2d

Yes it’s not a genuine question it’s a post to see how many pages of diatribe they can create. While I agree the best way is just ignore this site use to be a wealth of information and advice because people were honest and genuine now it’s a bunch of pontification Why should I care because I like photography and this use to be a site that wasn’t 100% gear talk

I agree this site seems to be losing any cred with all these “mental-masturbation” questions from posters who don’t show their website. Why are photographers photographing if they don’t even show their images. I don’t care if you’re clients are incredible, your work is in moma it would be more relevant to know than some faceless poster who’s obviously got history trolling this site with what if questions Moderators there’s a reason this site is decaying you’re not stepping up

The dilemma is your question has too many unknowns so yes the price from Getty is very realistic. Anyone who answers is just giving you a guess probably more to stoke their ego than give your question an honest answer. If it’s a dominant picture on toll brothers, century 21 or Remax website then no why would those numbers be high. In fact any image presented on a company’s website to illustrate those brands should get that - the difference would be if it’s an image for a specific listing and has a short licensing time period to coincide with the sale of that specific property.

While I agree in the future Raw will probably go away but when is the real question. More than likely not for the next twenty years. I can see computational processes and the cameras processor equaling out to where the camera could do an in-camera pixel shift, focus stacking or produce a 32bit hdr file where the outputted file had enough info as too basically allow a wide white balance adjustment after the fact. This is not going to happen in the next ten years and I question what the file format will be I thought jpeg 2000 was already being outdated to jpeg Xr?

Local club contests may be ok, but I caution you about the national and international contests promoted across the internet. For the most part they have ridiculous conditions when submitting your work basically grabbing all the image’s rights for any type of reproduction. It seems like a sneaky way of obtaining a large stock image library without having to pay the contestants. And yes I would be extremely skeptical most of the photographers’ .orgs have warned of them. Read the t&c very very carefully and know you won’t be winning any true title because most all the good photographers know this and avoid them. So whenever you hear National x photo contest winner of year those are only photographers who have granted a ridiculous licensing grab to the contest owners. If you’re looking to have your images seen and you don’t have a full body of work to have a solo show I would suggest looking for group art show to exhibit within. I’ve done this a couple of times it’s fun, normally they have it juried where you may get to hear the jury’s thoughts. you only have to pay for a couple of frames but don’t have to shell out for matting and framing a full solo show and you get to see your work amongst other’s work. And you’re Not signing away your rights. On a side note I’m curious about your name is that your platform or do you just have a blog on it?

How is this bad news? I’m sorry if I seem harsh but it seems to me that the photography medium has suffered with the onslaught of discussion based solely wether the latest and greatest is truly as great as the latest tech allows. While I could go off on some artistic rant, let me ask what have all these camera centric reviews done for a dedicated photo enthusiast? Because it seems to me they have created the wave of expectations of when will the new model come out, when can the lens become faster, could the manufacturer line the tripod legs with gold to help reduce vibration. Yes we could blame the manufacturer, but that’s like blaming the politicians we are the ones at fault, we drank the mind numbing koolaid Just saying for years I had to cock my own shutter just to make an exposure and I was content.

Thanks for sharing

I would stay in adobe rgb 16bit through all of your editing phase then convert down to 8bit sRGB for delivery Unless you are working with a designer who is specifically requesting the 16bit file

I moved over to capture one from adobe and while it’s ok for processing the raw file I actually prefer Digikam to house my catalog. My guess over time I will stay with digikam for long term cataloging and eventually move to using affinity as my raw processor.

Just a thought, I don’t believe it’s recommended to go the fusion drive route since Mojave (apfs) - I think it’s preferred to go Ss drive for your programs and external for files. Maybe apple has fixed this but I would double check before ordering a fusion drive

When you factor locking yourself into a system for years and the amount of investment you will put into lenses I think the best approach is to rent the cameras you are looking at for a a couple of days. I’ve rented from lensrental online with no problem and am not hesitation to rent again. I know others that have rented from borrowlenses. I don’t think I would rent from any of these places that try and find you individuals that are willing to rent out their own personal gear. Lensrental has great articles they have taken care of me when things went astray, spending an hour in a shop will never compare to taking a camera out and shooting with it over the course of a weekend. I have been employing this rental test strategy for the past couple of years and wouldn’t think of ignoring it when jumping to a whole new system All that said I think I’m waiting to see what Nikon and canon release in terms of a high MP mirrorless hoping for both a refined pixel shift feature as well as an automated focus bracketing sequence

Don’t know about that specific camera, but my guess is there is a setting that allows you to change the viewfinder just for that reason without altering the iso. Most all mirrorless cameras will allow that almost to the point of being better than a typical dslr when working in the dark. Sometimes google is better than the manual To the OPs question: I think it’s a none question today with mirrorless equal to dslr although I don’t know if I’d make the change today just because I’m not confident with any of the three brands. I jumped to Sony seven years ago and since then have always been hesitant in investing in lenses because I’ve never been truly satisfied with their cameras or overly expensive lenses granted I had decades with canon but they refuse to make a great camera. (Sensor) Nikon looks ok but has a lot of downsides. Maybe best to stay with what you have until the next round of updates comes out

Delete

"I mentioned to them my licensing fee for art for non-exclusive rights is $100/print (or ad). That I anticipated they would probably want more than 50 prints so I'd charge a flat fee of $5,000." why would they want 50 prints if these images are for marketing? I'm confused and I'm sure they are as well. That said $5,000 for an advertisement photo isn't super high but I suspect we are not thinking the same scenarios. Here is an Amazon link to a good book "Licensing Photography" Personally I would see the licensing as the usage they are requesting for their marketing material and not confuse that with a line item calculating print costs. In other words: The non-exclusive licensing for three years of marketing materials, website, and in-house display = x ($2,500 example) Production Costs: print copies = y ($100 per print example) delivery = z (Fedex cost). etc... As far as his argument if the car wasn't present etc... well I'm sure you had better things to do that day than their event. In anycase get the book it's well worth the $20 and will probably help you communicate with your client

thanks for the links, very interesting.