These are some recent photos, but I was perusing my Lake Merritt gallery and found a few more I’m pretty happy with. I plug a few of those below too.
<rant> On a related note, I’m gonna get on my stock photo soapbox and trash a competitor. I was researching locations, keywords and such and stumbled upon Getty Images. They are the 800 pound gorilla of the stock photo market.
I did a search for Oakland California and was shocked at what I found. For one, there was some professional looking content. But many of the photos looked way over processed, HDR’d and generally of the “b” grade material found on Flickr.
Surprise number two was how shallow their selection was. The search was for Oakland California – a very picturesque and newsworthy city half the size of and right across the bay from San Francisco. The New York Times was calling it Brooklyn West or something as I recall- I’m assuming because of the increase in hipsters. Their “creative” content only had about 3,500 hits, and including news just shy of 7,000.
In that search were completely useless photos given such a search. There was a little kid flipping of the camera. Another caucasian kid in the snow (I doubt in Oakland as snow here is very rare and light.) Here are some more examples that popped up on Getty’s site for the search Oakland California: kid with gingerbread, Man with Mask, the USS Hornet (not in Oakland!), Iranian woman standing in Garden (?!), a rubber ducky, a slightly blurry closeup of a seagull etc. There’s also a lovely photo of a faux castle – but it’s in Napa an hour or so away. What the hell is going on with the stock photo industry and Getty in particular?! Does nobody curate this stuff at all? Are there absolutely no standards for keywording? </rant>