Why not Flickr Pro account? It's dirt cheap $25 for one year or $48 for 2-years and you can upload full size jpegs.

I think a good "cloud" solution is Pogoplug. I just installed mine, I need more time for discovering all that the system offer.

Why not just shut down Photoclubalpha entirely? At the moment about 700 people subscribing to the paper magazine cover the costs for about 40,000 people visiting the site every month. There is a very small income from Google ads, Amazon and B&H commission - about $100 a month total. It's all just a distraction and not really worth doing at all, magazine included. It is not a source of income.

If I spend three working days on a website review, like the A580, I make nothing. In the same time writing for photo magazines that would be about $2000 (and that is what I'm doing today and tomorrow). Needless to say, I'm not including Photoworld magazine in that - Photoworld earns me nothing. It once used to, but 'once' means 15 years ago now when we had 7000 readers not 700.

I can't even read all my own articles on the BJP website - I would have to pay a subscription to get full access!

I can not do anything about the massive shift of readership away from print to websites, or the shift from highly localised (97% UK) to global. Web readership is under 15% UK, 30% US and Canada, 55% 'rest of world'. What I can do is to make a very small annual membership fee worthwhile through added content and access to ePub editions, in the hope that Photoclubalpha can eventually be a source of income not a waste of time.

David

So how many e-subscribers are there, without the printed edition?
Greg

I have got no problem in paying a membership.

As the saying goes-the best things in life are not free.

Anyway are we moving away from the subject in question

regards

regards

David,

What could you expect from someone as cheap as BF? There are some other people willing to make this community work. We'll help you as much as we can.

regards

Here we go again so just blame me for everything

I might be cheap but I'm not that stupid, there are plenty of cost effective ways to host image files. It's up to people if they take advantage of that.

are you myopic also?
this is not about "free storage". Some people, like DK, make his living from photography: pictures are not free.

So how did I manage to produce pictures for a review then? As I said it's pretty simple keep what you want and show shots that are not commercially valuable.

Very few make a real and sustainable income from stock photography it's vastly over subscribed. I couldn't make a living off of landscapes either you have to get out there and do shooting even for stuff you might not be that interested in.

I forgot Barry Fitzgerald is a Paradigm...

David Kilpatrick wrote That would be a shame. I actually paid $10.00 a couple of weeks ago for Photoworld. This was not so much to get the Photoworld as to support Photoclubalpha.com and this excellent article on Sony's A580 following just after the SLT review has convinced me again that this site provides value and is worth paying a little for. And $10.00 is in reality a "little" for what David provides partly through his article and partly through his thoughtful and helpful comments. I actually fail to understand why Barry Fitzgerald continue to provide an input here since he has indicated that his Minlota/Sony equipment is now mostly for film use, whereas his shining new Pentax will take care of digital.
He acknowledged that David's article was "pretty good" and well he might but immediately it was followed by a criticism og the A580 on contrast AF. As expected I would say. When I saw his final comment on full sized downloads it stroke me that Barry Fitzgerald would not be prepared to pay even $10.00 p.a. for the information provided here. Why should he? It is purely treated as a basis for even more criticism of Sony and whatever they do. The A580 is a fine camera and I am glad I bought one.

The point about contrast AF is quite valid there is nothing to stop them offering that. As every single A mount lens I have is screw driven it could be an issue to some. You can call that criticism if you want I call it a pretty reasonable point. It would hardly stop a purchase on it's own though.

No I don't think it's in the interests of reader to have to pay for a full res image, their needs might well be met by other sites which don't charge them. I didn't expect folks to pay for the Ricoh review I did either. You either do on-line reviews or you don't. It's up to DK what he does it's his site, but it's always to me been a "portal" to his magazine on line of printed and the main event isn't the site itself.

I don't get paid for doing the odd review on AMW either I did some because I was actually interested in those models. And the last one took considerably longer than a few days too. You are either interested and dare I say enthusiastic about doing reviews or you are not, it's a minor past time to me now and then when I fancy it, it's not a serious commercial venture on my part.

Even if you don't agree with my views I am still an A mount user. It's a shame some folks have resisted raising points purely to satisfy some brand love. I think the points raised over time regarding some of the choices Sony have made are entirely valid and in fact have helped to bring bits back in future models, you'd do well to remember that next time you engage the 2 sec self time and have MLU at your disposal.

Photoclubalpha is probably the main reason I stay with A Mount as it is a place where I feel I can trust the information, and also learn about the equipment that I am interested in. As Pako said, one of the down sides of the internet is that we expect everything to be free. However I am happy to support PCA as I value what it provides.

In the spirit of the season about to start in just over two hours, I would like to offer to pay Barry's site fees for 2011 if it means we can close this particular circular argument.

Barry Fitzgerald wrote No I don't agree with your views taken in total. You are nearly there using the word "even". I will complete it for you. "Even handed". You can only criticise Sony. Rarely a good word for what they have done to "rescue" Minolta's legacy and the Alpha mount. Whatever you say it is "lopsided" in that it is 99% negative. Sony are not fault free but in their short time at the wheel they have produced som good cameras. You keep going on about Sony's faults and your only working experience is with the A200, a camera I would not even have contemplated buying. Get some decent gear. I can recommend the A700, A350, A550 and A580. I have them all and have used them a lot. I applaud David for what he has done and I don't find $10.00 a year to be unreasonable and he is very detailed and objective. He also finds ways of handling some of the problems other people throw up. Instead of criticism only he finds solutions, for which I am thankful.

I didn't buy the A200 it was a gift. I have used more than the A200 in terms of Alpha bodies.
Your post goes beyond absurd with "buy some decent gear" at that point I'll stop because I've better things to do right now.