Also, it gives some strange behavior in Firefox. If I load the below in a tab, it shows a random image as expected. Then if I open it again in a new tab it shows the previous image that loaded from the first tab, and then it switches images to a new random one a second later.
Lastly, you could solve the above issues, and decrease the load time from 1s to 200ms if you just self hosted a few random images, and you wouldn't have to worry about your 404 page depending on Unsplash.
Edit: It's actually taking 6-8 seconds to load the image now, and the 404 page is white text on a white background during that time.
I'll investigate those Firefox issues too - I did most of the testing in Chrome, Safari and IE, but will do some more on FF to ensure it works OK on all browsers.
If traffic gets really high on our site, I may resort to locally hosted images to reduce load time. Unsplash.it may also be throttling the image load time for us, as I am thinking the sudden spike from this HN post may have alerted them to the fact that there is suddenly a flurry of remote calls to them from our server IP? Or perhaps the Amazon CloudFront CDN is causing a slow down there? I will investigate - thanks for your useful feedback.
In fact, I may be able to go back to using coloured Unsplash images. I went for Grayscale images purely so that I could stick to white text for the contrast.
I already use pre-downloaded Unsplash images within the app itself for the user 'lock screens'. I've curated and placed about 20 images on our server expressly for that purpose ,
 - https://flic.kr/p/NV8cS3
 - https://flic.kr/p/NN3vvY
Nice - even dare I say it much nicer than the generic smiling corporate woman on the front page. AB testing be damned, I want black and white landscapes for saas products :-)
But thanks also for the feedback on the actual home page image. We are in the midst of (ironically) A/B testing that header image and have been rotating a few over the past weeks to see which ones have better clicking power. We've gone from abstract office shots to really corporate-y team and people shots etc. so appreciate any and all feedback!
But just wait until the Google Bots become sentient - I am banking that we will be spared their wrath purely for breaking up the boring monotony of their crawling life!
I've also been to a few of their NYC meetups and it's clear that the site is backed by an amazing community.
1 - https://unsplash.com/collections/curated/127?photo=jYYpTndzo...
You can check them out here:
 - https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/d...
 - http://becker.am/blog/2014/06/05/california/
Shot on a full-frame DSLR, the Canon 5D mkII, 40mm, f6 @ 1/320. ISO 160. It doesn't look like any filters were used and the fast shutter speed casts the bridge in darkness while letting the setting sun's colors come through in the sky.
Having a named license at least helps spread the word a bit. The customer might not see it, but the designers, engineers and creatives involved probably will.
It's a great resource.
I think I'm just parsing this wrong.
Yes. Grantparent asked "How does the Unsplash license  differ from the Creative Commons Zero license?" and parent answered: "All photos published on Unsplash are licensed under Creative Commons Zero" implies literally nothing".
Which should be read as meaning "implies literally nothing [is different between the two licenses]" -- and not that what they wrote means nothing.
Seems silly to change the name when it's essentially the same thing.
It's important to point out that "free" and "royalty-free" aren't the same thing. Unsplash images are actually in the public domain, whereas "royalty-free" is a license type where an image can be used multiple times for one payment.
Not all countries have a concept of public domain, and many that do have arbitrary restrictions applied to it. In fact, this is one of the reasons you should use CC0 rather than just saying "public domain" or using something like the Unlicense.
1) I LOVE how you group photos by subject/topic instead of just randomly posting photos and asking the user to search for what they want. Most of the time users don't know what they want and would rather just browse and look around. Browsing lists and collections is more entertaining, engaging, and useful than what other photo sites do: drop off the user in front of a search box and ask "what do you want?". That's like asking someone "tell me everything about you". It forces the user to engage in some serious mental gymnastics and fatigues them. Collections like yours are easier on the brain. Just pick a pretty picture and browse all the pretty photos in that collection. Love it.
2) The photography is beautiful and looks authentic, rare, and avoids that "generic stock photo" feel. These photos look like they're out of somebody's "rare find" folder. They are gorgeous and ready to be used with minimal photoshopping.
3) Most of these already have color correcting and filters applied. Did your site do this? Or did the photographers?
Unique. Useful. Going in my bookmarks. Thanks for this.
The whole thing was super hacked together - I'm sure there's nicer solutions around but I'm plenty happy with what I have. Details here if anyone wants to copy what I did: https://josephg.com/blog/shiny-background-images/
Lately it has become a favorite site for many people. So, just another incarnation of the Google story. <3
Maybe someone could actually do that.........
The nice part of using going through a photo agency or pro photography that despite the extra paperwork and cost, you know you have the rights.
When Virgin Mobile used a photo of a young girl that was licensed by the photographer as Creative Commons on Flickr, she and Wong sued Creative Commons, Virgin Mobile USA, and Virgin Mobile of Australia. They eventually dropped the other plaintiffs and went after VM of Australia: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12...
They seem to have lost the lawsuit: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Chang_v._Virgin_Mobile
But in any case, the user of the photo ended up paying the most legal bills, even though the photographer had given implicit permission.
One thing that Unsplash has going for it is that all submitter of photos also have to log in with Facebook, so there's an extra barrier preventing someone from turning in a random photo. I mean, you can still do that while logged in, but that's work to impersonate someone.
I just signed up an am about to upload a photo. Will let you know if there's a special thing that I have to sign.
edit: signing up and uploading photo just tells you to read the Terms before uploading...I'm guessing there's something that protects Unsplash from a user uploading maliciously https://unsplash.com/terms
They say that you have the rights, but "pro" photo sites have also been found guilty in the past of either intentionally or not, misappropriating and onselling copyrighted images that they had no right to.
Perhaps the terms of agreement will protect you as the end user (purchaser) of those images, but will it in all cases? Could the fact that you purchased copyrighted images in a commercial transaction actually make it worse as it opens you up to punitive damages or other legal action?
At least in the US, a photographer can grant use of a photo, but if the photo isn't for editorial use -- if the person in the photo could be considered advocating what the picture is selling -- they need a release from the subject: http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html
The original URL has moved to here: https://crew.co/backstage/dispatch/what-does-unsplash-cost/
So how do they make actual revenue? They wrote a second post, How side projects saved our startup:
Unsplash is apparently crew.co's highest source of referrals, so i guess it's a loss leader
Can somebody recommend similar resource with unprocessed images? Most photos toned or converted to black-and-white.
Talented individuals who are well off, giving talent for free makes life harder for other talented individuals who might not actually be well off and might have just this talent. It looks like service is the only thing that will be monetize-able in the future. Actual products will all be available free of cost. I think it will drive down the quality of the best products while driving the average quality up.
Talented individuals are doing bespoke work, not taking random pictures for peoples' 404 pages. The advice I can give to talented people who are not well off is learn to talk business. Your photos are great, that's why we're talking with you. Now lets hash out the business side of things, the easier you make it to buy or license exclusive access to these images we want the easier we push your invoice through accounting.