Search Results

I also saw one of my images – the one above – displayed in the Transport Museum in London’s Covent Garden as part of their Sense and the City exhibition, created in collaboration with Londonist. It’s a nice feeling, so thanks for the opportunity! Another image of mine, the one below, also went on display, but this time in Leeds. Chris Osburn curated an exhibition called Mega City Photo and included my ‘Dwarfed’ image too. Now I’ve got an excuse to return to Leeds. I hardly ever write self-congratulatory posts, but last week simply felt special in many ways. And I wanted to share my joy with you. I’d like to think the rest of the year will be at least as busy – and rewarding – as the past seven days. It’s a nice feeling. #londonist #megacityphoto #senseandthecity

Since its inception Instagram has been adding one feature here one feature there and slowly has become really robust. The latest update gives users the ability to see which images they’ve liked on Instagram. Until now you liked something and within five minutes it was forgotten. Unless you remembered the photographer’s name, or unless the image was tagged, you couldn’t find it again. Now you can. If you update to the latest version (v1.18.17), you gain an extra option called “Photos you’ve liked”. They are displayed as a grid, but it’s easy to switch to a feed view as well. Instagram displays the latest 32 photos you liked, but you can obviously load more. A simple addition, but it makes Instagram more appealing and sticky. The other feature I only noticed this morning shortly before I updated the app, so I assume it’s been there for a some time. When I looked at my News tab – which so far consisted of messages telling me someone was following me, liked a photo or left a comment on it – it also told me one of my Twitter friends had just joined Instagram. Which was quite useful again and much easier than scrolling the same list every few weeks or so just to see who else has joined Instagram in the meantime. Now all they need to do is to create a nice web interface – some images do look better on a bigger screen, don’t you think?  Or, since they’ve already made their API available to third-party developers, they can buy one of the many existing web apps created to display and interact with Instagram images. My favourite one so far is Extragr.am (that’s where the above screengrab of my IG images comes from) and it’s a really easy way of navigating your (and your friends’) images on a bigger screen. If you are on Instagram, do follow me – I’m michald on there. It’s worth it 😉 #instagram #iphone #iphoneography

My daily commute over the past few weeks has been really frustrating. This time it wasn’t the wrong kind of snow or cancelled trains. It was my Kindle. The gadget I quickly fell in love with last year, the device that revolutionised my reading habits, was in danger of becoming a huge disappointment less than 9 months after I first bought it. Why? Every morning and every evening I struggled to turn it on. It became unresponsive. I would struggle for 20 or so minutes to restart it on the train – most of the time unsuccessfully. I followed the instructions, but the screen always remained frozen on one of Kindle’s many lovely screensaving pages and the device would remain dead, save for the occasional blink or two of the green power light. It would only start working again when fully recharged – which I had to do daily, despite Amazon’s claims that the battery can last up to 30 days (and until the problems started it actually did). I googled it. Many people reported similar issues, but the only solution others seemed to suggest was a hard restart. It would probably work if I could actually restart it, but I couldn’t. So I turned to Amazon Kindle support for help. The whole experience was actually painless – they called me straight away, the support lady was helpful, but her first question after confirming my identity was: “Are you still using the leather Kindle case you bought from Amazon in Spetember?” “Yes, why? Is it causing any issues?” “I just want to eliminate all possibilities,” she replied, avoiding confirming or denying anything. We agreed that I would use my Kindle for a few days without the cover. It never crashed once. Amazon called back and upon learning that my Kindle was actually ok immediately refunded me for my leather cover and told me not to use it again. Then helpfully emailed my a link to a new range of leather covers – with “updated design”. So what was the issue? They didn’t tell me. But it turns out that when I was googling for an answer, I left out a crucial keyword – ‘cover’. Had I added it to my Kindle troubleshooting searches, I would have learned much sooner that the ‘faulty’ cover was actually a known issue and that many people before me had theirs refunded. The Amazon cover relies on two hinges, or hooks/grips, that are made of metal. They are painted – or insulated – but with time that paint wears off and the metal hook touches something (clearly another metal bit) inside the device, causing it to crash. Since I stopped using the case my Kindle 3 hasn’t crashed or frozen once. If yours has become unresponsive – and you’re using the original Amazon case – try the above steps. And then ask Amazon for a refund. By Michal Dzierza #amazon #kindle

What is your primary camera? Is it a DSLR? A lower-end pocket digital camera? Or is it a mobile phone? Chances are it’s probably a combination of at least two devices, one of which is primarily used as a phone. I use a good DSLR, but for projects like The Best Camera I rely exclusively on my iPhone, which as we all know, is not particularly good at taking pictures. More and more people use their mobile phones as a camera (or instead of one) as the quality of the images they produce has improved dramatically over the past few years. And according to a recent report by iSuppli, the low-end digital camera market is under great pressure from mobile phone manufacturers who release more better quality camera phones boasting, among other things, high resolution image sensors. iSuppli forecasts that by 2013 the average mobile camera resolution will rise to 5.7 megapixels. Between 2008 and 2009 this resolution rose by 0.6 megapixels, from 1.5 to 2.1 Mp. Within the next three years compact digital cameras will be able to produce images which are, on average, up to 13.9 megapixels in size. iSuppli reckons that with better image quality management tools mobile phone manufacturers might be able to persuade those who wouldn’t risk “a precious family photo” to ditch their compact cameras for better performing camera phones. It also predicts that Asian and European users will be more willing to make the jump. It’s all fine and makes sense, but I’m surprised iSuppli in its report ignored one, crucial aspect of the whole issue: the ability to share your photos with the world instantly. I guess this will be the real deciding factor here. Whether you’re at a gig, witnessing something newsworthy or just want to take a quick photo of something to share, you are probably less worried about the overall quality (which in most cases wouldn’t be that much better if you had a small compact camera on you anyway), but more about being able to share the image. Mobile phones allow users to do MMS a picture, email it, share it instantly on Facebook, Twitter, other networking sites, upload to Flickr, Picasa, etc. Yes, in theory you could do the same with any camera and an Eye-Fi memory card, but your average Joe probably won’t bother with that. Plus most smartphones – and the iPhone in particular – have some great photo apps like the above mentioned Best Camera app. So, yes, mobile phones are likely to put pressure and possibly even kill off lower-end cameras (if they haven’t already), but the number of pixels – even though it’s still used as a strong USP in marketing campaigns –  will probably not be the most crucial of factors in the future. Thoughts? #cameras #isuppli #mobilephones

What do you do with your mobile images apart from uploading them to Instagram or Facebook? If you take more than selfies, sunrises and food porn shots, check out Stockimo. Backed by Alamy, Stockimo has been created exclusively with mobile shooters (iPhone only for now) in mind. Their strapline – “Cash in on your creativity” – is clear and simple. And so is the app in fact. Stockimo log in screen Its simplicity is initially almost confusing. What? No lengthy intros? No usual “we buy this, but don’t try to sell us this” warnings stock libraries love so much? Nothing like that. Once you create a profile, or log in using your existing one (you can use your Alamy credentials if you already have a profile there), the app will default to your ‘Home’ screen and will give you two other options. You will be able to upload a new photo – or take one using the app – and check your activity. Some of my initial mobile uploads The activity feed is very simple. Once you upload an image this is where you see its status. On average so far I’ve had to wait two days, maybe a bit more, for my photos to be rejected or approved. Although in one case it only took 30 minutes or so. This is presumably where you are also informed you’ve made a sale. More on sales and acceptance criteria in a moment, now let’s look at how the uploads work. Four steps The process of uploading a photo is equally simple. The first thing you need to do is to give your photo a title and add a minimum of two tags. On the next screen you are asked if your image can be used for commercial purposes, for example adverts. If your answer is yes, you’ll be asked how many people are present in the picture. The usual model release rules still apply, obviously. The last question focuses on recognisable properties. If you indicate that your image does include a recognisable property, you’ll need to prove you have a property release for it. If you don’t, you can still submit the image, but not for commercial uses, only for editorial purposes. And that’s it. Each upload – including titles and tagging – takes me maybe a minute. image So what DO you upload and how much can you earn? Stockimo was created for those who use their iPhone to take images. So if you’re thinking you could use the app as a shortcut for your DSLR images, you’ll be disappointed. Stockimo only accepts iPhone images (no idea when and if Android will be added) and presumably can read the EXIF data from the images you submit to verify their origin. In fact, users are encouraged to submit Instagram and Hipstamatic images, so filters are ok, as long as the images are “cool” however you interpret that. What you take is up to you. We want you to shoot what you love and be as creative and adventurous as you like. We want interesting places and happenings; we want Stockimo users to document the world. claims Stockimo. Each submitted image is rated on a scale from 1 to 4 and if the rating is higher than 2, your image gets approved. There’s no information how the images are rated, so it’s impossible to dispute a rejection or even learn from mistakes. There’s no feedback, just a rejection. This is definitely an area Stockimo will need to work on in the future. But if you are using the app you presumably want to earn some cash (which paid to you via PayPal, by the way). Stockimo claims the average price for its images is $90 (around £54), but can be as low as $5 or as high as $500, depending on the rights and usage. Stockimo obviously takes a cut. And this will probably be an important factor for many as you are not likely to make a fortune. (In fact, I think the next sentence will outrage many.) In the future photographers will get 20% of the sale price, currently they can get 40% or 50% if they were existing Alamy users. 20% doesn’t sound like a lot, but if you’re a prolific iPhone snapper and have no other use for your images, then it’s not THAT bad. The app is simple enough and won’t cost you more time to use than say Instagram. I’m enjoying it for now, but would definitely love to see some additional features (for example: the ability to sort the activity feed) and a more transparent approval process would be more than welcome. Alternative apps There are alternative apps, obviously: Getty has jumped on the mobile photography bandwagon with its Moment app and Foap has been luring mobile snappers for a couple of years now with its promise of $5 sales. Both apps however are project- or theme-based, restricting the variety of images you can offer for sale. Stockimo – for now at least – seems to be the easiest stock mobile photography app. Follow me on Instagram: #iphoneography #getty #Stockphotography #stockimo #alamy #Smartphone #iphone #foap

Driving through the beautiful Dartmoor was an unforgettable experience – the majestic views, the barren landscapes. And the near-frostbite on my fingers. I left the car just for a few minutes to take whatever pictures I could take, but the wind, combined with occasional hail, made it a thoroughly miserable experience. Yet, the ice-cream van was there, patiently waiting for better times. I was glad to be back in the tiny village of Scoriton on the edge of the national park, not just because I knew my fantastic B&B owners would have fresh home-made cake and a cup of much-needed hot tea for us. I also loved the tree in the village, one of the most amazing trees I’ve ever seen. I’m going to go back there in the summer. I want to experience it all again and eventually use my walking boots which stayed in the boot all Easter weekend. (The norovirus episode, which I’m not going to delve into here, didn’t help either). Dorset is a lovely place and I took this postcard-worthy image to prove it: #dartmoor #devon #photography

Just don’t roll your eyes. Yes, the latest iPhone does have a really impressive 8-megapixel camera capable of shooting HD video. Get over it. After the initial avalanche of let-me-be-the-first-to-show-you-how-good-it-is videos and images, first *really* impressive iPhone 4S videos begin to emerge. Like this one, called “Framed”. There’s a mini story, very lovely cinematography and the filmmakers relied on the iPhone’s image stabilisation to make the shots look really smooth. They also relied on an additional Glidetrack slider and a tripod for smooth panning shots and movement. The film was edited in Final Cut Pro (you can’t do more than some basic edits on your iPhone, unless it’s some casual footage) with some Magic Bullets colour grading. Which is what you would do with footage from other, more ‘professional’ cameras. The iPhone has now joined their ranks. I’ll say it again: get over it. #iPhone4S #video

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/js/2.0/video/evp/module.js?loc=int&vid=/video/international/2009/03/19/ic.march.twitter.bk.a.cnn Embedded video from CNN Video (Is the pope Catholic?) #journalism #Twitter

Yesterday, a well-known photographer, Trey Ratcliff, posted his thoughts on watermarking online images. In short, he doesn’t believe in watermarks and he explains why. And it works for him, which I respect. Others responded by explaining why they do watermark their images. There are multiple reasons for that – commercial, social, ego-driven, etc. I watermark mine too. Generally, watermarks don’t bother me, unless they are overwhelming, badly applied or extremely distracting. In most cases they aren’t as many photographers rely on software like Lightroom, which enables them to create and compose individual watermarks and control their position, size, transparency and other parameters. My brain processes the image and ignores the watermark. I can understand that many people’s brains work differently and that’s fine. But that’s not the point of this post. In his post, Trey Ratcliff explains why he doesn’t watermark his numerous images. He claims that, since they are protected by Creative Commons, people can repost them with attribution (except for commercial purposes) and that – because he registers them with the Copyright Office – any lawsuit will be easy. I don’t necessarily agree with Trey – I certainly think he is wrong when he says that “legitimate companies do not steal images to use commercially” – but as I said, I respect his choices. In the post he does admit that there will always be those who steal images – he calls it the cost of doing business on the internet. And, as if to prove his point – less than 12 hours after reading Trey’s post, I came across his images, reposted on Google+ by someone called Art Rudenko (assuming it’s his real profile). Oh, the irony. Art, whose profile is in Russian (all screengrabs here have been translated into English using Chrome) seems to have a penchant for stolen images. His profile is a loose collection of images, videos etc. collected from all over the web and reposted – without any attribution – under his name. You’ve probably seen many blogs like this on Tumblr. Trey Ratcliff has become Art’s latest victim. I noticed at least two of Trey’s images on Art’s profile, including one which he subsequently deleted from his profile (see screengrab below) Exif data from both images confirms without a shadow of a doubt who the original creator was. Under pressure from a few Google+ users Art eventually added attribution to one of the images and deleted the other one. But his ‘discussion’ with Google+ users confirms he’s one of the bottom feeders (Trey’s expression) who don’t give a damn about intellectual property, and is likely to continue stealing from others, republishing under his profile and thinking nothing of it. So here is my point. Most people whose images have been misued (for commercial or non-commercial purposes) don’t have, unlike Trey, 300k+ followers willing to speak up for them. Many of them don’t – or can’t – submit their work to the Copyright Office as they either don’t know of its existence or live outside the US (although the Office does protect “many works of foreign origin“). Many live in territories where all forms of copyright theft are widespread and they simply feel more vulnerable. Watermark might be a form of security – yes, it’s weak – but it’s some security. Others have been stung in the past or maybe simply want to discover new talent online. So, Trey, if you are reading – I assume that you wrote your post simply to share your point of view, and not to lecture. But it was slightly detached from reality. And when it comes from someone with such a huge fan base, it is bound to unleash some criticism. You may consider them ugly, but for some photographers watermarks are a necessity. #copyright #TreyRatcliff #watermarking

I was enjoying a coffee in Central London when Niall McDiarmid texted me to see if I was available to film a talk Roger Ballen, the acclaimed American photographer, was about to give in London for Independent London Photography. I said yes. The short film below – shot that evening at the Rudolf Steiner House Theatre in Regent’s Park – encapsulates only a tiny bit of what Roger Ballen talked about. And I won’t pretend it does more than just scratch the suface of the complex and at times dark world of Roger Ballen’s art. He relocated to Johannesburg, South Africa, several decades ago and initially photographed South African villages (or ‘dorps’ in Afrikaans, hence the title of his 1986 book), and their houses. But, as he himself admitted, he knocked at one of those houses’ doors once and his life changed forever then and there. He discovered a different world inside, a world which fascinated and inspired him for years. His subsequent works focused on the people who inhabited those dorps, on their relationships with the world around them and with themselves. While Ballen’s focus might have shifted throughout the decades, his technique has remained constant. As he admits in the video, he is “obsessed with the square format” and  believes that every part of the picture has an equal purpose or role to play. Ballen doesn’t believe in photo manipulation or use colour in his photography. This video should offer a tiny glimpse into his world. It definitely offers the best, and the most succinct advice for photographers of all abilities I’ve ever heard from a seasoned photographer … If you live, or happen to be, in Manchester before 13 May, you should definitely spend some time at the Manchester Art Gallery, where Roger Ballen’s images are displayed as part of his Shadow Land exhibition. #photography #RogerBallen

#Canon #photo #photography

Did 500px.com just give photographers a simple, but effective publicity boost (and Flickr another kick in the ass)? Unless you’ve spent the last week or so in a cave, you probably know that Flickr has just released a new version of its mobile app. It’s got tons of reviews, mostly positive, unlike its web redesign, which alienated many users. But, as some pointed out, Flickr is catching up with other mobile photography apps and is likely to focus on the web property next. Meanwhile however, its more nimble competitor, 500px.com, has implemented a small change to how it displays its members’ images on the web, which is likely to help many web-savvy photographers find a much bigger audience beyond 500px.com itself. A few days ago I noticed that Google indexed a few new pages featuring my name, including an old photo upload on 500px. Then I got second alert about another 500px page with my photograph. So I looked at both pages trying to work out why they got indexed now. All of a sudden and for no apparent reason. Did someone link to them? Did 500px feature them somewhere? No. Have a look at the URL for the above Battersea picture after I’ve uploaded it to Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dzierza/13128636754 And the same picture on 500px.com: http://500px.com/photo/63628261/misty-battersea-by-michal-dzierza If you know anything about SEO you’ll understand the difference between the two and the significance of the change to how 500px structures its URLs. If you don’t, let me explain it briefly. Google, still the most powerful search engine on the planet, takes a wide range of signals into consideration while indexing and subsequently surfacing pages on its search results pages. The importance and significance of these signals varies – and constantly changes – but the general consensus is that URLs should still be optimised (but not abused, i.e. stuffed with zillions of irrelevant keywords) as Google still uses the information contained within the URL to determine how to rank the pages. Now, if you were to look up a picture of misty Battersea, would you type into Google (or any other search engine) ‘misty Battersea’ or ‘13128636754’? And that’s why – for now at least – 500px has got the upper hand. I wasn’t sure whether it was a recent change or an old feature I’d only just noticed, so I reached out to Oleg Gutsol, the CEO of 500px.com who confirmed it was a recent addition: Our web team recently added photo title and the photographer’s name to the photo url. This is mainly to help search engines discover the photos and their creators better. I also asked him what the feedback has been so far, if any: So far, you’re the only one that I heard from about this, what do you think about it? Here’s what I think: – if you’re a photographer after a much larger audience, this is an invaluable and free publicity tool. Use it wisely. If you *really* want to be super serious about SEO and driving search traffic to your images, research your image title keywords before you publish the image. Otherwise just be aware of the fact the title and your name now form part of the URL. – if you edit the title, the url will change too. So if you want to reoptimise old images, do it sooner rather than later. It would seem 500px applied the URL changes retrospectively as when I searched for ‘misty battersea michal dzierza’ Google still showed the original page it indexed, which also contained just a random string of numbers and was still outranked by Flickr. – the change is likely to benefit the photographer, but the biggest winner is obviously 500px. The change is likely to boost its organic traffic from search engines, but may also – potentially at least – harm some photographers’ sites’ SEO by outranking them. However, I don’t think it’s a massive issue for most people. By Michal Dzierza P.S. Funnily enough, Google doesn’t optimise its own URLs. The same photo on Google+  https://plus.google.com/photos/103816950273290237811/albums/5627752255992544737/5997600335388236018?pid=5997600335388236018&oid=103816950273290237811 #500px #flickr #flickrapp #seo