Show HN: Free hi-resolution photos for your website. 10 new photos every 10 days

At the same time, you should look into your technique if you'd like these to be usable for commercial print work.

These likely cannot be used in print work as is; the photo quality is borderline. They likely wouldn't be chosen by art directors to use large (eg., background images) or on today's retina screens, for the same reason. If someone is reviewing the work, too many clients' eyes will jump to the problems.

You may want to consider a better lens that doesn't exhibit the strong purple color fringing. You also need to reduce (or change methods of) the post processing that's causing severe fringing between the various subjects in the pictures, ringing on the out of focus elements, etc. These look and feel a lot like high end camera phone pics run through too much filter.

In considering composition, watch out for elements like the errant finger on the left hand writing. Any element that's too unusual draws excess attention, detracting from stock photo value, unless of course that element is the featured element.

Check out the quality standards guidelines at iStockPhotos:

http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/...

For example, they would have likely rejected these for chromatic aberration and maybe for over filtering:

http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/...

http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/...

Finally, as noted in other comments, generally company logos are not acceptable in stock photography:

http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/training-manuals/...

Now that I know...

Isn't this a bit much? There's hardly any text on the site at all, much less enough to 'denigrate an entire industry'.

This is just a web page with 10 photos on it with a cc license. Don't know where you're getting the rest of that.

I don't know why. But I laughed so hard on this.

Well, for a lot of reasons... if photography is what you're good at and what you enjoy, the make-money-on-ads model makes no sense unless you're also very good at generating traffic.

It also at least partially removes your income from the quality and quantity of your output. Of course the latter will be one important factor in building and maintaining traffic, but the reality of your business then becomes driving traffic, with photography as an ancillary requirement.

Plus you're now dependent not only on your ability to take good pictures and drive large amounts of traffic, you're also at the mercy of changing revenue. Great, you're making a living wage... but now suddenly your ad service isn't paying as much as it used to, so the same volume of traffic brings you less money. Oops.

There are tradeoffs, but I would not say this is a viable alternative at all unless you're also doing other things and driving traffic is as much your primary skill as photography.