We spend so much time on Photoshop making people look unreal, that now our perception is so screwed up that we think CGI looks real!

It does not, it looks like a very well done computer graphic but a computer graphic non-the-less.

Avatar was a motion picture. Our eyes are much more forgiving of detail on objects in motion.
A still image is meant to be dwelt upon and studied. Computer generated images of people just can't cut it yet.

Will they ever? Probably. But it's a world I don't want to live in.
I think there will be a huge backlash to it someday.
Just as the hippies of yesteryear rejected the social constructs of their day and helped reshape the way western civilization lives now.
So too, I believe that our synthetically created worlds will be rejected.

There has already been some of that happening.
There has been some small outcry about how perfect 'shopped' models look in magazines which in turn makes our daughters feel as if they are not good enough.

ETA: and when it does take over Microstock, expect to be paid 5% per download.
After all, you did not have to hire a model or a MUA or a stylist or a... 

I know that Scott Kelby buys from Istock, wonder if he knows what the agency is doing and if it would change a thing... .

Probably not as long as they buy advertising space from him.

istock is changing to a new business model. The Agency collection will be a midstock collection of Getty pros and selected istock contributors, attracting buyers who previously wouldn't consider micro. The micro collections will be kept as the budget outlet but not the core business. A one-stop shop for buyers of all colors, capitalising on the istock brand. Should do well. But the majority of current contributors are not very relevant to this model.

If that is true, they are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

The point is simple.  They are working on trying to make iStock exclusive only and pay 20%.

They will continue to drop the % for non-exclusives until they all leave (or work for free).  In the process they will drive exclusives down also to 20% like the rest of Getty and throw a few unreachable goals to keep the mice turning the wheel.

Once that is done, the door to iStock will be exclusive only and 20% (or less starting out).

That is my prediction.  Only time will tell.

As others have said, its not about "losing" money or being about to "sustain" the business; its about their long
term (or short) goals and how they can get there.

I feel that you are correct. This is probably the ultimate goal.

The heart of a monitor is its panel.  In the HP the Samsung LTM220M3 is used.
A quick google revealed this panel is also used by : Eizo, Nec, Dell... with considerably higher prices for the end product than the HP... .. basically you're paying for the Brand name on the monitor...  

Patrick.


While this is very true to a point, the firmware and software tweaks do make a difference in the way a panel performs.
Apple and Dell used to use the same panel and the Apple Cinema displays look quite different from the old Dells.

This is very similar to what auto makers do with their engine management systems.
The same exact engine in two different cars can have substantially more performance in one car due to changes made to the engine management chip the manufacturer puts in.

Yup, pretty much everything except service industry is closed.
No school, no mail, etc.

Wait, the sky in London is blue?

Back to the reality - there is NO Canon lens even close to such resolution. In fact most of Canon lenses (remember most are low end or prosumer) have trouble even with 7D. Other thing is that there is simply no use for it - A3/300dpi is "only" 16Mpix and there is in 99% cases no need for 300dpi beyond A3. At least I do not pixelpeep billboards...

While it is true that such high resolution is not needed for general photography, there are at least two areas I can think of where this technology could be applied.
Astronomy and military satellite imaging.

Well he just asked a bunch of teenagers at the beach. I'm not surprised at the answers. BTW, one of the young women was from Australia. The group of Asian teens knew most of the answers, even if they were a bit unsure. 

Oh and "Video killed the radio star"...

So there will always be "another one that bites the dust"...

Very good!

They worried that the movies would kill live theater.
They worried that TV would kill the movie industry.
They worried that video would kill radio.

The internet has not killed TV, radio, the music industry or the photography industry.
It has made drastic changes to the way the latter have had to do business.
The industry that has been impacted most heavily it would seem is the print industry.
Newpapers are dying or at least the print versions are. Magazines are also seeing drops in circulation.

Frankly, I like magazines and I like to see photographs in print. I hope these never die out completely.

JCM is 58 years old. Touring is hard enough work when you are young, let alone for someone pushing 60.

The Internet is a great way for young musicians as a way to be seen and heard. But for an established talent who would rather stay in the recording studio and just sell "records" it is a catastrophe.

Long live macro! 

Thanks for that link!
I was in serious need of a good laugh today.