Newbie here with lots of questions

[cobalt]

In the days of film the commercial stock photographer was using medium or large format cameras....besides film has been the Dodo for at least 6 years commercially.  A century on the internet.

A Canon Digital Rebel will easily do the trick. Even a simple Canon G12 will work for stock. But will it work for your stock??

Sean is right, this will be fun.

My workflow: From Raw to Tiff, process in Photoshop CS5, inspect at 200%, save only as jpg at highest quality. No upsizing. No sharpening of any kind. Also turn of all sharpening in the camera.

Please show us your portfolio when you get online.

[LSD72]

The absolute Micro Guru (my opinion) to ask about beginning in Micros rarely comes here. He hangs in the Istock site forums under the name Lobo.

He is easier to access than Yuri Acurs (who does pop in here from time to time).

As far as cameras, I shoot Nikon and I am eyeballing the D7000 here lately. Can't tell you about Canons.

[abracadabradesigns]

Duane,

I think you are having the wrong understanding regarding some answers you got here, maybe because indeed they may sound a bit harsh (some people like to act grumpy, even when they have a generous heart  ).

The questions about your previous experience with photography are valid. Getting into microstock today is much harder than years ago. With so many contributors, sites are very selective, very picky, rejecting images for the slightest flaws. I know many people who were disappointed with the results they got just because what they produce isn't much "stock". Some because ther photo skills are not as good as they believed, others because they like to shoot waterfalls and birds, which are not very popular in the microstock business (they may however sell well as prints, I know many people who sell prints in fairs).

So just to understand your workflow better�. you shoot in .jpg convert to .tiff and work with the tiff files files in PSP before converting them back into .jpg?

Also, what sort of noise software are you using, and what step is that in your processing workflow?

Yes, I convert JPEG to TIFF, then work on it until I am satisfied. I take notes on the steps used, so I can repeat them to other images. Then I save the final image as JPEG for uploading. I don't use noise reduction software, on rare occasions I apply PSP's tools in selected areas only.

In fact most of my microstock stuff was shot with a compact camera. The DSLR images I upload basically as macrostock, mainly RM.

Hi Madelaide,

You�re replies have been the most helpful I have received so far. Thanks for being a true professional.

Composition is not the problem for me, it�s the technical limitations of currently shooting with a compact digital camera and encountering noise and purple fringing problems.

That�s why I am looking to switch up to a camera with a bigger sensor than a compact model.   

With better lenses, and a better camera, it many not eliminate these problems entirely but it will certainly help.   

BTW, I am seriously looking at Paint Shop Pro and I know that the X2 and X3 editions have a quick repair tool for purple fringing.  Does that work well for the most part or are there times when it misses the mark?

Thanks again for your help.

Duane

[abracadabradesigns]

In the days of film the commercial stock photographer was using medium or large format cameras....besides film has been the Dodo for at least 6 years commercially.  A century on the internet.

A Canon Digital Rebel will easily do the trick. Even a simple Canon G12 will work for stock. But will it work for your stock??

Sean is right, this will be fun.

My workflow: From Raw to Tiff, process in Photoshop CS5, inspect at 200%, save only as jpg at highest quality. No upsizing. No sharpening of any kind. Also turn of all sharpening in the camera.

Please show us your portfolio when you get online.

You are only partially correct. Medium and Large format were used for stock photography, but so was 35mm. How do I know?  Because I used to browse the submission requirements of various RM stock agencies.

Duane

[aeonf]

for CA we use DXO optics.
It seems to do a better job then CS5.

[cobalt]

"You are only partially correct. Medium and Large format were used for stock photography, but so was 35mm. How do I know?  Because I used to browse the submission requirements of various RM stock agencies.
"

Hi Duane,

if you have experience with stock, why are you asking all these simple questions??? Your film portfolio must have already been ported to digital a long time ago. Either by yourself or by your agencies. Why don�t you just give us a link to your website, so we can see what you do? It is a lot easier to give advice if we now the subjects your shooting.

istock also accepts film scans, by the way. On uploading you can choose between film and digital media. They have special reviewers for film.

[madelaide]

BTW, I am seriously looking at Paint Shop Pro and I know that the X2 and X3 editions have a quick repair tool for purple fringing.  Does that work well for the most part or are there times when it misses the mark?

Hmm, does X2 have it? I never tried it. I rarely get it in my DSLR, but I get a lot from the compact too. I think people have mentioned here that Canon software does a good job cutting purple fringe.

[Mantis]

I wonder, I just wonder how Duane will take a rejection.  That could be fun to watch.

"F_ck you inspector, you don't know what the f_k your' talking about.  Did you get your experience from shooting a 110 instamatic or what? I have a Polaroid you can borrow. It's my dad's from 1950.  Maybe you can learn something from that like I have.  You are useless.  Get me another inspector you fool!!"

[Mantis]

Sean definitely gave you the best answer.
Imagine if I went onto a pro tennis forum and, arriving completely out of thin air, I posted, "I want to be a pro tennis player, which raquet and shoes should I get?"

Wilson and Nike, respectively of course:)

[stormchaser]

Nikon vs Canon, Ford vs Chevy.

I can tell you that the Canons are in the shop more than the Nikons. I have more Nikon because I can't afford the downtime. A few of the cameras suffer a lot of abuse.

All Nikon models allow the capability to mount the old legacy manual focus lenses, basically any AI lens made after 1978 I think. Although I think metering will only work with higher end models like D200 and up. Doesn't matter as I only shoot manual anyway and use all of my circa 1980 lenses on them.

With Canon, there can limitations if you want to explore lenses and build a system eventually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount

There is no "better" these days. Each brand has its own features, limitations, quirks. I hated that the old Canon 40d constantly gave me a lens mount error. I hate that the Nikon D90 takes an SD card. That means I have to carry 2 card types when I take that camera.

To make a truly informed decision, you really need to define your goals and then go after the lens and feature set you want. And again, feature sets are usually a lot of crap anyway and I never use things like scene mode, exposure compensation etc. And if you have no lenses to start with, the brand does not matter for the lower tier models - they're all capable. The brand factors in heavily when and if you expand into a pro system. In that case, Nikon wins for me. We really only bought Canon for video, but we use Nikon glass. The entry models at the sub $1000 price point is sort of like buying a point & shoot. They'll all do pretty much about the same thing, some with more pizazz.

As the megapixel race is pretty much stable for the moment, all the manufacturers are doing with the new entry models anyway is cramming in new features like "Selective Color" and "Color Sketch" which no one needs (D5100), but it is a way to keep the product line fresh and entice the masses. One nice thing is that the the D5100 does use the same sensor as the highly rated D7000.

[abracadabradesigns]

I wonder, I just wonder how Duane will take a rejection.  That could be fun to watch.

"F_ck you inspector, you don't know what the f_k your' talking about.  Did you get your experience from shooting a 110 instamatic or what? I have a Polaroid you can borrow. It's my dad's from 1950.  Maybe you can learn something from that like I have.  You are useless.  Get me another inspector you fool!!"

Oh wow, another troll... with another useless post.  Time to hit the ignore button again.

Duane

[stormchaser]

Sean definitely gave you the best answer.
Imagine if I went onto a pro tennis forum and, arriving completely out of thin air, I posted, "I want to be a pro tennis player, which raquet and shoes should I get?"

Wilson and Nike, respectively of course:)

I have a new drill motor. Can I take care of that back molar for you???

[disorderly]

Oh wow, another troll... with another useless post.  Time to hit the ignore button again.

Duane

You, sir, are a fool, and a very special kind of fool at that.  Do you behave this way in the real world, walking into a new environment, making demands and then announcing that those who suffer your foolishness and attempt to help know nothing of value?  Has it occurred to you yet that you have already overstayed your welcome, that you are unlikely to be treated with respect unless you develop some manners?  Clearly you have little experience in online conversation, knowing so little that you misuse the word "troll" every time you utter it.

Ignore me; I am about to ignore you.

[Mantis]

I wonder, I just wonder how Duane will take a rejection.  That could be fun to watch.

"F_ck you inspector, you don't know what the f_k your' talking about.  Did you get your experience from shooting a 110 instamatic or what? I have a Polaroid you can borrow. It's my dad's from 1950.  Maybe you can learn something from that like I have.  You are useless.  Get me another inspector you fool!!"

Oh wow, another troll... with another useless post.  Time to hit the ignore button again.

Duane

You're presenting yourself as someone who doesn't want any advice other than your own.  Take the high road.  Listen, ask, learn, have thick skin.  You've from post #2 exposed yourself as what you are. You gotta have some tough skin here.  In any critique or request forum you have to be capable of articulating the right question and accepting the group feedback.  Saying thank you and showing some appreciation can get you some respect ....that helps with longevity, too.

[abracadabradesigns]

Nikon vs Canon, Ford vs Chevy.

I can tell you that the Canons are in the shop more than the Nikons. I have more Nikon because I can't afford the downtime. A few of the cameras suffer a lot of abuse.

All Nikon models allow the capability to mount the old legacy manual focus lenses, basically any AI lens made after 1978 I think. Although I think metering will only work with higher end models like D200 and up. Doesn't matter as I only shoot manual anyway and use all of my circa 1980 lenses on them.

With Canon, there can limitations if you want to explore lenses and build a system eventually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount

There is no "better" these days. Each brand has its own features, limitations, quirks. I hated that the old Canon 40d constantly gave me a lens mount error. I hate that the Nikon D90 takes an SD card. That means I have to carry 2 card types when I take that camera.

To make a truly informed decision, you really need to define your goals and then go after the lens and feature set you want. And again, feature sets are usually a lot of crap anyway and I never use things like scene mode, exposure compensation etc. And if you have no lenses to start with, the brand does not matter for the lower tier models - they're all capable. The brand factors in heavily when and if you expand into a pro system. In that case, Nikon wins for me. We really only bought Canon for video, but we use Nikon glass. The entry models at the sub $1000 price point is sort of like buying a point & shoot. They'll all do pretty much about the same thing, some with more pizazz.

As the megapixel race is pretty much stable for the moment, all the manufacturers are doing with the new entry models anyway is cramming in new features like "Selective Color" and "Color Sketch" which no one needs (D5100), but it is a way to keep the product line fresh and entice the masses. One nice thing is that the the D5100 does use the same sensor as the highly rated D7000.

Hi Stormchaser

I haven�t gotten too many helpful responses from people on this forum but the few I have gotten have been great. 

So many, many thanks for your helpful reply.    I greatly appreciate it. 

Basically I am looking for a good all around DSLR because I shoot a lot of different types of subject matter. 

I honestly haven�t found a subject that I don�t like shooting, so I want a camera with enough flexibility to do just about everything I want to do or want to try doing.  And yeah I wouldn�t mind shooting some HD video too.

Anyway� I agree with you about Nikon� the fact that they don�t change their lens mounts is selling point.  You can use older lenses, unless you need AF for action shots. 

And I also agree with you, I don�t plan on using scene mode� just aperture priority and shutter priority mainly. 

Exposure compensation can be useful on some things but probably when not shooting in raw. 

What are the focal lengths of the lenses you are using now?

Duane

   


   

[abracadabradesigns]

BTW, I am seriously looking at Paint Shop Pro and I know that the X2 and X3 editions have a quick repair tool for purple fringing.  Does that work well for the most part or are there times when it misses the mark?

Hmm, does X2 have it? I never tried it. I rarely get it in my DSLR, but I get a lot from the compact too. I think people have mentioned here that Canon software does a good job cutting purple fringe.

Hi Madelaide,

Apparently it does, but I wonder how well it works.

http://www.brighthub.com/multimedia/photography/articles/34465.aspx?image=13857

Duane 

[leaf]

Lol ...  I suggest using Gala apples when you start shooting fruit on white.  They're much rounder then red delicious.

Btw, if you answered my question, you might actually have gotten better answers.  You don't have a camera, so you're not one of these 'I just want money for a new lens for my hobby' people.  So, presumably you see this a some easy way to make money. It sounds like you have no experience with any kind of photo workflow.  So, I'm curious as to why you think you want to do this.

Sean is certainly 'crusty' around the edges, but if you put on some thick skin, most of what he says is spot on and well worth your time listening to... and if not, it is at the least least worth considering.  

Sure, Sean or others could be 'faking' it or pretending to be someone they're not, but lots of the people on this forum know each other personally or have met each other in person, Sean being one of them.  If I were you, I'd take the advice from the guy who is edging in on 1,000,000 sales... even if it does come packed in a cactus

[leaf]

and now to answer your quesitons

Hi All,

I am just getting started into stock photography and I got a lot of questions.  Can anyone help?

1. I am thinking of getting a DSLR... what do you all think about the various Canon Digital Rebel models?  Are they a pretty good?

If you are just starting out, get the cheapest model and see how you like it.  Spend the rest of your money on a good lens.

2. If I shoot in Raw, is Adobe Light Room adequate for most processing (batch adjusting levels, white balance and other stuff) or do I need more elaborate software such as Photoshop for this?

I use photoshop.  If you are going to take stock seriously you may as well bite the bullet and buy Photoshop once and for all.  If you simply can't afford it (I certainly wouldn't take out a loan to do microstock), Photoshop Elements will keep you going until you CAN afford it.

3. Can you edit photos when they are .tifs or just when they are in raw format?

You can't 'edit' a RAW image you can just 'process' the raw file.  You then spit the processed raw file out as a TIF and work on it from there.  Save it as a JPG as the very last step

4. What sort of monitor calibration hardware/software should I use?  How often do you need to calibrate a monitor? Also can the hardware that hangs over the screen scratch or damage the monitor in any way?

Your monitor calibration software / hardware will tell you how often to use it (perhaps once a month??)  All the expensive calibration units are made to hang over the screen ... so yes, they are made to not scratch the screen.  Again, get what you can afford. Most things from colorvision should be good.  The spyder2pro or spyder3pro or whatever else...

[abracadabradesigns]

Lol ...  I suggest using Gala apples when you start shooting fruit on white.  They're much rounder then red delicious.

Btw, if you answered my question, you might actually have gotten better answers.  You don't have a camera, so you're not one of these 'I just want money for a new lens for my hobby' people.  So, presumably you see this a some easy way to make money. It sounds like you have no experience with any kind of photo workflow.  So, I'm curious as to why you think you want to do this.

Sean is certainly 'crusty' around the edges, but if you put on some thick skin, most of what he says is spot on and well worth your time listening to... and if not, it is at the least least worth considering. 

Sure, Sean or others could be 'faking' it or pretending to be someone they're not, but lots of the people on this forum know each other personally or have met each other in person, Sean being one of them.  If I were you, I'd take the advice from the guy who is edging in on 1,000,000 sales... even if it does come packed in a cactus

Packed with a cactus?  Yeah, I�ll agree with that!

ROFLMAO.

It appears some of them have a cactus stuck up their fat butts.   

Thankfully though, there have been some useful responses from some folks here which have been of great help.

The others I have put on ignore.  I am not even going to waste my time with them. 

I am here to learn and a million $0.10 cent sales on I-stock is not an excuse for rudeness.

Duane
   

[leaf]

Lol ...  I suggest using Gala apples when you start shooting fruit on white.  They're much rounder then red delicious.

Btw, if you answered my question, you might actually have gotten better answers.  You don't have a camera, so you're not one of these 'I just want money for a new lens for my hobby' people.  So, presumably you see this a some easy way to make money. It sounds like you have no experience with any kind of photo workflow.  So, I'm curious as to why you think you want to do this.

Sean is certainly 'crusty' around the edges, but if you put on some thick skin, most of what he says is spot on and well worth your time listening to... and if not, it is at the least least worth considering. 

Sure, Sean or others could be 'faking' it or pretending to be someone they're not, but lots of the people on this forum know each other personally or have met each other in person, Sean being one of them.  If I were you, I'd take the advice from the guy who is edging in on 1,000,000 sales... even if it does come packed in a cactus

Packed with a cactus?  Yeah, I�ll agree with that!

ROFLMAO.

It appears some of them have a cactus stuck up their fat butts.   

Thankfully though, there have been some useful responses from some folks here which have been of great help.

The others I have put on ignore.  I am not even going to waste my time with them. 

I am here to learn and a million $0.10 cent sales on I-stock is not an excuse for rudeness.

Duane
   

I appears however that you have put some of the quite helpful people on ignore.  I would classify Sean as blunt rather than rude.... but either way... suit yourself.

[abracadabradesigns]

Hi Leaf,

Thanks for your helpful response.   Your answers are the types of the useful answers I have been looking for since posting today.   

Anyway� the raw/tif file thing is one thing that confuses me, as like Madelaide, I have been shooting in .jpg. 

I realize that raws and tifs are lossless files unlike .jpgs.. but are raw and tifs both 16 bit files? 

And when you mean �processed", do you mean the process of converting the raw file into a .tif or do you mean first applying the white balance, etc before converting it to .tif�  and then doing more editing of the .tif (such as using the clone tool, using various brush tools, etc) ?

The only thing I don�t like about Photoshop Elements is that you can�t batch process photos. 

I take a lot of photos under the same lighting conditions, just the composition of the shot changes.

If I shoot 50 shots of the same thing, I would like be able to use the same settings (level adjustments, contrast, etc) and apply it to all of them.

Photoshop Elements does allow batch processing, but only with their automatic presets� which kind of stinks.

That�s why I was looking into using Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop Elements together (AL for batch processing and PSE for editing) or just using Paintshop Pro which can do both.

Duane

[leaf]

Adobe camera raw (maybe it comes with elements.. maybe it is free... i'm not sure .. it installs with Photoshop, so you could probably get and use it without a problem if you install a trial version of photoshop) can 'batch' process files. You can select 100 raw files and have all the settings apply to all the images that are selected.

Just shoot a few raw files and play around and you will understand better.

Tif's can be 16bit or 8bit - but tiff's can also be compressed with quality loss, it depends on your settings.

By processed I mean, when I open them in camera raw and make changes to the white balance, contrast, black levels etc.  You can also remove dust, do gradient adjustments in Camera Raw, you can do quite a few things really.  But anything you do to a RAW file doesn't change the raw file.  The original RAW file is always there, that is why I called it processing rather than editing.  You can't ever 'edit' (or change) a RAW file... at least as far as this conversation is concerned.

[markrhiggins]

i never had Nike tennis shoes and I now realise it is ther reason my tennis is crap. Maybe I also should have had help and lessons to improve my technique?

Stock photography is quite difficult these days. Starting off with having to learn technique software, hardware, workflow and commercial considerations amongst others is extremely difficult . You need to go slow and master it in pieces. Buy a canon 50mm 1.8 and a mid range rebel and see if you are good enough to get accepted. You will get software with camera and elements is good. Get accepted before you worry about uploading big batches of similiar lighted shots.

I got into stock because it was something to do and had some payback. I was only intending to sell macro. I like seeing my images used. It is hard to make big money unless you are much more creative and hardworking than me. It can be very frustrating and can limit your creativity for flickr type shots and more fun shots. It is technically very demanding.

Why not post some shots up? What have you achieved to date? Do you flickr?

[lagereek]

In the days of film the commercial stock photographer was using medium or large format cameras....besides film has been the Dodo for at least 6 years commercially.  A century on the internet.

A Canon Digital Rebel will easily do the trick. Even a simple Canon G12 will work for stock. But will it work for your stock??

Sean is right, this will be fun.

My workflow: From Raw to Tiff, process in Photoshop CS5, inspect at 200%, save only as jpg at highest quality. No upsizing. No sharpening of any kind. Also turn of all sharpening in the camera.

Please show us your portfolio when you get online.

You are only partially correct. Medium and Large format were used for stock photography, but so was 35mm. How do I know?  Because I used to browse the submission requirements of various RM stock agencies.

Duane

No Cobolt is in fact very right! apart from the Image-Bank, where 35 mil was in fact the only criteria, MF was the industry standard film and was a must for almost all agencies. Dont forget that in the days of film, the majority of buyers were creative-buyers and the end product was almost always a print.
Today the majrity of buyers are just webb people, demands almost nothing.

It was horrible job trying to drumscan a small format tranny for a lousy 50 meg but so much easier with MF and LF format.

The inspection of pictures was also of lightyears differance, it was done by professional editors, etc, today, I mean lets face it but any serious inspection of files, is a joke really, as long as an image pass technical inspection its accepted. Reason for this is ofcourse that the overwhelming majority of buyers dont need quality nor composition.

[SNP]

just stumbled into this thread.....wow, Sean, apparently you need to send this guy a whole case of bacon jam....then maybe he'll take you off ignore. I think abracadabra must have read "how to alienate people and learn nothing in ten posts flat"...fantastic. to the OP, uh, yeah, good luck with your new career