Coast Mountain Photography in the Whistler Bike Park

 yea i would have to agree about the price drop, im pretty sure the cheapest purchase for one of there photos is $18+tax. I like the fact that i can get a good photo of me riding in the park without having to hire a personal photographer (witch they also do) and not be obligated to purchase the photo. I also like how you can view your photo in the village or be able to view it at home and look at what other people are throwing down. defiantly a cool perk that the bike park offers.

 I agree, I'm a businessman myself and I understand profit, supply & demand and all that good stuff, but one day I'm going to ask these guys why the prices are so high. At $25 a photo I'm surprised they sell any to be honest. That's more than the cost of half a day's ride in the park for guys that don't have passes, hell it's the equivalent of 5 shuttles up Seymour with epicrides!

If it works, good for them, It's an amazing service and very cool you can go through and find pictures of yourself from years back. But I'm wondering what extra fees are involved in order to drive the price up that high. If they were $5-$10 I'd have probably bought quite a few by now. So far, I've bought none. Can't justify that for a picture... that said, the wife probably could. I could have almost bought a session 9.9 for the price of our wedding photographer... ugh.

 Im guessing all the sales that keep the business running good are tourists that are in for the week and want proof to show there friends what they did on a bike I did buy a few pics and they are good but as a local i'd like an option of a pick 10 for 100 bucks or something they make money then you download 1 at a time as the weeks go on just a thought

 Vail Resorts (Vail, BC, Breck, Keystone, Heavenly, Northstar) has started doing free photos in the winter time. You can get a lower resolution photo to share on the internet with their logo in the corner for free or pay for a high resolution photo to print. Its all connected to your pass which also automatically keeps track of which lifts you ride and your vertical throughout the season. Pretty sick stuff I'd love to see spread to other resorts.

 What are other options for getting pics of me riding in the park? I have no friends.. and I don't want to pay out the ass for shots.

 Totesridic you could find a guy that wants to be a photographer prob find someone on kijiji and they could poss take some pics i met tons of guys in whister like that

 sweet vignette in the second photo... they must be charging so much so they can upgrade from iPhoto to Photoshop.

 haha.. nice

 I completely agree with you that $25 is completely reasonable for a digital download. The only issue that would prevent me from buying it is that they are only 4 mega pixel photos, if they were a higher resolution I think more people (including myself) would buy them

 Yup, 4MP is lame... perhaps they are way cropped down?

 Yes I understand that photography equipment is expensive and that they spend a lot of their time on the mountain shooting photos and need money to make up for that time spent, but I bet that if they charged even 10 dollars a photo they would sell three times as many photos in which case they would end up with even more money.

 4MP is not lame. With the size of prints you would be getting you would never notice the difference.

www.petapixel.com/2012/07/05/want-versus-need-pitting-the-canon-d30-against-the-1d-mark-iv

 Thanks buddy, I'm not an idiot and I have a pretty nice photo kit myself. I realize you can get good results from a 4MP native sensor, but the point is that it costs them *nothing* to give you a larger file, which gives you more flexibility to do your own post-processing, crops, large-format prints, archival, and so on. Comparing shots at ISO100 under static studio conditions is not exactly a realistic test either.

 Not saying your an idiot first of all, but also they're photographers. I would never take a photograph and give it someone else to to processing afterwards. Kinda like painting half a landscape, signing it and asking someone else to finish it off. I'm just saying they're artists and if you don't like their work or price than don't buy it.

 @scriz - it actually costs them a lot to give you a larger file on down load as they have to invest in larger (and faster because no doubt you will bitch about that as well) servers to meet the greater download demand.

 @amrskipro oh lord, are you prepared to back that claim up? In actuality it costs them *nothing* , and even if it did, it would be fractions of pennies in bandwidth at the rate they are selling. Remember it's only the purchases we're talking about here... previews are still in compressed JPEG or whatever.. regardless, sites like SmugMug, 500px, and other "pro" photographer portals all take a flat rate cut of sales based on the selling price set by the user, they do not charge additional bandwidth fees for people browsing or downloading photos.... that is all factored in to the subscription price, which is around $150 / yr. These sites handle all of the fulfillment: printing, shipping, packaging etc.

 @paulclarke fair enough, but if you're buying a digital file, chances are you are going to want to do *something* with it on your own right? There is nothing to prevent people from manipulating the 4MP file either, but in terms of future-proofing and flexibility the larger files just seem like a no-brainer... to me the smaller file is kind of like selling "half a landscape".... like, here's this awesome artwork, but I blurred out much of the detail because most people will never look at it from less than three feet away.

 I think you're still thinking that 4MP is a small file. 4 MILLION dots to make up one image. All I'm saying is you will never ever ever ever notice 4MP compared to 10 or even 30 considering what your going to do with them. That is all....... On a computer screen or even blown up at 8 x 10. So much of it is marketing, I dont think many people really realize this. Some pros still shoot at 4 MP. Laurance CE for example, an amazing talent with shooting mtb. He uses a canon 20D with 8 MP. ....

Not trying to piss you off or argue....

 Are these photos really shot at 4 MP!?!?! People are complaing!? these photos are awesome and appear to be wicked quality!!!! JUST LOOK AT THEM. A company is shooting AWESOME mtb photography of everyone in the park and some people are still complaining...... wow.... unreal!

Should we be complaining that Whistler only has 5000 vertical feet of trails next!? ....

 I don't think anyone is complaining about the artistic quality of the photos, and definitely not about the existence of the service! It's all about the *pricing*. I have no idea what cut WBP takes of the photos, so perhaps that is part of the problem... but it does seem like a problem when the pics are priced beyond practicality for most of us, which is exactly what has been echoed in this thread over and over again.

As I stated somewhere else, the download price is 2.5x more than my local ski resort ( who incidentally give you the original size file ). To me it seems a lot easier to snap photos on A-line or Crank It Up vs. hauling gear and hanging out on a gnarly frozen canyon face in the middle of winter.

People will always complain about pricing, but at least for the bike park they offer Triple-Play, Season passes, GLC Coupons and other incentives. Perhaps they should do a lift ticket / photo combo promotion?

 @paulclarke - Loz CE stopped using his 30D a year ago and is using a 7D now.

 Ok... Look at shots before he stopped using and show me a difference.

 I never said there was a difference. I've been lucky enough to know Loz for a number of years personally and watch him grow as a photographer. I've no doubt whatsoever that if I gave him some ancient first generation DSLR that he'd trump me every single time with me using my 5Dmk2 taking mountain bike photos. I'm a firm believer in the photographer making the photo and not the camera, of which Loz is a prime example. I've been trying to make this point a bit further down too but apparently I'm wrong and you need $40,000 worth of camera gear to take a photo these days.

I think this more megapixels is better thing is usually a load of rubbish (especially when you're mainly re-sizing for web use anyway) but in the case of making large prints it's a bit more relevant. I have a few A1 sized bike posters on my wall and if I was able to get a shot of me doing any of the stuff these guys on the posters on my walls are doing I'd want it blown up to a similar size which means I need a high resolution image to begin with or I'll lose a lot of detail.

As it happens these Coastphoto guys have posted on this thread saying that the files are actually full resolution if you buy them so it's all a bit of a misunderstanding on that front. I agree that 30D files are fine for an A1 sized print if you're using it at full resolution though and you don't need the 18MP files of the 7D to print big.

 Totally.. I think they would sell more if they priced them a little lower and offered more than 4MP for the digital downloads. It's a great service though.

 agreed.... they are way overpriced. getting prints(5x7) starts at $18 and digital copies are $25...

 What about a season pass? I've never been able to bring myself to pay $25 for a picture file, even though the photos are often ace, but I'd pay $100 a year for a bunch of them.

 Bikereid- taking good pictures isn't cheap... and those are really good prices compared to what the ski resorts charge during the winter just for shots of people cruising down groomers.

 This isn't a personal bash against you or anyone - I'm just getting quite annoyed that everyone assumes you need loads of money to take a good photo.

It's always the photographer that gets a good image, not the camera.

No way do you need to spend $5,000 to get a good image. You can get Canon 7D kits for less than $2,000 and you don't NEED remote strobe kits and a bag full of really expensive lenses. That's not even considering the option of the crazily cheap second hand market, perfectly capable DSLR bodies of a few years ago are going for stupid cheap prices these days and they are still more than adequate for most types of shooting. You don't need to spend $5,000 on a bike either, you could easily use any bike to get to different locations as you don't have to be riding the trail to get to a certain point on it. I'd much rather spend $500 on a bike and cycle normally to a photo spot and save $4,500. Saying that, I bet a photographer living in Whistler probably already had a pretty sweet bike to begin with.

Sure it's a long time to sit around and shoot and sure it's a long night processing the photos afterwards and I fully understand that you're also paying for the time that the photographer took to actually learn how to take good photos but $25 for a 4MP digital file is a bit much. I've made money from bike photos before and also continue to make money in other forms of photography so I'm not just some keyboard warrior either and have plenty of knowledge of what it takes to make money in the photography industry but also the knowledge that a $5,000 camera isn't essential to do it.

 If you want autofocus that works, you can't get a 7d. If you want proper separation from the background in the trees Which you do for this sort of photo), you'll need some remote flashes.

Don't give me this "it's not the equipment" nonsense. 3/4 of the photos I take wouldn't be available without the $80 000+ in gear I own. Do you have to know how to use it? Clearly. But you DO need it.

 You're obviously a way more skilled photographer than me and you obviously know your stuff but again I'm going to respectfully disagree with you. If you don't want a 7D, go for a used 1 series body, used 1D3's are very cheap ((figuratively speaking) in the UK at least) and you could even go for a 1D2N which were the pinnacle of camera technology just a couple of years ago. I know for a fact there'll still be professional sport/action photographers using these bodies somewhere today.

We could go back and forth about the best way to take a photo for days as we both know that there's lots of different ways to shoot the same shot but I think the issue here is people confusing "want" with "need". I still don't think you need to have a bag full of strobes and pocket wizards to get separation from the trees in the woods etc, one of the articles on the front page of pinkbike has plenty of photos of riders in the woods that I'd be proud to display on my wall if they were of me:

www.pinkbike.com/photo/8392530

www.pinkbike.com/photo/8392538

www.pinkbike.com/photo/8392548

That was looking for about 30 seconds for a good photo of a rider in the woods using natural light.
(cont'd)

 (cont'd)
I think a lot of people forget that when a new camera comes out it doesn't mean that the camera it replaced suddenly starts taking bad photos and I also think that a lot of people get too caught up pixelpeeping 100% crops of images at iso 51,000 to actually take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Spend money on glass not cameras and go outside and take photos to learn instead of sitting at home reading photography blogs and forums all day.

Shots with remote strobes etc is only 1 style of shot, I think it's crazy to limit yourself into that line of thinking that you can only sell bike park photos in the woods if you use remote strobes on your $5k camera - try getting creative with natural light, finding different angles and all that stuff. It may not bring home the bacon everyday guaranteed (which I suppose is the crux here) but then I bet the shots you do get are bangers and would sell for $25 a pop no question.

I'm guessing that everyone jumping to defend the photographers pricing also realise that they're probably claiming the cost of the camera/lenses/all other equipment back on tax breaks right?

@Fraser - Like I said, you're a brilliant photographer (not that you need some guy on a website you've never met to tell you that) and I know you'll already know all this, it just annoys me when someone thinks it's totally 100% necessary to spend thousands of pounds/dollars/euros or whatever to get a shot of someone riding a bike when it's simply not the case.

 Hey guys
We shoot with strobes, not only because we feel the images are better, but to make the rider aware that a photo has been taken. Sure we could camp out in the bush and shoot natural light, but how would you know you had a photo taken? That flash allows riders to know they have been shot. Also, at 700-1000 photos a day, buying a used 1D2 isnt worth it as we put so many actuations on the shutter ourselves. Plus, the ISO is much better in newer cameras, allowing the images to be of better quality in the dark trees we find ourselves shooting in.

 Tax breaks are NOT profit, nor is it money in your pocket. It simply a very very small % of what you have to pay to the govt at the end of the year. You might save a few hundred bucks, total. People who claim that "the images are too expensive" simply have zero concept of what it costs to run a business, particularly one with equipment costs as high as they are. On a typical World Cup trip, I have over $40 000 in gear in a backpack with me. It's a very, VERY expensive business. My cost of doing business alone this world cup season will be more than many people in the bike industry make in a year. My deliverables are expensive because the cost to create them is very, very high.

If you think you can do better, then by all means, do better. I encourage it as it pushes everyone. But I can assure you that there are many shots you will simply NOT get, without the equipment most of us who do this for a living own, not to mention the experience we have doing it. You can go ahead and buy a Mk3 (with AF that will not work 80% of the time in sunshine), or a 7D with AF that will never work. Or a Mk2, where you can't get a useable commercial shot over about 800 ISO.

Besides was the CoastPhoto rep above has said, the flashes allow you to easily separate the rider from the background. This is what sells these sorts of images, period. This is what the majority of purchasers want. A little market research will tell you this much. It's a business, not an editorial portfolio.

And for the record, for this sort of photo, $25 is actually relatively cheap. If you don't want their photos, bring your own cameras and shoot away, no one is stopping you.

PS: Coast photo, I do agree with the poster who said most of the flash shots are overexposed. Get your groms to dial down their flashes and buy a light meter! Everyone using remotes should own one, and know how to use it to balance ambient and strobe. I'm sure Hylands or myself would be happy to show them all how to use one!

 I think someone forgot to tell this guy and all his paid commissions/clients that the 7D AF doesn't work:

laurence-ce.pinkbike.com

As well as no doubt the thousands of other photographers all over the world using a 7D or 1DIII that are making just as much, if not more money than you from photography. I know it's not a game as to who can earn the most and that's no slur against you, it's just a fact that the AF does work on these cameras and rumours of inaccuracies are greatly exaggerated by those forum dwellers I mentioned previously. I see you've owned a mk3 and may have had personal experience with the AF issues but that's something to take up with Canon surely? If it's faulty, get a new one, they can't have all been bad otherwise Canon wouldn't still be selling cameras and it must have done something right for you otherwise you'd have sold up and gone to Nikon.

I don't have much knowledge of how tax works outside of the UK so I may have based my comment on the UK system so apologies if it's totally different in Canada. I do know that if you're registered as self employed in the UK and know what you're doing with your accounts (which would require way more space than this to go into) that you'd benefit to the tune of much more than just a few hundred pounds a year. I also realise it's not profit in your pocket either but knowing about accounting is obviously an important aspect of running your own business.
(cont'd)

 (cont'd)
I'm not saying I can do better but I am doing it myself. I'm not paying anyone to take photos of me biking and it's for reasons like what you've raised above that I've not paid anyone for a photo of me biking since I was 13 years old. I've had photos published in national magazines across a variety of different publications, I regularly get paid commissions for music photography and I've lost count of the amount of wedding photography requests that I've turned down. I understand that the strobe effect is what sells this kind of image and I've used it myself many times but it didn't cost me thousands of pounds to get that set up either and I much prefer using different techniques if I can, not out of principle or rebellion, just because I prefer it as do the people I take photos of.

$25 is cheap if you're used to charging what you're charging big companies for commercial usage rights of your photos but average Joe down the street just wants something they can print out and put on their bedroom wall and maybe on a few online albums to share with friends and family. They won't be trying to sell them to national magazines, huge websites or global mega-corps and even if they did try there'd be a clause in the original purchase contract prohibiting that anyway so they'd be committing copyright infringement and you'd still be able to sue to recover costs right?

I'm clearly not in a minority thinking that $25 a pop is too much judging by the comments here so you can go on about market research all you like but you can't please everyone all the time so there'll always be those that are disappointed, I suppose it's just finding the right balance of disappointed people versus people keeping your business going. It has to be said though that if they're able to stay afloat and continue to charge $25 a photo then they're obviously doing something right.
(cont'd)

 (cont'd)
@Coastphoto - I think if someone is going to look for a photo of themselves they'll do it regardless of if they see a flash or not. I know I would be looking either way as who's to know whether the shot was actually any good and wasn't chimped before being put online? Bit of a moot point really. I also see plenty of shots on your website where a strobe hasn't been used anyway. I think with older 1 series body shutters being rated to take over 150k actuations (even up to 300k on a Mk3) that if you got a used one with a low shutter actuation count that you'd stand to save a lot of money, especially if you're just starting out. Sure the newer cameras can handle the higher ISO better but if you're using strobes anyway what difference does it make as you're creating more light and keeping the ISO within tolerable levels anyway right?

Again, I'm not trying to troll here or try and start an argument or anything like that and everything I say is meant with all due respect. It's just frustrating to to see that people won't even bother trying to learn photography if all they're reading is they need $40,000 worth of camera gear to get a decent shot and I've heard things to that effect from many people who are often very surprised to hear how much you can actually pick up an amazing camera for.

Holy crap that was long!

 You just like to argue don't you?

I can almost guarantee that people using the 7d for still images are almost certainly using MF more often than AF. It's terrible. I've owned a 7d, several Mk3s, a 5dmk2, 1dmk2, 1dsmk2, 1dmk2n and a couple of Mk4s. Not to mention older film bodies in both 35mm and 6x6. The AF on the mk4 and the DX is night and day beyond the the other bodies. The VAST majority of MK3s are junk. Repaired over and over by canon and still do not work in bright light. It's not a rumour, it's a fact.

When you shoot sports for a living, full time, you need AF that works. Period. 4 out of 8 shots in a sequence in focus is unacceptable. Having to fire off 2 frames to get one in focus is also unacceptable. You also need gear that will take a beating. You need real weather sealing.Take at look at the finish line for the olympic 100m in a few weeks...

As for not needing ISO due to shooting with flashes... complete and utter nonsense. Balancing strobe and ambient requires extremely high ISOs when you are in the trees/shade/cloudcover/evening etc. I routinely shoot with flashes (including my elinchrom rangers) at 2000ISO+.

If you're playing photographer on the weekend, sure get what fits your budget. Cameras have come a long way recently. If you are doing this for a living, you get the absolute best there is. It's an investment.There are many reasons to get pro level equipment. Want to see how long a 7d will survive under the conditions I shot the World Championships in Champery under last year? No crappy raincover, no stupid plastic bags. 2 very expensive bodies and some sealed lenses sitting in the mud. Or maybe Dakar? Or Rampage? Whistler dust and storms and snow can be as bad.

Those of us who are actually working are not babying our gear, we're using it as tools.

 Well no I wasn't trying to argue as I stated twice before, I guess I'm just not allowed an opinion that's different to yours and have a bit of a debate without anyone getting butthurt?

Does it matter if they're using auto or manual focus if they're getting the shot? Yes it's easier if you know your camera will focus right 9 times out of 10 instead of 4/5/6 times but my point still stands that you don't NEED a 1DX or whatever is around the corner to get the shot at the bikepark. These Coastphoto guys aren't shooting Dakar, Rampage, World Champs, the Olympics or any of the other extreme events you mentioned, they're shooting in a bike park which is essentially just shooting in the woods so while you personally may need all that gear to shoot those events (which I'm not disputing, stuff like weather sealing etc is obviously way more important in dusty or sandy environments, doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out) these bike park photographers don't need it and neither does the average Joe which has been my point all along. I was never having a pop at the top level pros you're trying to defend yet you're trying to make out like I don't know what I'm talking about despite having no knowledge of my first hand experiences.

 If someone can go and pick up a 1000D and a kit lens for a few hundred dollars and get perfectly acceptable photos then as I keep saying there's no reason to go out and spend $40,000+ to do the same thing. Surely that's basic business sense too right? Go and spend $40,000 on camera gear to start a business because that's what someone on the internet says or save $38,000 and buy what you actually need and not go bankrupt in your first year.

I never said I babied my gear. I've dropped my 5Dmk2 (bought as a present to myself before you jump down my throat about being a hypocrite, I could have been fine with my old 450D but I WANTED a new body) several times, used it in rain, wind, snow and every other weather you care to think of in several countries around the world and I have little emotional attachment to my gear. I'm fully aware it's just a tool and that I have insurance if I do end up breaking it.

I've been following mountain biking for over 15 years. There's always been amazing photography in the sport yet they didn't have Canon 1D4's or a Nikon DX's back then and seemed to manage fine. I'd say something about workmen blaming tools but you'd no doubt get butthurt about that too.

 I would imagine Fraser's clients are after a little more than "acceptable" shots. You can of course get good photos with basic gear, but faster glass and higher end bodies make it easier - time after time.

 I never disputed that and I was never commenting on the level that Fraser is working at, I was aiming my comments at those shooting at bike parks who don't need that $5k body or $10k lens. I'm not saying that photographers in general (not aimed at Coastphoto) shouldn't get those things if they want them but then don't moan that it's too expensive to run the business and jack prices up sky high because you thought you needed the latest and greatest when what you had before was perfectly fine.

 Seriously? Day in and day out, in the park, in all weather putting thousands of frames on their bodies. Ya, I'd go for the pro body every time instead of having my gear in being repaired/misfiring etc. You don't seem to grasp that they run a business. They aren't out playing photographer with their buddies riding. When things break, they are not only out repair costs, but they are losing money every day it's down.

 I have grasped that they’re running a business, you just haven’t seemed to grasp that there’s more than one way to run a business and that the latest and greatest isn’t essential for everyone. It might be what you need to shoot the events that you’re shooting which I never disputed but it’s not right for everyone.

If someone was to shoot 1,000 frames a day, 7 days a week for the entire bike season in the Whistler bike park then they’d shoot around 160,000 frames over the entire season. You could easily equip yourself with 2 bodies (either brand new if you go for a XXD series or a pair of low actuation pre-owned 1D series bodies if you’re desperate for that) that would cover 160k shots and a decent set of lenses if you do your research properly for way less than $5,000. Having 2 bodies means you’re covered for if one breaks and needs to be sent off for repair so you’re not missing out either.

It looks like the Coastphoto guys aren’t even using top pro bodies anyway, looking at the exif on their photos I see a Nikon D7000, a couple with a D700 and then a few with a Canon 1Dmk3. You’ve already rubbished everything that isn’t a Nikon DX or a Canon 1Dmk4 so how are they getting these photos? Surely the fact that they aren’t all using the latest pro bodies just proves my point that you don’t need to spend so much money on a camera to get the shot?

 Make larger prints?

 4MP is pretty limited for post-processing, but thanks for assuming everyone is clueless and for your oh so insightful "bottom line". It's called customer feedback... most of us aren't buying it, and we're letting them know why.

At my local ski hill ( Mt. Hood Meadows ) the photographer charges $10.00 for the *original* digital file. The prints are much cheaper as well... for $10.00 for a 4x6, $12.00 5x7, $15.00 for an 8x10. So how is their pricing in-line exactly?

 Doesn't matter how much it costs.. The costs are essentially fixed (in relation to photos taken). CMP needs to generate revenues. By lowering the price, I think the increase in sales volumes will be worth the drop in price per unit sold.

 I'm no rocket surgeon, but I think that sales would increase if the price went down. Clearly CMP has their business model figured out, and no one's raised the issue of what WBP/the resort is taking off the top for CMP to work in the park. BUT if CMP is listening, I wonder if there's any benefit to promoting the business at the ticket window. Offer a promo code for a digital file if the rider pays $X extra when buying lift tickets. If you're going to be in the park multiple days (like many of us do) there's a good chance that rider will be on the lookout for the CMP signage, and get rad for the camera so s/he can buy a product. Sure sure there are problems associated this ("hey I paid for a picture up front but it sucks") but surely there are several creative ways to increase unit sales.

I wonder also if CMP has ever run specials where prints during X weekend are available at a discounted rate. Or BroCard discounts, or TriplePlay/Season's Ticket holder discounts. Or digi files for significantly cheaper?

I'm just back from a five-day trip to Whis and I dropped a ton of dough on food and lodging for my one rad summer trip. I wish I could buy more of the pics that I found on the CMP site, but honestly at $17 per, I just can't justify more than one. If they were $8-$10 each, I'd get all five that I like, but $85 is just too rich for my blood.

 hahahaha false. its way nicer riding in whistler

 How about both

 makes sense,suspended productions. ride to the locations ,shoot, pack up, ride to the next location...

 You can definitely take pics in the park. Surely you have seen boatloads of GoPro vids as well as PODs taken there, right? You can't sell them esp if you try to advertise in the park/resort area. But taking pics of my buddies getting rad in the park goes back to my first rides there in 2001.

 You can take pictures there, quite obviously, however you can't bring a photographer who's not riding. They won't let anyone in to the bikepark or to trails without a bike OR a media pass.

 Mr Duck, people hike whistler all the time with cameras, you just have to buy a lift ticket and ride the gondola. If you are working commercially, it's always good practice (and common courtesy) to notify the resort through their media liaison for the sake of insurance etc. They are very easy going about things and only require special services like a guide if you are heading to the peak (you need a radio etc) or are bringing in a heli etc.

I shoot on the mountain quite often on foot, as do many others.

 That's good to know, because it'd be real lame if they limited commercial photographers.

 Thanks fraserbriton, well it's just what I've been told when buying the ticket, bit I might have misunderstood it a little bit, I'm still quite new here and a little confused )

 The people commenting here aren't the niche market. Half haven't even been to Whistler and just like complaining behind a computer screen!

 LOL -so true

 Ya, for some reason they haven't quite figured out how to dial down their flashes yet.

 Heh, yeah they had a triggered flash on a big sweeper berm and the thing nearly blinded me.

 If you are seeing flashes, you aren't concentrating on what you are doing. Last I checked, these guys weren't blasting elinchrom's at you from 3' away.

 This^^ Asking 25$ is way too overpriced. Even at Whistler tourist prices. Lower the price and make it easy to buy for the weekend warrior, and you would sell way more. Some of the prices for just the digital copies are ridiculously expensive. Come on guys!

 Sure, I'm sure someone can shoot a photo of you on their iPhone for $7.

 I think his argument was $25 is too much for the average rider. Great for a Whistler parent who wants a sick photo of his kid, but for the average weekend warrior in the Bike Park, 25 is pretty steep. The package deal he was talking about sounds pretty good though.

 its not a matter of how good his camera is that he is shooting with. Its a matter of sales. Im a seasons pass holder and get my photo snapped alot. If they offered a season pass holder discount that would help. But they dont. Plus most ppl that go to whistler fork alot of dough just to get there. Now im willing to bet that if they changed there price structure to $7 a photo instead of $25. There sales would go thru the roof. Im sure that 85% of the pictures they take now dont sell. If they were at $7 bucks. I would buy every single picture they took of me. Instead of the 0 i buy now. That clearly offsets the $25. I just see them putting alot of work editing 1000s of pictures with watermarks uploading them and then only selling 15% of them. Would make more sense to lower the price and sell 85% of them. Maybe it comes down to pride and they dont want to be that photographer that sells pics for 7. Just my 2 cents

 ^^This. Sorry Fraser, your wrong.

 Yesterday I was sailing and I saw a humpback whale

 I once saw a platypus

 yeah you gotta watch out for those canadian elephants. Heard theyre a lil sketchier than your typical loxodonta.

 I was biking with my friend and he got jumped on by a squirrel

 Speaking of photography, my friend always sends me pictures of women he's banged from the night before. He's such a liar though because he accidentally sent me a picture of my girlfriend today, and she's away on a business trip.

 I see humpback whales every time i go for a walk into town

 Ahem... Weeellllllll... Dont know bout you guys. But i was biking today.. ..

 I've been riding everyday for the past 2 weeks including weekends... Not exaggerating... I live a 15 minute pedal from bromont ! Thank goodness for that !

 I once saw an armadillo rollin' around in the water and trying to swim. Then i saw a pussy cat

 you guys are lame

 bacon.

 No, only Canadians say bacon :3

 I am 1/4 Swiss/Canadian so suck it.

 Lol no thanx