. Who wouldn’t? But would I be happy with 50%? Yes.

Stocksy is also different in the way it’s run. The founder is none other than Bruce Livingstone, the founder of iStockPhoto who sold the company to Getty for $ 50 million (you can read more about that from this article on CNET). According to that article, Stocksy won’t be selling out to large companies like Getty. It doesn’t have a master plan of growing and selling. Livingstone says that Stocksy will be “more like a nonprofit. At the end of the year, we take all the profits and distribute them. We’re not lining our pockets with cash.” It will essentially be a stock agency run by photographers, for photographers.

Quality Control

Another way that Stocksy is different is the quality control aspect of it. Let’s face it, Getty pretty much opened the flood gates on Flickr and just about anyone with a camera and some decent images could begin touting that they’re “Represented By Getty.” Stocksy is, at least for now, taking a much different approach. Only letting in very high quality portfolios that meet the level of excellence that Stocksy wants to be known for. I think that’s awesome.

Conclusion

Like I said, Stocksy could very well be the future of stock photography. But it’s up to us, the photographers, to make sure that happens. Tell your friends, tell your parents, tell your web designer, your graphic designer, write a blog post, tell everyone. And for the record, I am not part of Stocksy. I submitted my portfolio to them yesterday and am crossing my fingers to make it through. I just think this is a great idea and would love nothing more than to see quality photographers flock from Getty and start getting what they deserve. I think this has been a long time coming.

Let me know what you think in the comments below or on Twitter. Follow me @jamesdbrandon.

Post originally from: Digital Photography Tips.

Check out our more Photography Tips at Photography Tips for Beginners, Portrait Photography Tips and Wedding Photography Tips.

Getty Is An Insult To Photographers. Introducing Stocksy [OPINION]


Digital Photography School

 
Comments Off on Getty Is An Insult To Photographers. Introducing Stocksy [OPINION]

Posted in Photography

 

OPINION: Why Photoshop is Ruining Landscape Photography

06 Mar

This opinion piece was contributed by Declan O’Neill from www.newzealandscape.com.

The winner of one of Britain’s most prestigious photographic competitions was stripped of his title recently because of excessive use of Photoshop. David Byrne was the winner of the Landscape Photographer of The Year award and a £10,000 ($ 16000) prize but has now had his title and prize money taken away in a surprise move by the organisers of the competition which is supported by Epson, The Sunday Times Magazine and The National Theatre.

607589 landscalandscape photographer of the yearpe photographer of the year

The dramatic reversal came about after other photographers pointed out that the image had been photoshoped to include clouds not in the original image. Other photographers pointed to the impossibility of the sun casting shadows in different directions.

Mr. Byrne defended his manipulation of the image by pointing out that altering images is hardly new. He was quoted by The Daily Mail as saying, ‘The purists out there were not happy. Messing about with pictures has been done for over 100 years. I treat my photography as art and I try to make the best looking picture.’

Those three sentences neatly define the battle lines which have been drawn over the digital manipulation of photographs.

First of all he seems to suggest that anyone who objects to manipulating images is a ‘purist’. It seems clear that ‘purist’ is not a compliment in this context. What this veiled insult fails to acknowledge is that many photographers do not object to using Photoshop to enhance photographs but they do object to its use in altering photographs.

The problem comes in defining when enhancement crosses a boundary into alteration. Removing power lines from a landscape is one thing. Changing the colour of the sky from grey to orange quite another. It isn’t as if there is any shortage of sunsets around to photograph and the joy of landscape photography is capturing the elusive, not manufacturing it with software. It’s no crime to create a sunset sky, it’s just rather sad that someone would need to do it when there is so much natural colour to photograph. How many times have you looked at a super saturated landscape photograph and known instinctively that it’s false? Yet we see these photographs constantly win awards in club and national competitions. Anyone who has studied the way sunlight paints the landscape from different angles knows how to capture the best colour without needing Photoshop. That’s what being out in the field teaches you. You learn how to use the light to maximum effect.

The second defence that Mr. Byrne advances is that photographers have been ‘messing about’ with photographs for a long time. His choice of words is both unfortunate and revealing. Photographers should respect their subject matter. You do not have to go very far to capture truly beautiful natural photographs and the idea that it’s ok to mess about with the captured image is a depressing comment on the craft of photography. This attitude tells us that the photographer has no qualms about creating a vision of what they wish they had captured, but failed.

Finally Mr. Byrne tells us that he treats his photography as ‘art’ and tries to make ‘the best looking picture’. Here is the real problem with the software tools that allow us to create our own photographs. Photography has always been a craft. Ansel Adams had no need to add clouds or alter tree shapes because his images were honest and beautiful. There is nothing wrong with painting new images with Photoshop, just don’t call it photography. It is something entirely different when a photographer wants to be an artist. An artist creates images from their imagination and that is a wonderful thing. Just leave photography to record what the camera sees not what the photographer wishes it had seen.

What is extraordinary is that Mr. Byrne should have won such a prestigious title as Landscape Photographer of the Year. Luckily, his alterations were brought to the attention of the judges who had been unable to detect them for themselves. But for the ‘purists’ his accolade would have reinforced the idea that we can alter images in the name of ‘art’ and still claim they are photographs. If something good can come out of this sorry debacle it is the lesson that landscape does not need our interference. The true joy of landscape photography lies in capturing its pristine beauty. Painting it in the crude lipstick of Photoshop is both unnecessary and an admission that we cannot leave it to speak for itself through our lenses.

Declan O’Neill is a photographer who lives in Nelson New Zealand. He specialises in landscape photography and runs photographic tours of the South Island. His website can be found at www.newzealandscape.com.

Post originally from: Digital Photography Tips.

Check out our more Photography Tips at Photography Tips for Beginners, Portrait Photography Tips and Wedding Photography Tips.

OPINION: Why Photoshop is Ruining Landscape Photography


Digital Photography School

 
Comments Off on OPINION: Why Photoshop is Ruining Landscape Photography

Posted in Photography

 

Editor’s opinion: Nikon’s AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm F4-5.6G ED VR

05 Mar

new80-400mm-001.jpg

Nikon’s AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm F4.5-5.6 G ED VR will be eagerly welcomed by many enthusiast and professional Nikon photographers who’ve been waiting for a replacement for its 12 year-old predecessor. The original 80-400mm was Nikon’s first lens to offer vibration reduction but the intervening years have left it looking rather long in the tooth. The latest version boasts a new optical design, built-in SWM focus motor and much improved vibration reduction. In this short article, Barnaby Britton gives his opinion. 

News: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

 
Comments Off on Editor’s opinion: Nikon’s AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm F4-5.6G ED VR

Posted in Uncategorized

 

Nikon D7000 hands on review – My opinion + Unedited sample pictures

18 Oct

razzi.me www.facebook.com www.PhotographersOnUTube.com https Basic review of Nikon 7000 and my personal opinion of the camera and it’s performance. If you feel you learned something you didn’t know before, please thumbs UP 🙂 Do SUBSCRIBE as I will be giving lessons on Kids*Wedding*Family*Event photography along with other reviews and photography projects. Don’t forget to ask questions. It’s the best way to learn.
Video Rating: 4 / 5

 
Comments Off on Nikon D7000 hands on review – My opinion + Unedited sample pictures

Posted in Nikon Videos