KHA

The bottom line is you seem to be chasing a different market. Your method automatically seems to rule out at least two groups of potential buyers: 1. People who wouldn't want their product associated with an altered photo; a lot of nature-related publications certainly would fall into that category because they don't want their output to be suspect. And even people who might not worry about that ethically might be worried about technical reveals, such as the celebrity photo a few years ago where someone ended up with three arms on the cover of a magazine or something like that.

I don't think even Walmart sells stuff for ten cents, though . . . Not even the gumball machines outside. Photographers should give that some thought, because Walmart has economies of scale an individual photographer will never have that allow it to survive with razor-thin profit margins. The microstock industry has devised a model built on loss-leading Black Friday every day of the year, except the loss comes from their suppliers, not them.

Free online software scares me, for the most part! I feel safer with the stuff you have to pay for.

I agree with this. And sometimes even people who approach you aggressively just need to vent. A couple women approached me when I was photographing in the neighborhood of the Sandy Hook shooter in the days after the attack. One of them just went off on me about how she was sick of the media harassing them, and said that her neighbor wouldn't appreciate me taking a picture of their house. (I had mistakenly been taking a picture of a house next to where the assailant had lived because of incorrect address information I had, and was just figuring this out as she came up.) I asked her

As long as there's no jumping to conclusions without facts, that's good.

I haven't been keeping up with everything, but the last I read was that some sources were saying it was actually more difficult to get it from surfaces than originally thought. I think part of the problem is when experts try to represent what are merely theories as fact, or people interpret it that way. The bottom line is that scientists are still learning about this disease, so some things probably shouldn't be prematurely presented as absolutes only to be rescinded at a later date.

Sounds like you're doing what's best for your situation in stepping back. Other stories will be out there for you when this pandemic passes, and I'm sure there are ways to be a photographic voice for Cleveland without even leaving your property.

By them? I feel like this story is missing some pertinent pieces.

Journalists face risk in many situations, not just this one. And lots of other professions face risk. Everyone has to decide for themselves what their personal risk threshold is. As far as contributing to a story, no photographer has any certainty of knowing whether they are going to have material that will contribute to a story until they get home, carefully examine those backgrounds, and see what they've got! I'm black, and I would have zero qualms about going to an open-carry KKK rally, sticking a camera in someone's face and getting a shot of those eyes hiding behind that hood.

That was a good video – thanks for posting. I wish he'd explained, though, why he was doing microstock in the first place. It's great that he's urging everyone to pull out now, but if people hadn't submitted in the first place, prices wouldn't be as low as they are currently. Especially since he indicates he wasn't desperate for money. I don't know if maybe he explained in previous videos why he got into it, but I was left wondering why so many professional photographers had no qualms about contributing to the crystal-clear diminishment of their work and of their industry until this latest inc

I might post some of the pictures I've been taking to document this unique moment in time at some point (still working on other things that have put my Alamy posting on hiatus for a long while), but in the meantime I just wanted to pipe up because I always feel a need to whenever there's a question of artists getting paid. While I do take pictures to capture history for myself without payment needing to be a primary motivator, I don't understand the philosophy at all of thinking that photographers shouldn't be able to try to earn a living from their work related to COVID-19. Should news report

Don't forget that some nationalities travel because it's the only way they get to experience warm weather . . .😎

Yeah, reevaluating old shoots can definitely be an informative part of the learning process, and of becoming conscious of your own style. There are so many things I see in photos when I take time to look closely at them that I didn't see the first time. And I just want to clarify for the record on my shoots, in case there's any confusion, that I am happy to take and include shots from people of all political persuasions. In the case I was speaking of in my initial post, there are so many shots I haven't posted yet from that shoot, that ones I like more from an aesthetic or journali

Yes, definitely the same here. And generally the more someone is trying to get my attention, the less I am drawn to them as a subject. At least when it comes to photography. Video is kind of a different story.

Does it speak to you? Does it have personality? Does it have any unique qualities? Does it make you think? Does it make you want to stare at it for a long time? Do you notice something new every time you look at it? Pick it like people pick a lot of things they decide to let into their lives. Because you want someone to let your picture into their headspace. And their headspace is crowded.