[HopelessTogger]

No really. People are less interested in images then one, two or three years ago. Even on this forum. Look at entry's in the photo section. They get halve the number of views then one year ago. On social media you don't get the amount of attention. It's simply because we have all seen these images before in some way. Just every now and then we see something that amazes us. For being new or creative in a way we haven't seen a hundred times. So I stopped sharing my lot of images. I have nice prints for the images that have a meaning to me. People who don't pay for my images are not on my radar.

News site are changing too. One-two years ago it was normal that they buy an image with multiple use, say a scène with runners, and use that image 100 times for news about small sports, running, fitness, family outings and so on. Now they fisheye the internet for free to use images and find a bundel on Flickr that gives great images with a Cc label so free to use. We don't even care anymore. The images are just filling to an item we read for like 40 seconds. News paper are using stock images from the 1 $ per image site and graphics to fill parts of their paper.

Quite.

Over the past 18 months I've only taken photos of my civil and environmental engineering projects and even then mostly just for record purposes.

I thought of taking up action/sports photography to rekindle my interest in the art (hence my thread about the Sigma 120-300), but the cost is looking prohibitive in these uncertain economic times.

[ffking]

No really. People are less interested in images then one, two or three years ago. Even on this forum. Look at entry's in the photo section. They get halve the number of views then one year ago. On social media you don't get the amount of attention. It's simply because we have all seen these images before in some way. Just every now and then we see something that amazes us. For being new or creative in a way we haven't seen a hundred times. So I stopped sharing my lot of images. I have nice prints for the images that have a meaning to me. People who don't pay for my images are not on my radar.

News site are changing too. One-two years ago it was normal that they buy an image with multiple use, say a scène with runners, and use that image 100 times for news about small sports, running, fitness, family outings and so on. Now they fish the internet for free to use images and find a bundle on Flickr that gives great images with a Cc label so free to use. We don't even care anymore. The images are just filling to an item we read for like 40 seconds. News paper are using stock images from the 1 $ per image site and graphics to fill parts of their paper.

Absolutely right,and it's a sad thing for people who care about making the best images they can - even non-commercially, the first image on Flickr Explore will get 10x or more the views of an image in the 3-400s, regardless of quality - and Flickr don't sort by quality. This is not important in itself, but it suggets a lack of pictorial literacy even on a photo-sharing website where people should care about quality. It's sad, as you suggest, because ittakesthe bread and butter income from those who can and want to do better.

[noelpolar]

Guys..... get a room or something....

[Rondec]

Absolutely right,and it's a sad thing for people who care about making the best images they can - even non-commercially, the first image on Flickr Explore will get 10x or more the views of an image in the 3-400s, regardless of quality - and Flickr don't sort by quality. This is not important in itself, but it suggets a lack of pictorial literacy even on a photo-sharing website where people should care about quality. It's sad, as you suggest, because ittakesthe bread and butter income from those who can and want to do better.

I suppose I'm lucky, because I don't have to make a living at photography.

That said, my experience is first of all, you need to have hobbies that make you happy. If it doesn't make you happy to take photos -- whatever style of photography you like -- the idea that having folks on the internet give you enough likes that you suddenly do enjoy it is silly. I take photos for myself. I find it really enjoyable to roll out of bed extra early, bundle myself up and drive out to a spot I picked out a couple of days before, hopefully to see a little color in the sky and the sun rising. Beyond which, the internet is not a place to make money on photography (generally speaking). People look at stuff and try to steal the good quality images. Few people are interested in paying money who browse flickr or 500px.

On the other hand, there are plenty of people who do appreciate good photography in the "real world" and whether you are talking portrait photography or wedding photography, you can make a decent living if you are willing to invest some time in building your brand.

As to this forum, I would agree that the number of views of a new gear item will be ten times the views of image threads, but there are still a core of members who enjoy good photos and will comment/like them. I seldom post in the "post your photos" section, because I do think the number of views is small there, as compared to a thread like the "Post Your K3 Photos Here" thread.

[ffking]

That said, my experience is first of all, you need to have hobbies that make you happy. If it doesn't make you happy to take photos -- whatever style of photography you like -- the idea that having folks on the internet give you enough likes that you suddenly do enjoy it is silly

I absolutely agree with this (or is that banned on the forum?) - and I'm not currently trying to make money out of photography in any serious way - though it would be nice if it could at least pay for any new kit I wanted - I suppose what I mean is that we all want to share what we've made - all the more so if you're not doing it for money - and it would be nice to have a few more places to post where people were a bit more discerning and appreciative of the difference of an image that has had thought and technical skill inputted into it rather than a snap of something pretty with pumped up saturation or contrast or whatever for immediate impact -but I do know that in the end all's fair and Dan Brown will always outsell all the literary fiction writers I can't even name - at the risk of conflating 'views' with $$ or ££ - and of appearing an elitist snob, which I'm mostly not - and I certainly don't think that Fine Art photography is the be-all and end-all of photographic value (my favourite photographers are Steve McCurry and Obie Oberholzer - neither in any way fine art, but producers of powerful and moving images of the real world) a wise man once said to me that nobody ever got rich overestimating the taste of the public. Sorry about that last sentence - tried to pack too much in.

[rawr]

get a room or something....

You seem to know how this works. What's the address of this room?

[monochrome]

I've written before, Ron, my wife says everything has already been done - and I reply, "Not by me."

[RonHendriks1966]

I've written before, Ron, my wife says everything has already been done - and I reply, "Not by me."

True and that is be coming more and more a problem for photography in general. Wich means that less images are being made and most things that would be nice to catch can be handled with an iPhone.

[Zygonyx]

I would state that nice landscapes are rarifying, as well as nature's marvels.
Independently of by whom or when they were shot.
The dramatically increasing number of i-phones doesn't help either.

[MJSfoto1956]

Adorama is now offering refurb D810s for $2280 (Nikon D810 Digital SLR Body Only Camera - Refurbished by Nikon U.S.A. 1542B)

If we assume that the K1 is meant to be "comparable" to the D810, then I would imagine that the introductory price would have to be less than this.

Michael

[Kunzite]

I found a D810 on e-bay, for a mere $49.99 (actually it's only the LCD screen, but we're not trying to be fair here, right?). I would imagine that the K-1's MSRP must be less than that.

[texandrews]

...If we assume that the K1 is meant to be "comparable" to the D810....

I'm actually assuming it may be better in some ways that are very important to me, from what I saw and heard at PhotoExpo. As far as the price is concerned, we'll see, but I've already posted what I was told by a Pentax employee, management level. Remember also that with refurbs (and I've bought a couple) you get a 90 day warranty, not one year (or six from Sigma!!!!)

[Kunzite]

I found a D810 on e-bay, for a mere $49.99 (actually it's only the LCD screen, but we're not trying to be fair here, right?). I would imagine that the K-1's MSRP must be less than that.

Scratch that, I found for $42.70 the "LCD Display Screen For NIKON D810 Digital Camera Repair Part + Glass". Cheaper, and with glass! The K-1 must come with a lens ("glass") attached for that price

[MJSfoto1956]

Scratch that, I found for $42.70 the "LCD Display Screen For NIKON D810 Digital Camera Repair Part + Glass". Cheaper, and with glass!

Perhaps you should be bold enough to pick one of those up and then repurpose the glass as a groundglass for your pinhole camera! :P

Michael

[monochrome]

Adorama is now offering refurb D810s for $2280 (Nikon D810 Digital SLR Body Only Camera - Refurbished by Nikon U.S.A. 1542B)

If we assume that the K1 is meant to be "comparable" to the D810, then I would imagine that the introductory price would have to be less than this.

Michael

Dude. 3 year old tech, refurbed? I have a NIB K-01 I can sell you. 1year warranty.