- alexa (6)
- Aurora (6)
- Canada (9)
- celebrity (58)
- CEPIC (23)
- Cnn (6)
- commercial stock (75)
- copyright (47)
- corbis (104)
- Cosmos (2)
- digg (4)
- editorial (216)
- filter (20)
- finance (67)
- flickr (63)
- focus (18)
- france (31)
- getty (172)
- google (36)
- gumgum (10)
- HOLGA (10)
- idee (13)
- IPTC (21)
- Jupiter (23)
- keyword (47)
- law (34)
- lens (21)
- lensbabies (8)
- license (98)
- magazine (107)
- Magnum (10)
- mediastorm (15)
- Microstock (110)
- Midstock (30)
- msnbc.com (13)
- multimedia (51)
- news (106)
- newspaper (54)
- Newsweek (8)
- No sense (40)
- PACA (19)
- Pacific coast news (5)
- photojournalism (141)
- Photoplus (2)
- photoshop (8)
- Piclens (3)
- pictogram (1)
- picturemaxx (1)
- Plus (5)
- prosumer (54)
- Royalty free (75)
- Search (61)
- SIPA (9)
- slideshow (43)
- technology (124)
- TIME (23)
- transaction (76)
- Uncategorized (21)
- web 2.0 (104)
- wire service (29)
- yahoo (13)
- Zymmetrical (6)
- July 1, 2009: Wall of Shame
- June 29, 2009: A cacophony of frenzy sellers
- June 25, 2009: Pic of the day
- June 23, 2009: Many words
- June 20, 2009: The Many to many media
- June 19, 2009: I read the news today, Oh boy...
- June 18, 2009: A blind eye
- June 15, 2009: The Fish Market
- June 15, 2009: Sad dreams
- June 11, 2009: Photo op
Blogroll
Important Destinations
Subscribe Here :
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
Tears of a new born
There is no imagination left in the professionnal fields of stock RM and RF photographer. Nothing. zip. Zilch.Nada. Has to be, because when you look at the images being offered by most stock agencies, they all look the same. Especially those taken with a piece of plastic added to their lenses.
Stop it. Please. whoever is responsible . I do not know if it is the photographers or the editors, but if I see one more image taken with that Lensbabies extension, I will start to cry too, like a baby. It is like those filters used in the late 70’s early 80″s that changed light into multicolor 4 tip stars. It was used so much, by photographers, movie directors, TV shows, that it is rare to see any images from that period without them. Those filters were stuck to photographers lenses, like Lensbabies these days.
I even see news editorial photographer using it. Aaaargh !! I guess reality has become such a bore that we need to distort it. Find another trick, quick !! and stop copying each other. I do not know if those bean counters with a humongous corporate background and a degree in Historical redundancy are telling you that “the numbers indicate that picture taken with lensbabies sell 80 % better than does without”.Of course they do, Image Buyers cannot find anything else.
One cannot find a food picture taken without it anymore. It was interesting at first but now it is becoming repulsive. I will call my congressman if necessary, pass a bill that bans the use of those things. Be creative, someone, quick. and throw these plastic things out or give it to someone you hate.
Trends in photography are like rulers of countries, they are made to be replaced. If one stays too long, the system gets corrupted.
One Response to “Tears of a new born”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.


April 14, 2007 at 11:36 am
I must be out of touch, because I just discovered Lensbabies yesterday. They are incredibly annoying. (It brings to mind what my dad always used to say about the fuzz boxes used in music in the ’60’s and ’70’s: “An engineer works his whole life to make an amplifier with perfect response, and some fool with a diode screws it all up”)
At least this lemming-like following of trends is nothing new. In addition to the star filters, let us not forget when all the wedding photographers were putting electrical-tape crosses on their lenses, so the out-of-focus candle lights would look like crosses.
I’m also a little wary of products that are supposed to help you get “back to basics” but then cost a fair piece of change, like the Lensbabies, or the pinhole lens adapters. Paying a bunch extra so it can look like you have a cheap lens just seems wrong.
I also think about one of the photography magazines that every year gathers a bunch of pro photographers together to take pictures with point-and-shoot or even disposable cameras. While the absolute technical quality (resolution, that sort of thing) isn’t as high as their normal work, they take excellent pictures, because it isn’t really about the camera.
It’s sort of like if you think about a painter. There are a bunch of different brushes a painter can use, and he can get different effects with the different brushes, but in a pinch, he wouldn’t really need them. The Lensbaby is like giving the painter a rubber stamp.
Be well…
Lynn Grant