I got to try out the new Photos for Mac.  I have been a user of Aperture for several years and it fits both my personal and microstock needs.  I very rarely use PS any more.  So I was a happy camper till Apple decided to drop any future development of that software.

I had high hopes for the new Photos for Mac.  But, right now,  it seems much more like iPhotos than Aperture.  Key missing  stuff is no curves adjustment.  Curves adjustment is a large part of my workflow.  They do provide a levels adjustment but its confusing and too course a tool.  There is also no star rating.  They have sharpen but no edge sharpen.   No Burn and dodge.   Very few to no brush options .

So anybody else try it?  What do you think?

Anybody switch to lightroom or another software with success?

I am brand new to Pond 5.  I just uploaded about 800 images.  I would like to select them all and set the price for all 800 at once.   It is not clear to me how to do this.

123 RF has always been a sleeper for me and ranks about 4th in my portfolio.  BUT in Jan they took off for some reason and are now 2nd for me?  Have no idea why.

I called the IRS on this one.   They recommended that I use Schedule E as it was a royalty.   TT does have entries for 1099-misc and other payments in the royalties area.  There are also lines for putting in expenses.   I did not ask about expenses.... should have.   Various posts on the internet on this subject is that as soon as you start trying to take deductions you look more like a business which means more paperwork, increasde audit possibilities, cities looking for business permits, etc.

So the way I see it my options are:

1. Input it in the hobby income line with expenses.   The tax is higher this way but If I put a 1099-misc in there it could trigger an audit? But it still looks like a hobby.
2. Put it in the schedule C and list expenses and/or depreciation camera stuff.  But now it looks like you are a business.  Audit time?  City Permits?  But here you get the least tax.
3. Put in Schedule E.  TT takes it.  List no expenses to avoid audits and it still looks like a hobby.  No City permits.  Higher tax.

So.... I think I will go with 3.   But if my sales keep increasing to the point where I am making more than the cost of my equipment, then,  I think it will be time to get a tax accountant.

Let me know if I am really wrong on any of this stuff... thanks.

About a couple weeks after I bought this great camera I dropped it. Oh and I also had a new Tamrom 24-70 f2.8 VC lens on it. The camera still worked but had a big ding on it.




The lens Auto focus got messed up and had to be repaired. A hood saved the glass.

How did I drop it and how I wont do it again can be found in detail on my blog here.

But essentially is was operator error. I used an arca plate on the camera with no safety stops.... I have them now.

Started an experiment.  Have never done this before.  Most of my images are on the order of 5760 � 3840 pixels unless I crop.  So with a batch of 12 images I downsized them to a maximum of 3500 on a side.   So it will be interesting to see if that has any impact on my acceptance rate

I have had a bunch of different camera bags over the past 5 years.   Most were either a mistake from the beginning or I out grew them with my increasing camera equipment.  I have learned a bunch from that experience so I wrote a blog post about it.  My best back is the Lowepro Flipside Sport 15L.

Here is the blog if you are interested.

http://www.bobkeenanphoto.com/bags-bags-bags-my-journey-to-the-best-dslr-camera-bag/

They are main earner by far.  I love that.

But boy do they got hot and cold on acceptance.   I send one in this evening and got it back a few hours later.  100% Rejection!!!!    Previous submittal took over a week to review..... 100% acceptance.  I am just shaking my head.   I think my stuff got caught up in the Weekend Curse!

I got serious about photography about 5 years ago.  Messed around with it for 35 years prior.  When I got into DSLR cameras all of a sudden I am paying some serious money for this stuff.  It took me a few years to learn how to buy.   That included figuring out what I really wanted, what could I afford, where to buy it and other questions like that.  So I put a blog post together to share what I have learned.  You can read it here:

http://www.bobkeenanphoto.com/how-buy-dslr-stuff/

The short version is buy used or refurbished Canon or Nikon Cameras and Lens.  Sigma and Tamron are good as well.  Think a lot about what you want.  Read the reviews, talk to other photographers, rent one if you can.  Then buy it at your local camera shop if they are competitive.  If not use Ebay, B&H, Adorama, or Fred Miranda.  There is a lot more detail in my blog.  Let me know what you think.
--
Bob Keenan
http://www.bobkeenanphoto.com

Many of you have probably read this book already.  But if not.....

Michael Freeman's book "Photographer's Eyes" is an amazing book for the art and compositionally challenged.   I first read it about 3 years ago and have read it 3 times since.   I have also read all of his other books.  But this one really affected me.   So I wrote a short blog about it here:

http://www.bobkeenanphoto.com/book-review-michael-freemans-photographers-eye-photographers-mind/

And thought I should share this thought on this forum.  It really provided a kind of turning point in my Microstock image work.  I am not a major microstock guy....but you should have seen my stuff before I read the book.

I would highly recommend any new photographers to check out his book.

I can't see your image at 100%...but I'll give you my experience.  I'm not sure what brand you shoot, but I shoot Canon and I own the 24-70 f/2.8L.  That lens sucks...big time.  It's great for editorial and reportage but for creative stock, it's the pits.  I'm willing to bet that the "soft and lacking definition" is a result of the lens being soft in the corners.  Take a look at the image at 100% and look at all four corners.  Is it soft?  Is it in focus?

I have an image submitted on the microstock agencies of a wind farm.  I couldn't submit the image to the traditional agencies I work with because all four corners were soft.  I cropped it to a smaller size and submitted it to the micros (that allow for smaller image sizes) and it has done very well.

That's my experience.

I don't think its the lens.   This was shot with the 24-70 f2.8  at 50mm and at f8.  I have never seen any significant corner problems.  Out of the close to 2000 images that I have on microstock sites I bet about 800 are from this lens.  Also if you look at all of the reviews for this lens they say that the only problems are when it is wide open or at the fulll ranges of the zoom.   This was at 50mm and f8.   So I would love to blame the lens but the problem is me and microstock.   To do this shot right I should have set it up on a tripod, cranked the iso down to 100, and taken it at f16 and maybe put the focus point a little further back on the fence to maximize the DOF at the beginning of the fence.

BTW if you can't tell I LOVE this lens.  My other love is the 70-200 f2.8... then my wife and kids   ;-)

I submitted a batch of images a while ago.  It had not gone through QC yet but I had another batch to submit.  So I figured I would submit that as well.   It looks like one image in the first batch failed so they all failed and it also looks like the second batch failed as well because the first one, in the first batch did.   So what I learned is to submit a batch and wait for it to clear QC before you submit a second.

BTW the image that failed was my favorite image.   I don't print much of my stuff for personal use but my friends and family liked the image so much that they insisted I print and frame it.  That's like one out of 2000 in my portfolio.   It also has lots of copy space for commercial space.  So it was interesting for ALAMY to fail QC on this one.  Note it was also not accepted at most of the other sites that i use.    

There is just no accounting for tastes.... Its a shame that they they all all wrong and I am right on this one   ;-)

Here is the image that has gotten almost universal rejection: