Prime Lens Portraits - Post Your Best!! (2)

blackjack999 wrote in post #16888655
Wow! Brilliant!

Awesome!

50L

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/np44​CX

6D + 50 f/1.8

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nGCj​AS

I was wondering why the other thread was never updating! Here's my first ever studio shot.

I'm really digging this studio thing. After shooting outdoors for 2 years, this is a whole new ball park!

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/npRP​as

120 macro

MDavey wrote in post #16922105
I was wondering why the other thread was never updating! Here's my first ever studio shot.

I'm really digging this studio thing. After shooting outdoors for 2 years, this is a whole new ball park!

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/npRP​as Blue Angel by Mat Davey (MDavey Photo), on Flickr

EDIT: Guess it made it on www.blenderseyewear.co​m too!

How does that happen? Just curious.

Did you ask them if they wanted it? Did they approach you beforehand ask you to shoot it? Did they come across it and ask if they could use it?

sancho1983 wrote in post #16922990
How does that happen? Just curious.

Did you ask them if they wanted it? Did they approach you beforehand ask you to shoot it? Did they come across it and ask if they could use it?

Long story short I used to have a joking website called shades on babes where I photographed cute girls in my sunglasses. They found it and hit me up, sent me like 40 pairs of sunglasses to shoot with.

I was shooting that girl and she threw on those aviators, today they sent me a message saying "check out the home page"

That's called getting little to no compensation while benefitting a company with images they would have otherwise had to pay for.

Zerimar wrote in post #16923128
That's called getting little to no compensation while benefitting a company with images they would have otherwise had to pay for.

Kind of a kick in the balls there, chief. We can't all step out of the gate into high dollar photographic pay checks.

I'd say if it is one of your first publications then good on you MDavey. Nice shot. I'd be thrilled if I were in your shoes.

I was very happy the first time one of my pictures was published.

MDavey wrote in post #16923001
Long story short I used to have a joking website called shades on babes where I photographed cute girls in my sunglasses. They found it and hit me up, sent me like 40 pairs of sunglasses to shoot with.

I was shooting that girl and she threw on those aviators, today they sent me a message saying "check out the home page"

Zerimar wrote in post #16923128
That's called getting little to no compensation while benefitting a company with images they would have otherwise had to pay for.

saea501 wrote in post #16923155
Kind of a kick in the balls there, chief. We can't all step out of the gate into high dollar photographic pay checks.

I'd say if it is one of your first publications then good on you MDavey. Nice shot. I'd be thrilled if I were in your shoes.

I was very happy the first time one of my pictures was published.

When they sent you all those pairs of sunglasses, was there an understanding that you would let them use your pictures in return? If yes, then I guess everything is kosher but I would probably ask them if they'd like to hire you for future pictures. If no, then you're in copyright infringement territory and that's a different situation especially if they are using it as their homepage to drive business. Even if it is the latter, I'm guessing that they like your pictures enough that you could work out some sort of amicable deal and might be able to get future business.

At any rate, it looks like their website is full of pictures that other people took. They've apparently got this down to a science - send people free sunglasses (not much cost to them since they get the bulk rate) and people send them free photos to use. I'm guessing most people on there don't care or are happy that their pic ends up getting featured.

who needs studio lighting?

I opened up the garage. pop-up my black background and shoot. no reflectors.

no dodging and burning and no sharpening.

The zeiss is one heck of a sharp baby.

I angled my son a bit to his left to make one side of his face a bit darker.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nqx6​n8

saea501 wrote in post #16923155
Kind of a kick in the balls there, chief. We can't all step out of the gate into high dollar photographic pay checks.

I'd say if it is one of your first publications then good on you MDavey. Nice shot. I'd be thrilled if I were in your shoes.

I was very happy the first time one of my pictures was published.

I believe you are missing the point of my post.

The company is the one that kicked him in the balls, and given the images on the website, quite a few other people too.

The company is receiving images that in turn they are using to promote themselves, increase sales, as well as social media presence. They are making money. They gave him several pairs of sunglasses, which most likely cost them little to nothing to do.

He as the photographer went out and did the following: used some sort of studio space, some sort of lighting equipment, a camera, lens, radio trigger, his time, gas, computer, hard drive space, and internet connection to create, save, edit and upload the image. All of those things were not free. He may have had to pay the model, a makeup artist, hair stylist, and/or wardrobe stylist. If he did not, then they are out their time, gas, kit usage (for mua) and any styling pull costs. The model is having their face on a website used for advertising.

None of the above were so much as credited on the website. So he has been published on a website, without credit. The model has not gotten credit, and the company is reaping the benefits.

If anything my comment was a lesson that all people will learn when you 'step out of the gate' into the real world of photography. Given this particular example, continued work of this nature would result in a bankrupt business. If he were to use this image in his portfolio and it led him to booking more paid work, then good on him. If the company decides they like his work enough to start paying him, then great. Will that happen? Most likely not. They can just send someone else a bunch of glasses and get their free images.

On a side note, you could technically invoice them or have them remove the image they are using, especially if you have not released/licensed the shot. They also should not be using the image if the model has not provided a release form for the shoot.

Several companies are doing similar practices and it's working for them, and in their favor. It's overall hurting the photography business and undervaluing work. This company now believes they only have to send some product out to get more photos. They will be hesitant to pay for images in the future, and if they do, it most likely won't be reasonable.

Now to get back on topic with this thread:

kojack_0 wrote in post #16923595

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

. by Koji Sese, on Flickr

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

. by Koji Sese, on Flickr

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

. by Koji Sese, on Flickr

Awesome, awesome!!

You're all arguing over something that doesn't need to be discussed. If they were doing me wrong in any way I wouldn't have posted about it, I would have taken action.

Now on with the pictures!