[Rondec]

An interesting thing is I've been looking to download full size images (>12Mp) for printing to avoid the cost and time of traveling. I've been able to find free images, but either were not full size, the quality wasn't good (often from smartphone, compact or bridge cameras). The free images people are talking about are of the size of a postcard, sure you can find plenty of those and download from flickr or 500px anytime. But usually, the authors of XL printable files are not that stupid, they only provide downsized images, if you want the full size image you have to contact them and eventually have to pay license fees. The stock image sites that offered the most choice were Getty images or related, full size image license costs about 500 USD. In 2017, Getty Images revenue was about 900M USD. At 500 USD each, I can license 4 images for the price of a Pentax K1. If I'm into photography as a hobby, I'm still better off killing two birds with one stone: buying a camera and a couple of lenses.

I challenge you to provide sources offering a good selection of high quality stock photographs, full size images without too much noise (preferable large sensor) and downloadable for free!

I agree. Most "good" photos you can find on the internet are somewhere around 1000 to 2000 pixels on the long edge. OK for viewing on a monitor, but not much else.

I think it has always been hard for landscape photographers to make a living at that. The concept of taking photos of nature and having them sell for thousands of dollars is nice, but the reality is that few people really want to drop a bunch of money on landscape photos. I don't know that that has changed much, except that maybe there is a bigger segment of individuals who think that their photos are as good as yours and would rather print their own images than buy someone else's print. It is probably a bit as you say where folks who are really into high quality images are buying gear and making their own.

If you want to make a career in photography, the tried and true method is portraits and/or weddings. People will pay a lot of money for photos of themselves and you definitely can still do quite well in that niche.

[RonHendriks1966]

There is a little documentary made about the IKEA Amsterdam image. Part is in Dutch, but also part in english.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

It sold already almost half a million times until now. Spread the word and they will sell a million of them.

[builttospill]

I challenge you to provide sources offering a good selection of high quality stock photographs, full size images without too much noise (preferable large sensor) and downloadable for free!

I think you're joking, but can't be sure due to your paragraph before the one quoted above. It sounds like you're admitting to stealing online images for printing, but you can't find others' images to steal that are large enough for a high-quality print...

No one will accept your challenge above because it's an oxymoron. "Free" and "stock photography" don't belong in the same sentence together. If you want high-quality images, sign up for a stock agency and purchase licenses to use other photographer's work. I certainly don't recommend Getty due to their price, but many microstock agencies will meet your need for only a few dollars. Try 123rf, Dreamstime, BigStock, or Adobe Stock.

[biz-engineer]

It sounds like you're admitting to stealing online images for printing

No, the free images are identified as free by a version of the creative commons license given by the author of the photograph, in all other cases the user of the image needs formal approval by the author for re-using the photograph. I went through this process and I was not able to find a photograph with the subject I wanted, and the resolution for printing. The only images that I found would suit what I wanted were licensed for 475 Euros. That's why I challenge the people who claim that photographs are free, to find high quality photographs of the subject matter of their choice under a creative commons.

---------- Post added 09-12-18 at 21:27 ----------

"Free" and "stock photography" don't belong in the same sentence together.

The initial problem is to find the kind photograph that matches our criteria, for printing or else. First, looking for photographs taken by other without proper cataloging is very time consuming , and time is money. That's why there is a market for businesses selling photographs, and that's why photographs still have a significant value even if digital cameras make it very very easy to take photographs. For example, how do I know that in all images you have taken in the last decade, there is one that I want to have full size for making a print, I would only know it if you would have cataloged all your images and made the choice available to me (e.g online), and that would cost you time, so I guess it wouldn't be free.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 12-09-2018 at 01:33 PM.

[builttospill]

Yeah, you're correct. Keywording/cataloging images is my least favorite part of selling stock images. I do occasionally use CC0 images, but there is a very limited selection and more often than not, I have to purchase rights to use a more suitable image or take one myself.

Because stock photography is off-topic to this thread, I tried sending a PM to you to discuss places to get CC0 images, but your account seems to have PMs disabled.

[clackers]

I don't own a supported lens or body. Not that I am ever likely to approach such lofty heights with my images. But the Pentax user who made the finals of the Australian Nature Photographer of the year in 2018 with a K-3 ii and DA15 wouldn't be eligible either.


I can see their point, though. It is about marketing their current line up to potential users.

Yeah, these are testimonials from users of what's on sale.

To want to participate without owning one of the products concerned would be like writing a Google review of a restaurant we haven't been to.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I think it has always been hard for landscape photographers to make a living at that. The concept of taking photos of nature and having them sell for thousands of dollars is nice, but the reality is that few people really want to drop a bunch of money on landscape photos.

There's a handful of people in my area who make their livings as landscape photographers, but published work is only a tiny part of their income. They pay the bills by leading courses, taking paying customers out onto the moor and showing them where to point their cameras, then teaching them processing tricks afterwards to get "professional" looking results. Not a bad way to make a living if you've got the right skills and personality for it.

There is one guy who lives a couple of miles up the road from me who has made a pretty good job of getting by as a professional photographer over the years though. His name is David Bailey.

[BrianR]

I'm not sure if it's been pointed out yet, but they've started posting some of the selected images. The links are below each piece of equipment (this is the same link as the OP): Your Best Photo+ | RICOH IMAGING (it's also possible that I didn't notice them the first time 'round).

Yeah, these are testimonials from users of what's on sale.

To want to participate without owning one of the products concerned would be like writing a Google review of a restaurant we haven't been to.

More like reviewing a restaurant you ate at a few years ago but they've altered the menu since your last visit. Also, all the plates are red now instead of green.

[clackers]

More like reviewing a restaurant you ate at a few years ago but they've altered the menu since your last visit. Also, all the plates are red now instead of green.

Yeah, maybe.

If you want a testimonial to advertise the K-1, probably best not to sneakily use that K-3 picture with the DA15 PJ1 was talking about even if it was nominated for an award.

[clackers]

There is one guy who lives a couple of miles up the road from me who has made a pretty good job of getting by as a professional photographer over the years though. His name is David Bailey.

That's fantastic!

He was one of the inspirations for the main character in 'Blowup'.

You'll have to ask him if the film they made about him and Jean Shrimpton is accurate - 'We'll Take Manhattan'.

[mcrtchly]

Originally, “Your best photo” is a project that showcases the best photo collected from Japanese users in camera stores in Japan. RICOH IMAGING has recently renewed the condition of this project. "Your Best Photo+", the new project, will now accept the worldwide submissions. The accepted work will be displayed on the official website, stores, as well as social networking sites. Unfortunately, the submissions are restricted to only a small number of Pentax camera bodies and lenses. One must use either a body from the list, a lens from the list or a combination of both to be qualified.

More information can be found in the following link:
Your Best Photo+

Although broadening the scope of the project to accept work globally is considered a step moving forward, it would be better if the project allows a wider range of camera and lenses. Even the D FA MACRO 100mmF2.8 WR and all of DA* series lenses are excluded from the list.

I'm pleased that Pentax Ricoh Japan have selected one of my photos ("After the Storm", Lofoten, Norway) for their users best photo selection:User works? HD PENTAX-D FA 15-30mmF2.8ED SDM WR / Wide-Angle Lenses / K-mount Lenses / Lenses / Products | RICOH IMAGING

To see more of our work using Pentax equipment follow us on Instagram Purple Peak Adventures (@purplepeakadventures) ? Instagram photos and videos

martin

[parinya-ekparinya]

Pentax has updated the list of lenses for "Your Best Photo+" photo submission, it now includes all DA* lenses as well as D-FA 10omm Macro and HD DA 55-300mm PLM. The picture of the 55-300mm PLM is incorrect, though.