jeff_rauch

<p>Getty photographers shoot both editorial stock and regular stock. The difference is where the photos end up and what they are providing. Editorial stock is simular to your newspaper photographer's photos and are used for news purposes. The "editorial" tag is broad and can be used in alot of different ways, however it cannot be used for commercial use (ie: you won't see your photo being used on a box of cerial). Can you imagine the news photographers having to get model releases from everyone they shoot pictures of? Can you imagine photographers stopping the president and having him sign a hundred different model releases from each speech that he gives?<br>

The paparazzi make their money the same way. In fact alot of them are Getty. Alot of people hate them, but alot of those same people subscribe to People magazine and are paying the paparazzi to continue. David Thomas is on the right track, unless your photo is being used for commercial use (ie: products...not magazine, newsarticle, or galleries) then the photographer's use of the image is legal. If it were me, I'd search gettyimages.com and see if you can find your photo. If you do find it on their website, contact the photographer directly. That seems like the smartest option. <br>

PS: you can check out getty's editorial policy <a href="http://www.gettyimages.com/Corporate/EditorialPolicy.aspx">here:</a></p>

<p>I need to stop reading the forums. I read the story, and (going against the grain) I side with the people NOT the photographer. I get the whole 1st amendment right side of things, but stop a minute and look at the story from the business owners/customers point of view. The photographer is hanging out and making alot of people very uncomfortable. According to the article they have approached him about this, but he is unwilling to change his tactics or find a new place to shoot photos. To a store, this guy is hurting their business. No one wants to shop at a place where that "creepy" photographer takes people's picture. Even I would drive out of my way to avoid that kind environment. So what options do the stores have to save their business? Pretty much none. The guy isn't doing anything "illegal" he is just setting a piss poor example for photographers by being stubborn and unprofessional. So the stores do the only thing they can, they call the police. The police visit his office, hoping to "catch" him with some illegal photography. I saw that the photographer and even some of the forum comments were offended by this, but come on, people were complaining about this guy shooting photos of their kids and young women. Not just a couple people either, enough to make the police curious. So I have no pity for this guy, and as far as the 1st amendment is concerned, this is a poor use for what it stands for. Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean there isn't a certain amount of courtesy involved. Street photography is great, but if you be discrete and courteous, you shouldn't be doing it. </p>

<p>@RLPotts: "You generally cannot tell any difference between images from kit lenses and pro lenses."<br>

I'll agree with that, to a certain extent. Put in the hands of someone that knows how to use it, you can produce amazing results with a kit lens. However, a cheap lens on an expensive camera is a bad investment option. First off, your camera looses value FAST, second: Kit lenses are not built to last. The people that I see with expensive cameras and cheap lenses usually become frustrated with their equipment. If I had the choice of buying a D300s with an 18-55VR OR a D90 with an 18-200VRII, I'll choose the D90 Every time. The lens will last well beyond a D300 setup.<br>

"I wish I had started out with the best, echoing some folks above."<br>

That's fine, BUT, were you upgrading from a point and shoot? With no understanding about Shutterspeed and/or aperture? If, R. Bond had that kind of prior knowledge, I might have a different opinion, but he stated:<br>

"I am an absolute beginner (I wouldn't even call myself that)."</p>

<p>It would be like telling your grandparents to buy photoshop CS4.</p>

<p>Mr. Bond,</p>

<p>I'm really pretty surprised by the number of people telling you to purchase a D300. If I were in your shoes. I wouldn't. The D300 is not a beginer's camera. Going from a P&S to a (semi)pro DSLR wouldn't be an easy jump. You may even loose the enjoyment in photography if you don't get the hang of it fast enough.<br>

Your only modes on the D300 consist of: P,A,S, and M. If you don't know what those letters mean, I would stop listening to those D300 whispers and go out and buy a D90 without another thought. True, the "green auto" mode won't always give you perfect results, but it is still pretty good. And best of all, it's easy.<br>

I know that you think you'll own this camera for a long time, but let's be realistic. In two years, you'll be able to pick up a used D300 for dirt. And by then there will be a shiny new camera body that you won't be able to live without. It's just how the SLR cameras work. The best (and I don't think anyone will disagree with me) place to put your money is in your lenses. And if we crunch the numbers: You can buy a D90 with a $900 lens for the same price as ONLY the D300 body (new, retail of course).<br>

Nikon uses the same (sony) 12.3 MP sensor in both cameras. Having a d300 won't make an inch of difference in your photos.<br>

I'd even go as far as telling you to look at a D5000 as well. Why waste your money? Working in a camera shop, I see folks with D5000s attached to a $2000 lens and folks with D300s attached to a $200 lens. Guess who's photos are better.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><a href="http://files.nireblog.com/blogs3/dinoalahomofobia/files/angry_bear2.jpg">http://files.nireblog.com/blogs3/dinoalahomofobia/files/angry_bear2.jpg</a></p>

<p>Looks like this bear gets around...nice photoshop work though. =)</p>

Look into a Manfrotto Modo. They weigh about 2lbs, will hold a 2-3lb camera and set up to about 5.5ft. I bought one because they are light, easy to pack, and cheap (around $60 US).

Veronica,

 

Going against the flow, I'd actually recommend a D90. Ritz got a shipment in yesterday, so i was able to play around

with the camera. I know that alot of people are saying buy the D300. The D300 is a great camera, however, in this

field, camera body technology depriciates faster than ever before. I don't think that anyone on this site disagree with

me that lenses are the greatest investment. The Nikon 80-400 is an old lens, but it still sells for $1700+. My D200 on

the otherhand cost me $2000 three years ago, and today it sells for under $1000. (ouch).

 

One of the biggest reasons that the D300 is an ideal wedding photographers camera is the sensor technology. I've

shot a wedding at ISO 1600 and been very pleased with the results. I shot the D90 yesterday at ISO 1600/3200 and

noticed no difference in the amount of noise vs. the D300. The metering in the D90 is amazing as well. Even if the

D90 didn't have vdeo mode (which is a cool feature), I'd still suggest the D90 and tell you to save up for professional

lenses.

 

In Conclusion: I really think that you should give it some more thought. I know that I'm the minority here, but having

the biggest most expensive camera isn't going to give you better pictures, especially in this case.

don't waste your time.

Put the money towards a new body. The D80 is a great camera, and waiting for the "D90" (or whatever it will be called) should be out towards the end of the summer (according to a nikon rep). If you need a camera now. I suggest either buying a used d50/d70 or (if you have enough) a D80.

 

On a side note, if you do leave the d70 dead, I'd love to open it up. If you get rid of it, let me know, I'll cover the shipping.

The D40/40x/60 doesn't put have an AF motor in the body. So the only nikon lenses that you can use AF with have to be Nikon AF-S lenses (AF-S lenses have the AF motor built into the lens itself). As said above, you can use older nikon AF lenses, however you are stuck manually focusing them.

I've had bad luck on ebay too. Broken stuff, and overpriced. I like to order my used equipment from www.keh.com. Everything that I've ordered from them had exceeded my expectations. A good used nikon camera can be bought for under $200. If you want a suggestion, look at a Nikon F3. =)

I own a 35-70 f/2.8. It's a great lens! But if you want a portrait lens, stick to a fixed focal.