Ricoh Unveils the THETA Z1, A $1,000 360° Camera with 4K and Raw

Ricoh Unveils the THETA Z1, A ,000 360° Camera with 4K and Raw

Ricoh has announced the THETA Z1, the company’s latest THETA 360-degree camera that becomes the flagship camera of the line that was first introduced in 2013.

THETA cameras are designed to capture 360-degree spherical photos in a single snap — the camera automatically stitches the two photos together for you — and the new THETA Z1 turns image quality up another notch.

Inside the camera are dual 1-inch CMOS sensors that together capture 23-megapixel photos and 4K/30fps videos in a 360-degree spherical view. And improved processing algorithm provides improved noise reduction and low-light performance.

The lenses of the camera feature an improved design with less ghosting, fringing, and flares. Aperture can be selected from f/2.1, f/3.5, and f/5.6.

In addition to JPEG photos, the THETA Z1 can capture Adobe DNG raw files, giving photographers greater flexibility in editing to produce higher-quality results.

At the bottom of the magnesium alloy camera is a 0.93-inch organic EL display that shows status and info.

Other specs and features include 19GB of built-in storage, 4-channel mics, 3-axis rotational stabilization, a Function (Fn) button, and 360-degree live streaming in 4K or 2K.

Ricoh hasn’t announced an exact date of availability, but the THETA Z1 will have a price tag of $1,000 when it hits stores (likely within the next few months).


Source: PetaPixel

Ricoh Unveils the THETA Z1, A ,000 360° Camera with 4K and Raw

This Astronaut Shot Racetracks from Space with a Nikon DSLR

This Astronaut Shot Racetracks from Space with a Nikon DSLR

NASA astronaut Drew Feustel grew up in Detroit and is an avid car and racing enthusiast. So much so that while commanding the International Space Station in 2018, Feustel photographed racetracks from space with a Nikon DSLR before watching the race itself in his free time.

“I was always a racing fan, [I] followed IndyCar, Formula One, and MotoGP, and I still follow it to this day,” Feustel says in a new interview with Hot Rod Network. “I keep up on the series, the teams, and the drivers, and because I was a fan I spent time in space taking photos of the entire 2018 season—all of the race tracks […] On the race weekends, I would post the picture of the track, and then watch the race. That was kind of what I did as a hobby while I was up there.”

NASA astronaut Drew Feustel.

Feustel tells Hot Rod Network that a lot of logistics went into getting the shots. He provided coordinates of racetracks to ground support teams at mission control, and people here on Earth crunched numbers to tell Feustel exactly when and where the photo opportunities would present themselves to his vantage point in the ISS.

“The photos were taken in my spare time—nights or weekends, or middle of the night or whenever, basically when I knew I was going to be flying over a track I would plan ahead for the day so that I had some free time to use the 5 minutes that I had to catch a track as I passed overhead, and then get back on with my work,” Fuestel says. “I managed to capture all of them.”

Feustel shooting a DSLR while on a spacewalk.

Everything was shot with a Nikon D5 with an 800mm lens and 2x teleconverter, giving Feustel a 1600mm focal length to work with. He used manual camera settings and manual focus. And framing the shots were tricky because he couldn’t actually see the tracks with the naked eye.

“When I looked out in the lens you could probably fit 30 tracks into the area,” Fuestel tells Hot Rod Network. “I couldn’t see them with the naked eye, usually, but if I pointed the camera in the right place, I could see them through the viewfinder. There were a lot of times where I couldn’t see them, and entirely missed a track because I pointed the camera in the wrong spot.”

The International Space Station orbits at 250 miles above the ground and zips around the Earth at 17,500 miles per hour, making it very, very difficult to capture specific small areas on the ground. But with patience, practice, and perseverance, Feustel managed to get all the racetracks on his list.

Here’s a selection of the racetrack photos Fuestel captured from space:

Circuit Paul Ricard. French F1 GP
Detroit GP. IndyCar.
Bahrain GP. F1.
Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya. Spanish F1 GP.
Circuito de Jerez-Ángel Nieto in Spain.
Czech Motor GP.
Malaysian Moto GP.
NTT IndyCar.
Pocono Raceway. IndyCar.
Texas Motor Speedway. IndyCar.
Valencia Moto CP.

You can find a much larger gallery of Fuestel’s racetrack photos over at Hot Rod Network. Fuestel also published his photos on his Instagram and Twitter accounts.


Source: PetaPixel

This Astronaut Shot Racetracks from Space with a Nikon DSLR

Premiere: Embrace the Unknown With the Music Video for Avonlea’s “Stranger”

Premiere: Embrace the Unknown With the Music Video for Avonlea’s “Stranger”
Emerging artist Avonlea, who has previously earned acclaim from Billboard, L’Officiel USA, and Nylon for her buoyant melodies and raw lyrics, is back with an introspective and electrifying track, “Stranger.” Both the song and the accompanying video describe, with uncanny accuracy, the somberness and freedom that result from the end of a relationship.

“The inspiration for the song was my first serious break up,” said Avonlea. “He was my best friend, my everything. But we were both…

Keep on reading: Premiere: Embrace the Unknown With the Music Video for Avonlea’s “Stranger”
Source: V Magazine

Premiere: Embrace the Unknown With the Music Video for Avonlea’s “Stranger”

Shooting Overhead Action Photos of Tennessee Basketball

Shooting Overhead Action Photos of Tennessee Basketball

If you’ve followed Tennessee basketball, chances are you’ve seen one of those really cool overhead photos. That top-down, bird’s eye view is something you don’t see every day, and only very few have access to capturing this unique angle.

There’s a lot of gear, planning and time required to get those couple of shots, and after a lot of curiosity from others, I thought I’d give a behind-the-scenes look at how I do it.

It’s all remote

The number one question I’m asked is if I’m scared being so high up taking photos during the game. The answer is I’m not because I’m actually sitting on the court taking them. I use a radio transceiver called a PocketWizard to trigger a camera mounted in the catwalk.

With a transmitter in my hand, I wait until the action beneath the basket comes to its peak until I hit the trigger button. That signal travels up to a receiver mounted on my camera up above, thus firing the camera.

News Sentinel photographer Calvin Mattheis on the catwalk at Thompson-Boling Arena before the start of the Tennessee Vols and Vanderbilt basketball game. Photo by Saul Young/News Sentinel

What gear do I use?

I usually arrive two hours before tipoff to mount the overhead remote camera, secure the transceiver, turn on the flash strobes and troubleshoot any problems that may arise.

For the gearheads out there, I use a Nikon D4S camera with a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens along with PocketWizard III radio transceivers and a pre-trigger release cable. A pre-trigger release cable is what keeps the camera on and ready to fire, preventing it from going to sleep mode.

News Sentinel photographer Calvin Mattheis on the catwalk at Thompson-Boling Arena before the start of the Tennessee Vols and Vanderbilt basketball game. Photo by Saul Young/News Sentinel

Shooting experience

Admittedly, it’s a juggling act. When I’m shooting on the court I am using my main camera in one hand, I have a camera with a wide angle lens to my left, and to my right I have a camera mounted on a telephoto lens.

In my other hand I have the radio transmitter with one finger on the trigger button. I switch between cameras as the action comes and goes, and in the end I’m a tangled mess of camera straps.

“There’s got to be an easier or better way to do this,” I think to myself, but so far I have not found a better solution.

As for the actual photographing, it’s all about timing. Shooting with flash strobes limits you to one photo every one-and-a-half seconds until the flashes recharge. Timing the remote camera is also challenging because I am unable to see what the camera is seeing. I’m honestly guesstimating when to hit the trigger to fire the camera.

So why do it?

My goal as a photojournalist is to present an accurate, unbiased account of what I am documenting. But I also want to offer the viewer something fun, interesting and unique and to show them something they may have missed. The ability to use remote cameras and find new angles is another tool in my camera bag to create those images.

Sure, it’s a lot of effort and sometimes it doesn’t work. For example, this last game the release cable shorted out and the camera fired 1,500 photos of nothing. Or when I forgot to turn on the radio transmitter. Or the classic camera battery dying on me.

But when it does work, the photos are pretty sweet.


This article was originally published by the Knoxville News Sentinel.


About the author: Calvin Mattheis is a full-time newspaper photojournalist at the Knoxville News Sentinel in Knoxville, Tennessee. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. You can find more of Mattheis on his website and Instagram.


Source: PetaPixel

Shooting Overhead Action Photos of Tennessee Basketball

This Site Ranks the Attractiveness of AI-Generated Faces

This Site Ranks the Attractiveness of AI-Generated Faces

NVIDIA’s mind-blowing AI that generates faces of people who don’t exist recently led to an unofficial website called thispersondoesnotexist.com that lets anyone generate a new random face in an instant. Creative director Mike Solomon has built upon the idea with a new website called Judge Fake People that experiments with letting the public rank the attractiveness of AI-generated faces.

“Judging people by their appearance feels icky,” Solomon writes. “Why? Because there’s more to people than their looks; we need to consider the whole package.

“But what if someone exists in appearance only? A cover without a book, solely for your judgment? That sounds like a fun place to make guilt-free snap judgments, so I built it!”

Solomon wrote a script that harvested about 2,000 imaginary faces from thispersondoesnotexist.com. He then created a simple website that displays the faces with a voting and commenting system (while doing his best to filter faces that look too young for the experiment).

In addition to the random grid of faces designed for collecting votes, the site also features pages showing highest and lowest ranked faces according to public votes (the same faces have a chance of appearing in both lists due to the ranking algorithm being used).

Here are a few of the highest ranked faces thus far:

And here are a few of the lowest ranked:

As you can see, many of the lowest ranking faces are actually cases in which the AI glitched in some way and did a horrible job at generating a realistic-looking human face. Most of the highest ranking faces, on the other hand, are photo-realistic examples showing the best of what NVIDIA’s AI can do.

Head on over to Judge Fake People if you’d like to look further into Solomon’s experiment.


Source: PetaPixel

This Site Ranks the Attractiveness of AI-Generated Faces

We Are Known By What We Leave Behind

We Are Known By What We Leave Behind

100 years from now, no one is going to care who I am. I know this. I don’t mean that in a bad way and I don’t say it in the hopes someone will contradict me and shower me with praise; this is not said as compliment bait.

No, I say it because it’s true. 100 years from now, no one is going to care who I was. The same probably goes for you, too. In fact, with a few exceptions, it goes for most people. Command an army, serve as president, discover the cure for stupidness… history will remember you. But for most of us, this simply isn’t true. History won’t remember us. The wonderful every day glorious things we did: raise a family, work hard, bake a mean apple pie, help our neighbors…these things will never make it into the history books.

But when it comes to our family, well, that’s a little different. They are the people who could very well remember and more importantly, WANT to remember. To them, we will be part of that marvelous root system from which future generations sprang to life. We will be part of their story, whether they like it or not. I mean, you can pick your friends, you can pick your nose, but you can’t pick your family, right? You are stuck with them and they with you. And most of the time, that’s a pretty great thing.

But what will they know about us? After all, time has a way of blurring the details. Family stories get changed, ever so slightly, with each telling. It’s to be expected. Tales are told of my Sicilian grandfather, Carmelo, who played poker with his Sicilian “friends” in the basement, and how each put their gun on the table during the game so that no one would end up the casualty of a sore loser. It’s a great story-no wonder “Goodfellas” is one of my favorite movies.

And while stories like this are a part of how I know a man I never met, I know him more from photos like this one: a man playing a banjo, his vineyard behind him, a dog at his feet.

In fact, I know more about my Sicilian grandfather from this one picture than I do any story. I look at this image and see a man who loved music enough to pose with his banjo; a man who loved his dog and whose dog clearly loved him (check out that adoring expression) a man who was poor but donned a tie and hat because obviously, this photograph was important; a man who smiled at a time when smiling wasn’t “cool.”

No one but a handful of people in the world care about this picture. But to that handful, this picture is everything. I don’t have many photos of my grandfather. Photos were expensive and my dad’s family were dirt poor, so few pictures exist of this wonderful man and his wife and their 13 kids in their house on the hill in McKeesport, Pennsylvania. But with this one photo, I feel like I KNOW my grandpa.

How are we known, my friends? We are known by what we leave behind. Print the memories you want to preserve.


About the author: Missy Mwac is a photography satirist, a lover of bacon, a drinker of vodka, a lover of sparkle, and a guide through the murky waters of professional photography. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. You can connect with her on her website, Tumblr, and Facebook. This article was also published here.


Source: PetaPixel

We Are Known By What We Leave Behind

Kodak’s Kodakit Asks Photographers to Give Up the ‘Entire Copyright’

Kodak’s Kodakit Asks Photographers to Give Up the ‘Entire Copyright’

Kodak launched an on-demand photography service called Kodakit back in January 2017 that aims to connect photographers to brands looking for photography. But there’s something all photographers need to know about this “Uber of photography,” as it’s been called: it demands that you sign over the “entire copyright” to the photos you shoot.

PDNPulse is sounding the alarm over Kodakit, warning that the Eastman Kodak subsidiary is “grabbing copyrights.”

While there were immediate complaints about Kodakit “low-balling” photographers back in 2017, PDNPulse highlights several points from the service’s Terms and Conditions that are extremely overreaching and restrictive — likely far more than most photographers realize.

1. Photographers lose the entire copyright to their work

[…] Photographer hereby perpetually and irrevocably assigns to the Client upon creation the entire copyright, including all rental and lending rights whether vested, contingent or future in the Work Product (including any associated intellectual property rights), and all rights, title and interest (including a right of action) in the Work Product upon its creation whether now known or hereinafter created to which the Photographer is now or may be in the future entitled by virtue of, or pursuant to, any of the laws in force in any part of the world and to hold the same to Client, its successors, assignees and licensees absolutely, for the whole period of such rights for the time being capable of being assigned by the Photographer together with any and all renewals, revivals, reversions and extensions throughout the world.

In other words, it’s a work for hire arrangement in which you’re giving up everything.

2. Photographers must hand over and/or destroy all files (including outtakes)

Upon the request of a Client or us, Photographer shall provide any and all works, images, tangible or digital images, sketches, files and photos, including all related negatives, transparencies or digital files, whether copyrightable or not, that have been authored or conceived of or reduced to practice in the course of Photographer’s performance of the photographic services for Client […] or if not so requested promptly following written acceptance of the Commissioned Photos, Photographer shall promptly irreversibly destroy all Work Product, including any remaining outtakes of photographic services that do not result in edited .JPG files delivered via the Platform as Commissioned Photos.

3. Photographers can’t use the photos they make for self-promotion (unless approved in writing)

…and even if approved, photographers must include a watermark or copyright notice demanded by the client.

Without the prior written permission of Client and us, Photographer shall not display the Work Product (including any Commissioned Photos) for personal promotion. Should Client or Company grant such written permission, any Work Product used shall contain the watermark or copyright noticed required by
Client.

4. Photographers can’t even claim to have shot the photos they shot

This is signed away in the “Moral Rights Waiver” section of the document.

To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, Photographer hereby irrevocably transfers and assigns to Client, and waives and agrees never to assert, any and all Moral Rights […] that
Photographer may have in or with respect to any Work Product […] “Moral Rights” mean any rights to claim authorship of a work, to object to or prevent the modification or destruction of a work, to withdraw from circulation or control the publication or distribution of a work, and any similar right, existing under judicial or statutory law of any jurisdiction in the world, or under any treaty, regardless of whether or not such right is called or generally referred to as a “moral right.”

The Full Document

If you’d like to read Kodakit’s full Terms and Conditions for yourself, here it is:

Kodak: A “Trusted” Name in Photography?

Kodakit’s stated goal is to allow photographers to “spend more time behind the camera” by taking over many of non-photographic aspects of running a photo business — things like marketing, booking, pricing, scheduling, invoicing, and payments.

But in accepting Kodakit’s “help” in these things, photographers must give away pretty much everything when it comes to copyright and the future benefits of created works.

And many photographers have indeed signed over their rights in this way: Kodakit Chief Marketing Officer Natasha Adams tells PDNPulse that “three to four thousand photographers across the globe” have worked with the service since it launched.

“Kodak Founder George Eastman once said, ‘You press the button, we do the rest’,” said then-Kodak CEO Jeff Clarke (who just stepped down this month) in the Kodakit launch announcement two years ago. “For photographers and companies, KODAKIT operates on this same principle. Building upon our longstanding legacy as one of the most trusted names in film and photography, KODAKIT will revolutionize how photographers and businesses work together, creating the photography ecosystem of the future.”

The Kodak brand definitely has a place in the hearts and minds of photographers, but with terms and conditions like the ones Kodakit has set forth, it remains to be seen how long Kodak can remain “one of the most trusted names” in photography.


Source: PetaPixel

Kodak’s Kodakit Asks Photographers to Give Up the ‘Entire Copyright’

A Comparison of PhotoShelter and Squarespace for E-commerce

A Comparison of PhotoShelter and Squarespace for E-commerce

I recently I canceled my PhotoShelter account after being with the service for 8 years, and I wanted to provide a better understanding of the pros and cons of PhotoShelter and Squarespace. I currently use Squarespace and while I wouldn’t say the service is without its faults, I do believe that it is a better service for my needs.

I wrote this article so I can better sum up what those needs are, and how the services differ in their strengths. I’m going to compare the two services based on their main selling points and will award a winner of each round.

Though I have been displeased with PhotoShelter service, I will do my best to remain objective. However, since both are content management systems at their core, they can be compared nearly one to one. Please note, I’m not affiliated with either service.

Ease Of Use

Both Squarespace and PhotoShelter claim to be very easy and you can be up and running in minutes, according to the marketing of each. PhotoShelter offers 9 website templates for the user to customize while Squarespace offers (by my count) 67 templates for the user to customize.

On the PhotoShelter customization platform, your choices are limited to picking colors and fonts, which does allow the user a quicker set up than Squarespace’s more robust style and page editor. PhotoShelter also gets points for their simple choices when it comes to templates since you only have 9 to pick from it’s an easy choice on which one the user prefers.

Contrasting that to Squarespace, with 67 templates it can be daunting for the user to find a single template to use. Because the Squarespace templates can be customized to the nth degree, their page and style editor is much more robust and can be, at times, more difficult to use than PhotoShelter’s very basic editing tools.

For my choice, I like the freedom of being able to design my website the way that suits me and my style. I would consider myself an advanced user and the robust editing of Squarespace was a major selling point for me. I remember setting up my PhotoShelter site in under an hour though and since I named this “ease of use”, I’m going to play by my rules and give this round to PhotoShelter because of its bare-bones editing options.

Winner: PhotoShelter

Gallery Presentation And Checkout Process

Since I am a landscape and nature photographer, the way my artwork is presented matters to me. PhotoShelter offers different viewing experiences for each template while Squarespace’s offers 4 different presentations within pages and blogs. Both services have checkout pages that are pretty standard, with Squarespace gaining an edge on the simplicity of their menu system. PhotoShelter once again makes it more difficult to buy photos through a convoluted menu/tab system.

PhotoShelter’s gallery image display with checkout+
PhotoShelter’s mess of a buying menu. The tabs at the top is how you navigate to other prints or licensing.
Squarespace’s image display in the store. Definitely less cluttered and easier to use.

By using menus to have multiple variations, it reduces the confusion and makes it easy and straightforward. A basic tenant of good web design that is optimized for conversions is putting the fewest amount of clicks in between the buyer and the product, and the design here by Squarespace is what I would consider the industry standard. It’s not groundbreaking because I believe it just works.

Additionally, though I’m not utilizing it but plan to in the future, there will be a blurb about each medium down below the fold to give potential buyers more information about making a purchasing decision. Squarespace has made these pages very easy to use and they definitely get the win here.

Both companies display the images fairly well and both have shortcomings, which you’re going to find with any CMS. But one major pitfall for PhotoShelter is that some of their templates display nearly full-screen photos, which doesn’t sound like a bad thing whatsoever. The problem is if you’re looking to convert to sales, those templates are going to make it very difficult for the buyer to even get more information about the photo.

As you can see, the presentation is beautiful and I give PhotoShelter major points for how great the images look in these galleries. They are what photographers want: big images to show off their work. A caveat I should mention, my focus is to provide knowledge via my blog and to sell prints. If you’re just looking for a gallery to display your images and do not make your photos available for sale, then PhotoShelter is a good option.

From the gallery page above, you can see the little orange cart icon, which I had to beg their support team just to change to orange. Normally it would be dark gray like the others. You can see that this might make it hard for people to buy. Clicking that icon prints up a menu that whites out the rest of the screen and asks you to choose one of the following.

Once you click one of the options, you are taken to the menu that I mentioned above to select your options. PhotoShelter does a phenomenal job in displaying the images which makes it all the more frustrating and disappointing when it comes to the user experience.

This is actually a reason why I left — PhotoShelter does such a tremendous job in displaying the images, only for potential buyers have to email me about how to actually buy a print. Happened multiple times. A knock on Squarespace here, they do a decent job at displaying images but it’s mainly through splash/cover pages. Within the store or on the blog, it’s pretty standard lightboxes and none of them are particularly great. Still, though, I think it’s pretty obvious who gets the win here.

Winner: Squarespace

Backend Content Management System

Here is not something you find in many comparisons between these two companies, how well does each manage your content and in particular, your images. I’m going to be looking for primarily the store aspect in this part because it would be unfair to compare blog pages since PhotoShelter doesn’t offer blogging.

There are aspects to PhotoShelter’s backend CMS that I really liked. In particular, being able to create products in bulk and add pricing in bulk by using pricing profiles. You can have an endless amount of pricing profiles and it makes it very handy for pricing different images. As you can see below.

This made it very easy to apply profiles to images at bulk without having to copy and paste pricing information individually as you do with Squarespace. My main pricing profile was a 2:3 ratio and I had that applied to 175 images. It would take me a week or more to create 175 images for sale here in Squarespace because there simply aren’t bulk options.

Now, you can duplicate products, and that is how I do add products now. I have a template for the pricing that I want to use and I duplicate that product, then change the details. It cuts down on some of the work but it far from a perfect system. Major props to PhotoShelter here, this is something that would be a real game-changer for Squarespace. Imagine using Squarespace and trying to update the pricing on 100+ products. No thanks.

Squarespace doesn’t do this well because there isn’t a true content management system outside of their blogging. All images you upload to your site are only used in that instance; be it a blog, page, or store. Unlike WordPress, PhotoShelter, and others, you cannot access images you have uploaded before in another place.

Say I wanted to write a blog about an image I have in my store, I have to write that blog AND upload that photo again if I want it to display in the blog. It’s not a completely 1 to 1 though because again, blogging doesn’t exist on PhotoShelter. But the use case is there if I’m creating a new gallery I don’t have to upload the images each time. I can copy them from one gallery to another very easily. Here is what Squarespace’s store management and product editing look like.

Not very robust if you ask me, even without a bulk editing option. Here are PhotoShelter’s store management and product editing.

With PhotoShelter, your images live in galleries and you can easily add to those galleries by uploading new photos or copying them from different galleries. I highlighted the actions button the first image because I had selected 3 images and I wanted to show how you can bulk edit very easily. You can bulk edit the pricing, the IPTC info, make them hidden, download them, quickly email them to clients, etc. This is not a feature with Squarespace and one of the major disappointments when using their service is that you have to upload photos multiple times for different uses.

Winner: PhotoShelter

On-Site Analytics And Integrations

This might seem like a pretty minor section because analytics is easy, just use Google Analytics right? Yes. Do that. But since both platforms offer “analytics” to their customers I decided to compare them and because I didn’t just want to talk about analytics I grouped in integrations too because it’s 2019 and your website should work with other services and/or use other services. But first, analytics.

With a background in digital marketing, I do care about analytics and looking performance gives me insight into action for my day-to-day job. But using analytics should matter to photographers as well because you should want to know if your blog is being read by anyone. Suppose your site was getting lots of traffic and you could monetize that traffic by including a few ads or promoted posts, without analytics you may not be aware of that opportunity. Or say your website gets a lot of visits but no one checks out, why is that? Analytics can give you a picture of why that might exist. Another reason I wanted to compare analytics is that both PhotoShelter and Squarespace advertise their analytics to potential customers as a selling point. After reading this section, you’ll learn that one of those companies should cease marketing their “analytics” post haste.

Squarespace has what I would consider being “very good” analytics, there are loads of data that they provide you with even if the UI is adhering to their minimalist mentality a little too much. Here’s what you are given looking at the analytics section of the site and a look at my site’s purchase funnel for 2018.

I sold one image in 2018 and I couldn’t be more happy with that one sale.

The user is given a ton of options here and if you don’t want to use Google Analytics, then this is a great suite of tools to measure your site’s performance, track sales, look at purchase funnels, re-engage abandoned carts, etc. I can quickly see what content is most popular, how many people are signing up for my newsletters, and a lot more. This is why I would call this suite of tools “very good” because while you can access this all in Google Analytics (for the most part), this is like a distilled version of GA in the most useful data. You can even integrate Facebook and/or pixels so you can track facebook and google advertising.

With PhotoShelter, you are given analytics and they do market analytics as a feature so let’s take a look at them. The first image is proof that they do market this as a feature for potential customers and then a screenshot of the actual analytics for my site on PhotoShelter.

Ok great, social sharing, SEO, and analytics. Sweet!
Oh…that’s it?

PhotoShelter, you might rethink marketing these “analytics” as a feature of the website. I mean, I can see traffic over a period but I can’t input what period that is. Is my traffic up? Is it down? I have sales data, my last sale was back in August of last year. I have what states visit my site and where the traffic comes from. Then because PhotoShelter loves to remind you how much space you’re using, that is included too. Also, how did I have 95 TOTAL VISITS but 143 UNIQUE VISITS? The screenshot in the marketing says the same thing to so I know it’s not an error in my analytics. Yikes PhotoShelter, this is a bad look.

Moving on to integrations, with Squarespace you can integrate a whole list of services and apps that you probably use. I don’t have a screenshot of the integrations because the list is too long so if you want to see that list, here’s the most complete one I could find. What integrations I like the most is Squarespace’s integration with Google and their GSuite set of tools. I was quickly and easily able to set up a Google domain, get GSuite, and all in a manner of minutes. Squarespace uses Stripe and I use that as well, so that works well for me too.

With PhotoShelter, they let you choose if you want to use Stripe, PayPal, or a merchant account and then there are social sharing buttons for five platforms including Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, and the now-defunct G+. I had to go to a product page to see if I could get Instagram and sadly, they do not have Instagram integrations. Analytics and integrations are not PhotoShelter’s strong suit, so if you want a 2019 website and want to use Shipstation to ship out your orders (yes please), then using PhotoShelter would make you need an intern for manually entering orders.

Winner: Squarespace

Overall Value

The score is tied up at two apiece so let’s examine the overall value of the platforms. I have clearly pointed out that both have significant downsides to their service and both do some things very well. Overall value is a little subjective because I’m writing from how I use this site and how it meets my needs. So taking that into account, I’ll try to remain objective here. Squarespace and PhotoShelter both have different pricing tiers so we’ll start there. I’m focused on e-commerce so I’m not considering Squarespace’s lower-priced tiers for their non-commerce accounts.

Squarespace pricing.
PhotoShelter pricing.

For commerce accounts, Squarespace offers you two pricing options while PhotoShelter offers three and all three can be used for e-commerce. PhotoShelter’s pricing isn’t exactly accurate though because what they don’t tell you upfront is that you’re going to be paying them a commission of every sale you make, and it varies by which pricing level you have. Let’s take a look at those.

If you’re using PhotoShelter for e-commerce, you’re going to be paying them transaction fees for each transaction you make. Even if you’re paying them $45/month, you’re still paying 8% for each transaction.

Let’s take that $100 transaction that I last month back in August of 2018. The customer pays $100, and immediately Stripe takes $2.50 for their 2.5% processing fee. Then in September of 2018, PhotoShelter billed me an additional $9 on top of my monthly service fee. So in actuality, my $100 sale is now $88.50. I was using their mid-tier pricing option my transaction fee was 9%. Squarespace, on the other hand, doesn’t take a transaction fee and I do still pay Stripe 2.5% for their processing fee.

One of the other value systems I would say is important is the ability to customize your site to fit the style you are looking for. PhotoShelter offers you 9 templates whereas Squarespace offers 67. I’m not knocking PhotoShelter for offering only 9 templates here because for the basic user, they are not going to be looking for every option under the sun and 67 is way too many to choose from. But for the advanced user, Squarespace allows you to insert your own code, your own CSS styling, and a whole host of other things to improve your site and truly make it yours. PhotoShelter does not offer custom CSS or custom code injection beyond Google Analytics tracking.

This is where PhotoShelter falls way behind, because like I mentioned, your basic user isn’t going to want to insert their own CSS but at least Squarespace gives the advanced user the ability should they want to. I was able to do some basic coding on this to add before/after photos, custom social sharing for all blog pages, and custom lightbox containers for blog posts with a little coding help from my developer friends. With PhotoShelter, I had to beg them to change the color of an icon from black to orange and that was the extent of their custom editing that could be done to their CSS.

Winner: Squarespace

In Conclusion

If you’re still reading this, thanks for reading the whole article. I wanted to present the sides of this comparison as fairly as possible and trying to remain impartial. I am not saying that Squarespace is perfect, because they have some major growing to do if they want to keep their massive user base happy — add bulk product editing and pricing!

I hope you have found this article informative. My aim was not to shame one company, it was to bring to light their strengths and weaknesses so you can cut through the marketing and decide if that service is right for you. Because I work in marketing and own a marketing consulting business, I am particularly aware that a lot of thought goes into copywriting and hiding non-flattering information. You won’t see Squarespace advertising that they don’t offer bulk updates or bulk pricing, and you won’t find PhotoShelter advertising that you’re paying them for each sale you make.

Which service do you prefer?


Which service do you prefer?


About the author: Ryan Wright is a photographer based in Boulder, Colorado. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. You can find more of Wright’s work on his website
, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, and Instagram. This article was also published here.


Source: PetaPixel

A Comparison of PhotoShelter and Squarespace for E-commerce

Every Best Cinematography Oscar Winner from 1929 to 2019

Every Best Cinematography Oscar Winner from 1929 to 2019

The 2019 Oscars are just a day away now. If you’d like a dose of visual inspiration, check out this 10-minute video by Burger Fiction. It steps through every single film that won the “Best Cinematography” Oscar over the past 90 years, from 1929 to 2018 (and 2019 nominees as well).

Here’s a complete list of the films seen and the brilliant cinematographers behind them:

  1. Sunrise: A Song Of Two Humans (1927/28) – Charles Rosher & Karl Struss
  2. White Shadows In The South Seas (1928/29) – Clyde De Vinna
  3. With Byrd At The South Pole (1929/30) – Joseph T. Rucker & Willard Van der Veer
  4. Tabu: A Story Of The South Seas (1930/31) – Floyd Crosby
  5. Shanghai Express (1931/32) – Lee Garmes
  6. A Farewell To Arms (1932/33) – Charles Lang
  7. Cleopatra (1934) – Victor Milner
  8. A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1935) – Hal Mohr
  9. Anthony Adverse (1936 B&W) – Tony Gaudio
  10. The Garden Of Allah (1936 COLOR) – W. Howard Greene & Harold Rosson
  11. The Good Earth (1937 B&W) – Karl Freund
  12. A Star Is Born (1937 COLOR) – W. Howard Greene
  13. The Great Waltz (1938 B&W) – Joseph Ruttenberg
  14. Sweethearts (1938 COLOR) – Oliver T. Marsh & Allen Davey
  15. Wuthering Heights (1939 B&W) – Gregg Toland
  16. Gone With The Wind (1939 COLOR) – Ernest Haller & Ray Rennahan
  17. Rebecca (1940 B&W) – George Barnes
  18. The Thief Of Bagdad (1940 COLOR) – Georges Perinal
  19. How Green Was My Valley (1941 B&W) – Arthur C. Miller
  20. Blood And Sand (1941 COLOR) – Ernest Palmer & Ray Rennahan
  21. Mrs. Miniver (1942 B&W) – Joseph Ruttenberg
  22. The Black Swan (1942 COLOR) – Leon Shamroy
  23. The Song Of Bernadette (1943 B&W) – Arthur C. Miller
  24. Phantom Of The Opera (1943 COLOR) – Hal Mohr & W. Howard Greene
  25. Laura (1944 B&W) – Joseph LaShelle
  26. Wilson (1944 COLOR) – Leon Shamroy
  27. The Picture Of Dorian Gray (1945 B&W) – Harry Stradling
  28. Leave Her To Heaven (1945 COLOR) – Leon Shamroy
  29. Anna And The King Of Siam (1945 B&W) – Arthur C. Miller
  30. The Yearling (1946 COLOR) – Charles Rosher, Leonard Smith & Arthur E. Arling
  31. Great Expectations (1947 B&W) – Guy Green
  32. Black Narcissus (1947 COLOR) – Jack Cardiff
  33. The Naked City (1948 B&W) – William H. Daniels
  34. Joan Of Arc (1948 COLOR) – Joseph A. Valentine, William V. Skall & Winton Hoch
  35. Battleground (1949 B&W) – Paul C. Vogel
  36. She Wore A Yellow Ribbon (1949 COLOR) – Winton Hoch
  37. The Third Man (1950 B&W) – Robert Krasker
  38. King Solomon’s Mines (1950 COLOR) – Robert Surtees
  39. A Place In The Sun (1951 B&W) – William C. Mellor
  40. An American In Paris (1951 COLOR) – Alfred Gilks & John Alton
  41. The Bad And The Beautiful (1952 B&W) – Robert Surtees
  42. The Quiet Man (1952 COLOR) – Winton Hoch & Archie Stout
  43. From Here To Eternity (1953 B&W) – Burnett Guffey
  44. Shane (1953 COLOR) – Loyal Griggs
  45. On The Waterfront (1954 B&W) – Boris Kaufman
  46. Three Coins In The Fountain (1954 COLOR) – Milton R. Krasner
  47. The Rose Tattoo (1955 B&W) – James Wong Howe
  48. To Catch A Thief (1955 COLOR) – Robert Burks
  49. Somebody Up There Likes Me (1956 B&W) – Joseph Ruttenberg
  50. Around The World In 80 Days (1956 COLOR) – Lionel Lindon
  51. The Bridge On The River Kwai (1957) – Jack Hildyard
  52. The Defiant Ones (1958 B&W) – Sam Leavitt
  53. Gigi (1958 COLOR) – Joseph Ruttenberg
  54. The Diary Of Anne Frank (1959 B&W) – William C. Mellor
  55. Ben-Hur (1959 COLOR) – Robert Surtees
  56. Sons And Lovers (1960 B&W) – Freddie Francis
  57. Spartacus (1960 COLOR) – Russel Metty
  58. The Hustler (1961 B&W) – Eugen Schufftan
  59. West Side Story (1961 COLOR) – Daniel L. Fapp
  60. The Longest Day (1962 B&W) – Jean Bourgoin & Walter Wottitz
  61. Lawrence Of Arabia (1962 COLOR) – Freddie Young
  62. Hud (1963 B&W) – James Wong Howe
  63. Cleopatra (1963 COLOR) – Leon Shamroy
  64. Zorba The Greek (1964 B&W) – Walter Lassally
  65. My Fair Lady (1964 COLOR) – Harry Stradling
  66. Ship Of Fools (1965 B&W) – Ernest Laszlo
  67. Doctor Zhivago (1965 COLOR) – Freddie Young
  68. Who’s Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? (1966 B&W) – Haskell Wexler
  69. A Man For All Seasons (1966 COLOR) – Ted Moore
  70. Bonnie And Clyde (1967) – Burnett Guffey
  71. Romeo And Juliet (1968) – Pasqualino De Santis
  72. Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid (1969) – Conrad L. Hall
  73. Ryan’s Daughter (1970) – Freddie Young
  74. Fiddler On The Roof (1971) – Oswald Morris
  75. Cabaret (1972) – Geoffrey Unsworth
  76. Cries And Whispers (1973) – Sven Nykvist
  77. The Towering Inferno (1974) – Fred J. Koenekamp & Joseph F. Biroc
  78. Barry Lyndon (1975) – John Alcott
  79. Bound For Glory (1976) – Haskell Wexler
  80. Close Encounters Of The Third Kind (1977) – Vilmos Zsigmond
  81. Days Of Heaven (1978) – Nestor Almendros
  82. Apocalypse Now (1979) – Vittorio Storaro
  83. Tess (1980) – Geoffrey Unsworth & Ghislain Cloquet
  84. Reds (1981) – Vittorio Storaro
  85. Gandhi (1982) – Billy Williams & Ronnie Taylor
  86. Fanny And Alexander (1983) – Sven Nykvist
  87. The Killing Fields (1984) – Chris Menges
  88. Out Of Africa (1985) – David Watkin
  89. The Mission (1986) – Chris Menges
  90. The Last Emperor (1987) – Vittorio Storaro
  91. Mississippi Burning (1988) – Peter Biziou
  92. Glory (1989) – Freddie Francis
  93. Dances With Wolves (1990) – Dean Semler
  94. JFK (1991) – Robert Richardson
  95. A River Runs Through It (1992) – Philippe Rousselot
  96. Schindler’s List (1993) – Janusz Kaminski
  97. Legends Of The Fall (1994) – John Toll
  98. Braveheart (1995) – John Toll
  99. The English Patient (1996) – John Seale
  100. Titanic (1997) – Russell Carpenter
  101. Saving Private Ryan (1998) – Janusz Kaminski
  102. American Beauty (1999) – Conrad L. Hall
  103. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) – Peter Pau
  104. The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring (2001) – Andrew Lesnie
  105. Road To Perdition (2002) – Conrad L. Hall
  106. Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World (2003) – Russell Boyd
  107. The Aviator (2004) – Robert Richardson
  108. Memoirs Of A Geisha (2005) – Dion Beebe
  109. Pan’s Labyrinth (2006) – Guillermo Navarro
  110. There Will Be Blood (2007) – Robert Elswit
  111. Slumdog Millionaire (2008) – Anthony Dod Mantle
  112. Avatar (2009) – Mauro Fiore
  113. Inception (2010) – Wally Pfister
  114. Hugo (2011) – Robert Richardson
  115. Life Of Pi (2012) – Claudio Miranda
  116. Gravity (2013) – Emmanuel Lubezki
  117. Birdman (2014) – Emmanuel Lubezki
  118. The Revenant (2015) – Emmanuel Lubezki
  119. La La Land (2016) – Linus Sandgren
  120. Blade Runner 2049 (2017) – Roger Deakins

(via Burger Fiction via Fstoppers)


Source: PetaPixel

Every Best Cinematography Oscar Winner from 1929 to 2019

A Fendi Farewell to Karl Lagerfeld

A Fendi Farewell to Karl Lagerfeld
Each seat at the Fendi Autumn/Winter collection in Milan had, as usual, Karl Largerfeld’s sketches of the subsequently modeled designs. Along with them, lay a card much like at a funeral, with the date of Lagerfeld’s passing, a heart, and his recognizable signature. This collection would be his last for Fendi.

One can’t help but feel a wince of distracting sadness when viewing the many starched, raised collars parading down the runway- something the designer frequently wore himself. Yet, hi…

Keep on reading: A Fendi Farewell to Karl Lagerfeld
Source: V Magazine

A Fendi Farewell to Karl Lagerfeld