Guess What?
University went back this week! Yay and woo hoo and etc. This is the reason for
my posts being all messed up again.
I’ve been doing the
readings for Week One lectures and tutorials, I’ve been laying in supplies (stationery
and the like) and I’ve been buying Mills & Boon romances (Don’t ask! I-I don’t
want to talk about it...). With all that going on, I kinda sorta forgot about
the news last week, a-and about the Monday post. Umm...
So I’m restructuring.
Again. Sorry about this, but with all the work I’m doing for uni, I’m just not
going to have a hell of a lot of time for photography. And what time I do have
I want to use to actually take photos.
So I’m back to the one post a week on Wednesdays thing. And it’s not always
going to be about my photography. Today’s post is a good example of what I
mean.
This week I'm gonna have a bit of a bitch!
So, point one in the
Things that Shit me in Photography –
there are some fantastic photos on Instagram and facebook and Google+ that are
being ruined by ‘watermarks’. Big ol’ hideous stains of text dragging the eye
away from the fantastic photo and toward the photographer's name. Instead of
enjoying your fantastic photo, I have to look at this jarring pile of unattractive
mush that does nothing but make me not
want to look at your photos anymore. I see another post from you and I ignore
it!
Seriously!
I get that you want
to keep your work safe, protect your intellectual property and all that, but watermarks aren't helpful, nor are they effective. A clone tool or content-aware fill in Photoshop
and all your bad work is undone. Me? I just post low-res copies of the images.
Yeah someone might, and I emphasise MIGHT, pinch my photo (there are
billions of photos online though, so I doubt my work is priority theft material) but it is only gonna be useful
online. They won’t be able to sell prints because it will come out as a
pixelated mess. And if they use it commercially online and I find it, hello law
suit. If I don't find it, too bad for me.
My point is STOP
SCRIBBLING ON YOUR PHOTOS! It just makes them worse.
Point two in the Things that Shit me in Photography – just
because Peter Lik is making mondo more bucks off his photography than we do doesn’t mean
we have to shit on his efforts. Case in point; the latest Lik photo wasn’t a fake!
It was a composite! Yeah, it was stupid to try and claim it was straight
out of camera, but that doesn’t mean he’s a faker photographer, it just means
he’s a dumb photographer. Or perhaps I should say he makes some dumb moves. He’s obviously got
something going on upstairs because, while his images aren’t all that much
better than other professionals (and not as good as others, face facts) he is
incredibly good at marketing. He has to be to be getting $1,000,000 for a $1000
photo.
And this is just my
personal opinion. That’s the point – photography like Lik’s is art photography
and art is subjective. Just because I’m not captivated by Lik’s work doesn’t
mean it can’t be captivating to someone else.
So get over it. Well
done, Petey-Boy, for making a fortune off your photography. I wish I could do
it, too!
The final point in
the Things that Shit me in Photography
– the prices on pro level glass. Especially when it comes to glass from the big
names. I mean, A$1600 for a 24-70 from Sigma is big for those of us on a
limited income, but the Nikon 24-70 is nearly A$3000! And if you check out the reviews and comparisons, the Sigma
is nearly (90%) as good as the Nikon. For half
the price!
And Canon is just as
guilty. The Tamron 70-200 is A$800 less than the Canon 70-200 and, once again,
the quality is about the same. And look at how old the latest Canon and Nikon models
are compared to the Sigma and Tamron models. So where exactly does the price premium
come from? The name? Then call it Rolls Royce 70-200 and charge ten grand. Or
how about calling it the Faberge 24-70? Then you can charge a hundred grand!
And don’t get me started
on Sony. A D750 with the holy trinity and a super-zoom from Sigma is A$9000
cheaper than the equivalent Sony Kit! Check it Out:
Sigma 12-24mm F/4 Art Lens
|
$1828
|
Sony FE-Mount 12-24mm F4
|
$2448
|
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 Art Lens
|
$1599
|
Sony 24-70mm FE f/2.8 Lens
|
$2999
|
Sigma Lens 70-200 f2.8 Lens
|
$1217
|
Sony 70-200mm FE f/2.8
|
$3745
|
Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 Lens
|
$1098
|
Sony 100-400mm FE f/4.5-5.6
|
$3599
|
Nikon D750 DSLR
|
$2598
|
Sony A7R III
|
$4895
|
$8340
|
$17686
|
That there is why I
won’t be going for the Sony mirrorless system! Which is a shame, 'cos' I like the Sony Alpha cameras!
Ahhh! That feels
better. I’m so glad I got that off my chest. What do you think?
Watermarks, yes or
no?
Is all this sour
grapes action directed at Peter Lik just jealousy?
Are the big three
camera companies overcharging?
OR
Am I off the planet?
Share your thoughts!
Okay. Balance. Balance. Let's have some positives!
Canon has announced the new EOS M50, and it looks like being a fantastic vlogging camera. It has 4K! And it has Canon's Dual Pixel AF! Fantastic! But it doesn't have them both at the same time... Huh? Really?
And Sony has announced the new A7III! 24 mega pixels, 10 frames a second, this looks like a D500 killer. Except, if the Photogearnews video on Youtube is right and it's going to be around 2000 pounds in the UK, that means it's going to be at least A$3900 down under (after applying the 10% goods and services tax). Possibly more. So, woo hoo, new A7III. For about the same price as a D810. Remember my whinge about pricing earlier?
(Update: According to the Sony Australia website, the new A7III will be available from the end of March in Australia for A$3099) Sony Store Australia Link.
(Update: According to the Sony Australia website, the new A7III will be available from the end of March in Australia for A$3099) Sony Store Australia Link.
Not so much balance, huh?
I welcome any corrections to facts I may have gotten wrong, so chime in! All comments
welcome! But don't try to correct my opinion, that just shows ignorance.
Anyway... Don’t forget to
check out my portfolio at:
And my other
stuff at:
And I am @BobCartPhoto on Twitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment