Reply To: Photography Website Feedback

[IHF]

http://500px.com/photo/49010596

http://500px.com/photo/42313162

http://500px.com/photo/49309984

http://500px.com/photo/48181404

http://500px.com/photo/46521808

http://500px.com/photo/47046110

http://500px.com/photo/43536828

http://500px.com/photo/43439420

http://500px.com/photo/38925832

http://500px.com/photo/38853860

http://500px.com/photo/32652183

http://500px.com/photo/21124893

These are just a few Glasgow pictures I found of some of your same subject matter taken more intently and artistically. I got kinda caught up in some portfolios of the architecture that’s available to shoot over there. Gorgeous. Now, Honestly compare the above shots and what you are showing us. Do you now see what we see is lacking? Sure, some need straight up, everyday ho hum stock, but guess what? These days when straight up clean snapping is needed, it’s cheaper and easier for a company to buy a camera and do it themselves, and that’s exactly what they do. I could be way wrong here, it’s not my business to know these things. I’ve only known two companies on a more intimate basis that bought stock regularly, and don’t buy stock anymore. Maybe there are plenty of people dying to get your hands on your stock, but… Critiquing clean no fluff straight up snaps that a decent camera took,seems silly to me. It is what it is, ya know.