Recent Downtown Photo

[mcarch]

I am looking for a recent downtown photo to use for my real estate website (free) if possible, if anyone has any ideas?

Brad, I'd love to use one of yours, but unfortunately, I can't brand it to you (I'd love to)!

teamhomaha.com is the site. I'm looking to put in photos for the Communities area. Right now they're just generic photos. The site is being created by our site provider.

[stormchaser]

I'd suggest heading downtown and getting a few photos to use yourself - especially since you're looking for something free/without being able to credit anyone else . That way you can get the shots you want and since it's for a site, a smartphone should suffice...

[Brad]

So I have ignored this thread for a few days. I've been trying to think of the correct response where I don't sound like a complete jerk...

When It comes to my photography, I have several goals. One of those goals is to be fair. There are three parts to being fair. Being fair to clients, myself, and the photography industry. Giving away free photos isn't fair to anyone.

If I give away free photos... not fair to other local small businesses that have purchased photos from me (and other photographers), to use on their website, including other realtors in your same company that have purchased my photos. Over the years, I have had some super small startup businesses purchase photos without hesitation.

If I give away free photos... not fair to myself. While I don't have to buy film and process it after shooting, there are still plenty of monthly expenses that really add up. Insurance, Adobe (Photoshop) subscription, website, etc. That doesn't even include the cost of cameras and lenses. Did you know if I am out shooting in public, I need 2 different types of insurance?

If I give away free photos... Its not fair to other photographers. There are so many photographers in Omaha that use their photography to support their families. Why undercut the craft when it benefits nobody except the one person that wants free photos?

Here's where I am really going to sound like a jerk... Every year I have 8-10 no profits/charities that want to use one of my photos. Nearly 90% of them don't ask for a free photo. The can't always pay my standard rate, but they usually have a fair counter offer that I take.

While I don't think its fair to give away free photos for people to use, I do use my photography to help a lot of different fundraisers every year. I donate to photos to so many silent auctions each year. Basically any worth while cause, that actually takes the time to contact me personally (No mass emails or generic form letters) I usually help out. Everything from Cancer fundraisers to Veteran organizations.

As stomacher said, if you want something free, just go downtown and take a photo with your cell phone. 80% of my portfolio isn't because of the camera, its about being in the right place at the right time. Its about studying the weather, compositions, and light, and being there, some times being there over and over until it all comes together. You can get perfectly good photos for a website from you cell phone, you just need to put in the effort to get there at the right time.

As Shatel says "One last thing and I'm out of here..." Something most people never think about.... What is your time worth to you? If you had to come up with an hourly rate for yourself, what is that worth? Say I was going to charge you $100 for a photo. You deiced that's too much. You grab your camera and head downtown. You wait for the light. You nail the shot. You drive back home. Your already in for 2 hours.... Is your time worth less than $50 an hour? Say you didn't nail the shot because a late cloud moved it, which happens a lot. So you have two trips downtown. Is you time worth less than $25 an hour? I really do challenge people in small business to keep track of their hours and figure out how much they are actually making per hour, it might surprise you. I know if I am going to go out and do a photo shoot for someone, I am never in it less than 4 hours. (Contact, Coordination, Shoot, Processing, Delivery, Invoicing, Paperwork) it all adds up. Always be fair to yourself.

[nebugeater]

So I have ignored this thread for a few days. I've been trying to think of the correct response where I don't sound like a complete jerk...

When It comes to my photography, I have several goals. One of those goals is to be fair. There are three parts to being fair. Being fair to clients, myself, and the photography industry. Giving away free photos isn't fair to anyone.

If I give away free photos... not fair to other local small businesses that have purchased photos from me (and other photographers), to use on their website, including other realtors in your same company that have purchased my photos. Over the years, I have had some super small startup businesses purchase photos without hesitation.

If I give away free photos... not fair to myself. While I don't have to buy film and process it after shooting, there are still plenty of monthly expenses that really add up. Insurance, Adobe (Photoshop) subscription, website, etc. That doesn't even include the cost of cameras and lenses. Did you know if I am out shooting in public, I need 2 different types of insurance?

If I give away free photos... Its not fair to other photographers. There are so many photographers in Omaha that use their photography to support their families. Why undercut the craft when it benefits nobody except the one person that wants free photos?

Here's where I am really going to sound like a jerk... Every year I have 8-10 no profits/charities that want to use one of my photos. Nearly 90% of them don't ask for a free photo. The can't always pay my standard rate, but they usually have a fair counter offer that I take.

While I don't think its fair to give away free photos for people to use, I do use my photography to help a lot of different fundraisers every year. I donate to photos to so many silent auctions each year. Basically any worth while cause, that actually takes the time to contact me personally (No mass emails or generic form letters) I usually help out. Everything from Cancer fundraisers to Veteran organizations.

As stomacher said, if you want something free, just go downtown and take a photo with your cell phone. 80% of my portfolio isn't because of the camera, its about being in the right place at the right time. Its about studying the weather, compositions, and light, and being there, some times being there over and over until it all comes together. You can get perfectly good photos for a website from you cell phone, you just need to put in the effort to get there at the right time.

As Shatel says "One last thing and I'm out of here..." Something most people never think about.... What is your time worth to you? If you had to come up with an hourly rate for yourself, what is that worth? Say I was going to charge you $100 for a photo. You deiced that's too much. You grab your camera and head downtown. You wait for the light. You nail the shot. You drive back home. Your already in for 2 hours.... Is your time worth less than $50 an hour? Say you didn't nail the shot because a late cloud moved it, which happens a lot. So you have two trips downtown. Is you time worth less than $25 an hour? I really do challenge people in small business to keep track of their hours and figure out how much they are actually making per hour, it might surprise you. I know if I am going to go out and do a photo shoot for someone, I am never in it less than 4 hours. (Contact, Coordination, Shoot, Processing, Delivery, Invoicing, Paperwork) it all adds up. Always be fair to yourself.

Spot on, Brad. This doesn't come off as being a Jerk at all. This is reality. The cost to get a quality photo beyond a snapshot is something many people do not understand. Of course, there is always that "lucky shot," but those are few and far between.

One thing you don't mention is the Hours upon Hours of time and cost of equipment that you and others have invested to get those shots that are so great. The photo you take today vs what you would have taken 10 + years ago under the same conditions is not the same end product at all if you are investing the time and $$$ The equipment is part of if but far from the total investment.

[Garrett]

+1 Brad.

[thenewguy]

side note, not to get off topic, but after perusing Brad's photos, I couldn't help but to keep thinking how great they really are.

[mcarch]

So I have ignored this thread for a few days. I've been trying to think of the correct response where I don't sound like a complete jerk...

When It comes to my photography, I have several goals. One of those goals is to be fair. There are three parts to being fair. Being fair to clients, myself, and the photography industry. Giving away free photos isn't fair to anyone.

If I give away free photos... not fair to other local small businesses that have purchased photos from me (and other photographers), to use on their website, including other realtors in your same company that have purchased my photos. Over the years, I have had some super small startup businesses purchase photos without hesitation.

If I give away free photos... not fair to myself. While I don't have to buy film and process it after shooting, there are still plenty of monthly expenses that really add up. Insurance, Adobe (Photoshop) subscription, website, etc. That doesn't even include the cost of cameras and lenses. Did you know if I am out shooting in public, I need 2 different types of insurance?

If I give away free photos... Its not fair to other photographers. There are so many photographers in Omaha that use their photography to support their families. Why undercut the craft when it benefits nobody except the one person that wants free photos?

Here's where I am really going to sound like a jerk... Every year I have 8-10 no profits/charities that want to use one of my photos. Nearly 90% of them don't ask for a free photo. The can't always pay my standard rate, but they usually have a fair counter offer that I take.

While I don't think its fair to give away free photos for people to use, I do use my photography to help a lot of different fundraisers every year. I donate to photos to so many silent auctions each year. Basically any worth while cause, that actually takes the time to contact me personally (No mass emails or generic form letters) I usually help out. Everything from Cancer fundraisers to Veteran organizations.

As stomacher said, if you want something free, just go downtown and take a photo with your cell phone. 80% of my portfolio isn't because of the camera, its about being in the right place at the right time. Its about studying the weather, compositions, and light, and being there, some times being there over and over until it all comes together. You can get perfectly good photos for a website from you cell phone, you just need to put in the effort to get there at the right time.

As Shatel says "One last thing and I'm out of here..." Something most people never think about.... What is your time worth to you? If you had to come up with an hourly rate for yourself, what is that worth? Say I was going to charge you $100 for a photo. You deiced that's too much. You grab your camera and head downtown. You wait for the light. You nail the shot. You drive back home. Your already in for 2 hours.... Is your time worth less than $50 an hour? Say you didn't nail the shot because a late cloud moved it, which happens a lot. So you have two trips downtown. Is you time worth less than $25 an hour? I really do challenge people in small business to keep track of their hours and figure out how much they are actually making per hour, it might surprise you. I know if I am going to go out and do a photo shoot for someone, I am never in it less than 4 hours. (Contact, Coordination, Shoot, Processing, Delivery, Invoicing, Paperwork) it all adds up. Always be fair to yourself.

Brad,

First, let me apologize and say that I was not expecting you to give away anything for free, and I do understand the value of your work, that is why I wanted to ask you. I was thinking more along the lines of something you've already taken and posted on this website. I was getting permission, if I could use a photo (I do not want to steal), or if you/anyone else had an idea of where I could find something of good quality, as the photos I have run into are older and do not include the First National Tower. I am by no means a photographer and would not be able to create something that the website could use of good quality. I hope this doesn't come out in any other way than me being sincere.

side note, not to get off topic, but after perusing Brad's photos, I couldn't help but to keep thinking how great they really are.

Yes they are, that is why I was trying to be nice and ask.

[Garrett]

Just offer him money man, if you’re working in real estate you can afford it.

[almighty_tuna]

First, let me apologize and say that I was not expecting you to give away anything for free, and I do understand the value of your work, that is why I wanted to ask you. I was thinking more along the lines of something you've already taken and posted on this website. I was getting permission, if I could use a photo (I do not want to steal)...

You're still entirely missing the point. You're asserting that since Brad has has already posted a watermarked photo here, a non-commercial site, that it no longer has value and should be something you can use on your site, still for free, to help you make money. You're not respecting that Brad's, and really any other photographer's, work should be paid for. By asking to use a not-for-publication image vs just copying it to your site you seem to think that somehow absolves you of being considered a freeloader.

Why is compensating people for their work such a difficult concept? It's even a business expense you can write off. This is just lazy and disrespectful.

[Big E]

$33, royalty free:

https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/omaha ... ha+skyline



I'll even waive my typical $10 googled it for you fee.

[thenewguy]

maybe it is the HDR, but something is un-nerving about that picture

[Brad]

maybe it is the HDR, but something is un-nerving about that picture

The saturation may be a tad high. That said the reason it looks so fake is because they messed with the blues a lot. The shadows on the building tell me the sun is straight south of the buildings. Like the Greenhouse Building has some shade on the east side while the others are still in the sun with lots of shadows, only moments from completely being in the shade. The shadows from the trees tell the exact same story....

However, the sky is telling me something completely different! The lightest part of the sky should be closest to the sun so the left side. However its the darkest part of the sky... I'm guessing that they used a circular polarizer on the lens or some really bad digital filters in photoshop. Then they tried to make the sky extra blue in photoshop. Look at the landmark center. We all know what the landmark center looks like and its not that. So as far off as the landmark center looks, the the other blues (Sky and Water) are that far off too.

Its too bad. If the photographer still has that raw file, they could still make a really nice photo with what they have there. Something they could never re-create now that the park and campus have changed.

[Renovator2559]

I have this one I took, from the currently under construction Farnam Pier

[thenewguy]

maybe it is the HDR, but something is un-nerving about that picture

The saturation may be a tad high. That said the reason it looks so fake is because they messed with the blues a lot. The shadows on the building tell me the sun is straight south of the buildings. Like the Greenhouse Building has some shade on the east side while the others are still in the sun with lots of shadows, only moments from completely being in the shade. The shadows from the trees tell the exact same story....

However, the sky is telling me something completely different! The lightest part of the sky should be closest to the sun so the left side. However its the darkest part of the sky... I'm guessing that they used a circular polarizer on the lens or some really bad digital filters in photoshop. Then they tried to make the sky extra blue in photoshop. Look at the landmark center. We all know what the landmark center looks like and its not that. So as far off as the landmark center looks, the the other blues (Sky and Water) are that far off too.

Its too bad. If the photographer still has that raw file, they could still make a really nice photo with what they have there. Something they could never re-create now that the park and campus have changed.

you are exactly right. it did seem much too 'colorful'- your night shot looks fantastic, by the way. That's going to be a great vantage point for the skyline

[Big E]

It's $33.