Paul Clarke Photography - 2010 recap

 I bet he's 360'd her icon sender!

 of course she has all his money, its probably gonna go to redecorating or some bullshit in the house..

 sick stuff

 Zink... Living the dream.

 But Semenuk rides rockshox aswell not x fusion. I would say Your just digging yourself a deaper hole

 anda toribio callate que eres un bocas jajaja miralo se estan riendo de ti todos los aldeanos de pinkbike

 jumpbikelife that is why i thougt it was semenuk because he is riding rockshox not x fusion i know that justin rides x fusion and semenuk rides rock shox so i twisted them...

 Mate Justin rides what ever forks he wants to I just watched a video he was riding x fusion on his killswitch then on his downhill he was riding rockshox boxxers. and in a diffferent bike check video he had fox forks on his blk mrkt mob. these videos were all from 2010. so I think trying to decide who the rider is by the forks is incorrect, I have argyl3s on my dj bike. does that mean it could be me in that photo?

 yes you are right i can´t say who the rider is by the forks, i just thought he was sponsored by x fusion

the point is that I´m wrong and now i know it, thank you now the photo is well named in my photogallery

and sorry for being that boring haha

 No magazines yet. In feb 2011 ive got a shot in mountain bike uk, which is being sold in canada now. I have two photos on ridetsg.com of a fourcross rider who lives in kamloops. And some shots on some blogs here and there. Hopefully lots more next year!

 So you sold two photos for 2010 and your first already for 2011? Nice...starting off the new year before the new year!

 Didnt sell them to blogs, they just used them. But yeah. Looking forward to seing the mag in the new year!

 dont give away your stuff for free! even for blogs. a company wants your shots, they have to pay.

 Well, no they dont legally have to pay first of all. For the blogs i told people to use them since it gets my name out there.

 hows that? you take the pic then you have the rights to the photograph. i took a shot at a redbull event, they wanted one of the shots for a pinkbike article, they had to pay me.

 I know... Lets not turn this into an immature but infamous pink bike argument. All i stated was that they dont legally have to pay you.

 Paul I don't think session416 is starting an immature argument. He does have a valid point that you own the rights to the photographs you take. He also has a valid point about not giving it away for free. A blog post on Pinkbike, and letting them use your photos for free in essential an advertisement for your photography isn't a bad thing. Allowing them to post an article on you and your favourite shots from 2010 from your portfolio, probably is going to get you more exposure than harm.

 But session416 has a point in that if a company wants your shots for advertising, magazine articles, websites, etc. they should be paying you. Giving away your work in such areas, really is just puts you in a position to be taken advantage of, and doesn't get you that much further ahead in the vast most cases. If you are serious about being a photographer it will be to your benefit to learn early on that giving away photos will never pay for your travel expenses, food, camera equipment, time, computers, photo editing software, etc.

 Some of the best advice I have seen comes from Maria Brophy an author who talks about the business of art, but her advice applies to creative fields such as photography."If a client doesn’t value your work, then you shouldn’t sell it to them cheap, or trade it, and definitely never give it away. Because in doing so, you devalue your work even more. And worse than that, you’ll devalue the work of all the other professional artists out there who care about the industry of art. If you value your work, then others will, too." She has a great blog at mariabrophy.com that deals with the business of art, but again can be applied to most creative professions.

 Some great videos to watch in regards first is Harlan Ellison www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE

While Harlan is a writer, just interject "photographer" for "writer" , his points are still very valid.
Second video is this are www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2a8TRSgzZY it is really funny when you put certain situations in a different context in the real world.

Again best of luck in 2011 dude, have fun doing your work, build a great portfolio, but bottom line is get paid. If you don't value your work nobody will. If you want to start making some money with your photography and don't know how I can point you to a sources where you will get paid and still build up your portfolio.

 "I know... Lets not turn this into an immature but infamous pink bike argument. All i stated was that they dont legally have to pay you."

Eh, they legally do if they want to use your shot and you want to money for it. If they don't pay (when you want them to pay), and use your shot on the net in a blog, etc, they are stealing. It's that simple. If they don't take down your shot when you tell them to, they are violating copyright laws, and you can legally issue them a DCMA notice, which could get their site taken down (if they don't comply and remove the infraction) until they remove it.

Read up a bit on laws, and copyright so you know for the future. I wouldn't give out my stuff for free, especially if you want to make money from your work in the future. If you give it out for free, and they want another shot from you, don't except them to pay if you start charging for your work...

 of course, all i said was they dont need to if you dont care about it. legally they do not. if you want them to and they dont then yeah they are stealing obviously. ive got some pics on blogs cause i get my name out there. they didnt pay me. i didnt want them too. that is a smart thing to do. im starting out, it gets my name out there. never said a mag used my pic without payment...

 try lucky lager. way better

 Lucky lager is disgusting. And most german beer isn't great although there is a few that are pretty legit. I gotta say not many beers I have tasted in my travels has beaten Dead Frog Honey Brown. Good ol local award winner. And kokanee is just crap 'mainstream' beer.

 German beer is bad and dead frog is best...?.... Ok then...

 Do not twist my words.
Never said bad. Just that MOST of it isn't "great". MOST Canadian beer isn't great either.
Obviously it's down to personal preference. And my personal preference has been stated.

 Bitburger is cheap and easy to drink in mass quantities and even Heineken has its good points and I don't complain at all. Not really stuck on one brand, but even I witnessed guys in Germany drinking Budweiser when I visited 4 years ago. What's up with that?

Free beer is the best.

 no american beer is better than german beer. trust me. I live in the capital of beer. Bamberg, 11 breweries. and over 200 in the villages around. you guys have no idea..., Becks, Bitburger is all shit. You have to try the little breweries in bavaria
Yes, LuckyLager is also shit. But it has no chemical additives like kokanee. In Germany beer consists only of water, hop, malt. Additives are forbidden as it should be!

 kokanee isn't American, its Canadian, get it right.
plus, here on the west coat we have a plethora of micro brewers, and a new beer to try every day, Canadian beer definatly does give German beer a huge run for their money. Everyone knows the best beer in the world is innis & gunn from scotland.
I was born in the Netherlands so i have to be proud of the great dutch beers, such as grolsch and 5 horses

 fuck me i love pinkbike, the only place where someone can showcase their photography and people argue about beer under it...

 lol well said specializedp2boy!

 Thx buddy

 ns hadnt made teh soda yet, so he was riding a cove ss bike

 douche