Again, he is a gigantic Internet tool.  All he does is make ridiculous statements.  And he doesn't even have a portfolio from what I've seen that would suggest he has a clue how to use any of these things.

I'm just wondering how people continue to take him seriously.  In a time when Joe Cornish and other large format landscape photographers are considering the move to medium format digital backs, you have a photography hack (who tries to guilt you into 'donating' to him on his website because he has hungry mouths to feed) who just writes crap on a blog so that people talk about him.

And by the way, I think Joe Cornish is way better.  Times a million.

EDIT:  There was an article on the luminous-landscape a while back where a contributor wrote in and talked about how digital has approached and possibly surpassed the film era.  Michael Reichmann may be just as controversial, but he makes very good points and he has posted some very wonderful shots using digital. 

Film is great for nostalgia, but nothing is going to change the fact that digital is still going to get better and better and Ken Rockwell will still be a big laughingstock of the online photography world.

Good thing I said when they came out that i wasn't going to join some hack of a site when everyone was going nuts and uploading.  I just love saying "I told you so's"

Sorry to hear about your troubles, but sometimes thats what going out on a limb gets you

I don't know stacey personally, I'm sure she's a nice person.  I just thought the response was a bit snotty.

There is plenty of room for non-exclusives and exclusives.  My dad is going exclusive as soon as he can because he doesn't want to waste time uploading to other sites.  I don't blame him.  I like the idea, but I'm not going to lose my other sites.  iS only makes up 35% monthly, so I will not make it up.  But for him, its easy and he's not submitting anywhere else that way he just goes right into exclusivity.  I just think there are huge double-standards in some areas.  I've already posted about this before, so its not new.

I think a little business research (and perhaps a few college courses) could help these 'start-ups' and then they will realize that its useless.  The industry is maturing, the companies have established themselves, devote millions of dollars to advertising alone - which is about 50,000,000x more than any of these start-ups have.  If LuckyOliver couldn't cut it (thank god i got a payout), 99% of these 'startups' won't either.  And I'm not biting.  In fact, I no longer submit to 123RF regularly or Fotolia (mainly because they reject everything anyways).

Stop wasting your time, go make a personal website and figure out how to shoot stock for the established agencies.  You will just fail otherwise.

I think the answer to your question is that it depends.  For the colour profile, I always work in prophoto or Adobe.  Yes they are much wider ranges for colour from what I understand.  however, when i print, I always load the factory profile for the paper I'm printing on and I let the printer and photoshop cut down the gamut range to match that profile that way I don't end up with weird and fuzzy results.

With the Epson 3800, no one has ever said a bad word about the print quality and from what I hear, the prints are just as good as any of the larger format printers.  the only difference is that you don't have the ability to print that wide on the 3800.

Just got myself some sample packs from ilford and hahnemeulhe (i know i spelled that incorrectly) and will try to test them out soon

No wonder this is getting heated.  Whenever you have an author, right or wrong, you are going to get some bias points of view in a public forum.  Why can't we all just get along?

PS - don't write articles and subject yourself to public forums if you don't want criticisms

I like iStock.  I think they have a sustainable model.  And it works well and people are paying more and more and still getting what they want at a reasonable price.

SS doesn't have a reasonable model.  Its not sustainable and thats why they introduced the per-download model instead.  Both earn the most for me, alternating who earns more on a monthly basis. 

In the end, I just want more money.  Who's going to give that to me?

Hey Steve,

Thanks for posting, but I'm just wondering why you only post the breakdown but never contribute to any other conversations?

As for me, I don't post breakdowns because they are virtually meaningless.  Good luck in 2009.

Back to the debate about noise,

I got a shot taken wtih a 30D at ISO 200 accepted today (no big deal).  However, an identically processed file with the same subject matter and the same exposure (literally the same shot, difference angle) got rejected for artifacts.  Weird?  Very.  And I think the rejected one had better composition than the accepted one.  So I'm not sure what the deal-io is.

Oh well, I learned 3 years ago to let it slide

J

From what I hear, its $0.51 per standard print for the ink (54 sq in)

But yes, I'll try and keep track.  Note however that the first ink set goes quicker because it primes once when you first get it, and about 10% goes down the drain there (of each ink)

So far, I've done 4 12x18 black and whites and 2 8x10s and they are splendid, and I still haven't seen the levels move

In camera IS is only 2 stops, the new lens IS from Canon and Nikon are up to 5.  So if you want to be constrained to two stops, fine. 

And yes, the camera is ugly.  which makes you less likely to have it stolen.  and also less likely to resell it because imagine after usage how ugly it could get

Anyways, I'll stick with the in-lens, makes more sense and a lot of new lenses will get it in the shorter focal ranges

I shall give you an example of a good advertising ploy.....in 2005 British Gas announced if you buy you electric and gas from us ( duel fuel) we shall freeze our prices till 2010.I have not got the figures to hand but literally 1000@s signed up including me !
If istockphoto don't listen to it's contributors why would they have a suggestion section on their forum...

Considering that images are used as a means to create a final product but aren't a final product itself, the difference for a designer who will pay 25 or 40 dollars isn't all that bad especially when the economy picks up again and the designers can charge the clients for that extra cost.  People who buy gas and electricity are generally home owners who aren't reselling it within another product or service.  And givent he current oil and electricity prices around the world, its proibably debatable if that was a good idea int he long run (haven't look at the numbers, but with oil at 5 and 6 year lows, can't be too far off)

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 09, 2009, 23:33

Anybody else thinking this?

No, apart from the pixel count, the D700 is a much better camera than the 5DII, and with a lot of Nikon lenses, there's no way I would take the cost of changing to Canon. So far nobody knows what a D700X would cost anyway, so it's really not a very useful discussion.

If I should consider changing system, it would be to a Sony A900, to get access to the very nice Zeiss lenses and in-body IS.

Don't start with the ooh the D700 is better than the 5D2.  We all know at that price range its not the camera, its the dude behind the camera, and if he's/she's useless, then the camera is useless. 

And Nikon doesn't have a good lineup of primes (neither does canon below 50mm) but the bottom line is you pick what you like and you go with it.  If you wait long enough, both major companies will come out with equivalent cameras.

Just for a note, the A900 is ugly.  And in-camera IS isn't as good as on-lens.  Its a start, but its not as effective.  Jury is still out on sensor cleaning.