pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 48MB minimum size? a joke? haha  (Read 24788 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 18, 2008, 16:31 »
0
What the heck is this? At alamy 48mb is the minimum size? Why in the name of God? And How am I gonna achieve that? My raw file is 10MB, my jpeg 10MP is 4MB?! LOL!


« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2008, 17:08 »
0
Alamy do ask to upscale your photos using a "high quality" software (PS or better Genuine Fractal). Use bicubic algorithm.

But you have to understand that it is 48Mb UNCOMPRESSED = 16M pixels (3 bytes per pixel). The compressed JPEG is then around 5-10Mb.

Don't ask why they ask for upscaled pictures however  ::)
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 17:13 by araminta »

« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2008, 19:09 »
0
What the heck is this? At alamy 48mb is the minimum size? Why in the name of God? And How am I gonna achieve that? My raw file is 10MB, my jpeg 10MP is 4MB?! LOL!
Dino...
Open your 10MP file in Photoshop and go to image - image size you will see your uncompressed file size, that's what alamy mean.

My 8mp (3mb) file around 22.8mb uncompressed.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2008, 19:23 by erwinova »

« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2008, 19:54 »
0
What the heck is this? At alamy 48mb is the minimum size? Why in the name of God? And How am I gonna achieve that? My raw file is 10MB, my jpeg 10MP is 4MB?! LOL!

It was also a headache for me. Finally I got Geniune Fractals  and did upsizing without further thinking. Keep upsizing within 48-52MB, bigger size may be rejected.


« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2008, 02:57 »
0
couldnt they do that fot themself, to spare us uploading such large files! it takes 1 hour to upload 1 file. of.... I will upload entire portfolio in 100 years at that pace.

I quit Alamy....

« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2008, 03:32 »
0
We have to clarify this,
from what I know that 48mb uncompressed is not JPG file size.
is that correct?

It's different between size of JPG file and uncompressed file, right?
Dino.. may be you missing something.

My 51mb uncompressed is only 4.3mb in jpg file.

« Last Edit: February 19, 2008, 03:36 by erwinova »

« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2008, 03:37 »
0
Alamy is macrostock, not micro: this is another beast and has its own rules.

You cannot expect to be paid 100 times micro commission without a few extra constraints :)

I'm new to Alamy and never had any sale yet (my portfolio is tiny), but I like this site because I feel it is another approach of stock photography.

I will try to build here a portfolio with photo that do not sell well on micro sites, not because they are not good, but because they are not aimed at microstock business.



« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2008, 06:53 »
0
what is uncompressed file? what extension does it have? jpg? bmp?

I dont see anything about MBs, in Image size dialog:



confused....

« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2008, 06:55 »
0
couldnt they do that fot themself, to spare us uploading such large files! it takes 1 hour to upload 1 file. of.... I will upload entire portfolio in 100 years at that pace.

It takes about 30% more time to upload to Alamy. The size is the picture size, not the jpg size. A Nikon D200 shot upsized 131% gives 49MB picture size and about 3-8MB (depending on complexity - overwhites are less) in file size. I use Photoshop CS2-3 bicubic smoother for upsize, and make sure your DPI is 300 minimum.

Piece of cake, but only use shots that are perfectly in focus and preferably with prime lenses. The reason Alamy can't do it is that some shots, when upsized, are really substandard, and you as photographer should judge what to upload and what not. You can't expect Alamy to inspect ALL shots at 100%. They just take samples now and then.

« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2008, 08:17 »
0
what is uncompressed file? what extension does it have? jpg? bmp?
I dont see anything about MBs, in Image size dialog:

In any RGB 8bits format (which is always the case when saving pictures for microstock), each pixel require 3 bytes of storage: one byte for each color (R, G, B).

48Mb uncompressed is independant of the final file format (extension): it represents 48Mb of storage = 16M pixels.

So you need a 16M pixels image (Width x Height), that's it. This is the Pixel Dimension displayed in the Image Size dialog: it must be 16M or higher.

When you save this picture in JPEG, the file size will be smaller because JPEG is a compressed format. The exact size will depend on the picture. It's usually between 5 and 10Mb. but it may be more or less. No precise rule here.


« Last Edit: February 19, 2008, 08:24 by araminta »

« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2008, 09:05 »
0
Actually the pixel dimensions number tells you exactly if your file is either above 48M or below because THAT is the number that matters to Alamy. Come on people how hard can it be to understand the concept of uncompressed file size. 4100x4100 pixels=48.1M or 5014x3343=48M. And the answer is NO - 48M is not a joke. The next time you want to fill a wall with a picture even 48M might not be large enough.

« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2008, 09:41 »
0
And the answer is NO - 48M is not a joke. The next time you want to fill a wall with a picture even 48M might not be large enough.

It is still a joke here as Alamy will accept 4Mp pictures upscaled to 16Mp (they do not check for picture quality AFAIK). There should not be any noticeable difference to print on a wall the original 4Mp or the upscaled 16Mp picture. All will depend on the upscale algorithm used when printing the picture.

I would understand if Alamy would ask for true 16Mp photos, but in this case, there will not be a lot of contributors as 16Mp sensors are available only in high end cameras.


« Reply #12 on: February 19, 2008, 09:53 »
0
It is still a joke here as Alamy will accept 4Mp pictures upscaled to 16Mp
nope! they would not accept upscaled 4mp files  they require at least 6mp files original size and it is obvious it needs to be DSLR too otherwise an upscaled image  from a P&S camera would fail the quality standards.
it was announced by Alamy they'd enhance their  QC test  and review every single images like in micro agencies  very soon.it is also expected to fasten review process too.in my opinion it would make them more strict too

« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2008, 09:58 »
0
It is still a joke here as Alamy will accept 4Mp pictures upscaled to 16Mp
nope! they would not accept upscaled 4mp files  they require at least 6mp files original size and it is obvious it needs to be DSLR too otherwise an upscaled image  from a P&S camera would fail the quality standards.
it was announced by Alamy they'd enhance their  QC test  and review every single images like in micro agencies  very soon.it is also expected to fasten review process too.in my opinion it would make them more strict too

good news. I was reluctant to send to them more because of a long approval time. I think Alamy makes much sense, since one though rare sale can earn more than a month at most sites (except SS and iStock (even iStock does not do it for me yet ).

« Last Edit: February 19, 2008, 10:44 by vphoto »

« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2008, 19:19 »
0
what is uncompressed file? what extension does it have? jpg? bmp?

I dont see anything about MBs, in Image size dialog:



confused....


just take attention to pixel dimensions size, if reach 48M or more you are ready to alamy.

« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2008, 05:24 »
0
It is still a joke here as Alamy will accept 4Mp pictures upscaled to 16Mp
nope! they would not accept upscaled 4mp files  they require at least 6mp files original size and it is obvious it needs to be DSLR too otherwise an upscaled image  from a P&S camera would fail the quality standards.
it was announced by Alamy they'd enhance their  QC test  and review every single images like in micro agencies  very soon.it is also expected to fasten review process too.in my opinion it would make them more strict too

Actually about half the images I have on Alamy were taken with a Canon A630, sharpening and contrast set to zero in the camera, then upsized.

« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2008, 05:36 »
0
just take attention to pixel dimensions size, if reach 48M or more you are ready to alamy.
Correct: I was wrong. The pixel dimension is already displayed in Mb and not in Mp  8)

« Reply #17 on: February 20, 2008, 17:22 »
0
so, you say file does not have to be 48MB (size on disk), but 48 megapixels in size? that could be, say, 15 MB (megabytes) on disk?

« Reply #18 on: February 20, 2008, 17:26 »
0
So you say, this image is (in terms of size) OK for alamy:






?

But those are not MB (140), but MP!

« Reply #19 on: February 20, 2008, 17:33 »
0
Almost correct, but false  ;)

It is 48Mb uncompressed = 16M pixels. Your example is in fact far too large (there is an upper limit at Alamy, but I don't remember it right now). You should have 48M instead of 140.9M in Pixel Dimension.

Concerning the file size, don't bother: some 48Mb files will result in 2Mb JPEG and other in 15Mb JPEG.

« Reply #20 on: February 20, 2008, 17:34 »
0
No, 48MB uncompressed.  Save it as a TIFF and you will see it.  PSP shows it at the bottom status bar, also in the image info window - maybe PS has an equivalent?

A 3888x2592pix (10.1Mpix) image is 28.8MB.  A 3072x2304pix (7.1Mpix) image is 20.2MB.

Roughly a 5025x3350pix image will be 48MB.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Last Edit: February 20, 2008, 17:37 by madelaide »

« Reply #21 on: February 20, 2008, 17:47 »
0
uper limit is 200 mb


so, let me get this straight: I should save this jpeg in tiff format, and upload tiff file?


« Last Edit: February 20, 2008, 18:02 by Chode »

« Reply #22 on: February 20, 2008, 20:25 »
0
you can not sent tiff file but JPG only, upsize your image to 3400x5100 (51M uncompressed) save as JPG highest quality, let see how big they are, and send it to alamy.

« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2008, 03:07 »
0
jpeg is not uncompressed format. it is compressed. I am confused about this. When I save 3400x5100 image, it is about 6-7 megabytes on disk size. Is it OK? If it is, than no problem at at all....

« Reply #24 on: February 21, 2008, 03:58 »
0
jpeg is not uncompressed format. it is compressed. I am confused about this. When I save 3400x5100 image, it is about 6-7 megabytes on disk size. Is it OK? If it is, than no problem at at all....

Yes, this is OK: a 3400x5100 picture = 17M pixels = 52Mb uncompressed. When saved in JPEG which is actually a lossy compressed format you get a smaller file (here 6-7 Mb) and this is just fine :)

Just to clarify a point: when Alamy says they want a 48Mb picture uncompressed, you have to understand "we want a 48Mb picture when uncompressed but we want you to compress it in JPEG when submitting it".
« Last Edit: February 21, 2008, 04:08 by araminta »

RacePhoto

« Reply #25 on: February 21, 2008, 04:23 »
0
Image File size is not the same thing as Disk File size.

Make the uncompressed image size, not pixel dimension, but image data size, 48mb or larger. 5025 for the long side will get you 48.2 which is just over the minimum and works out just fine.

Then compress it into a JPG which will be smaller DISK FILE SIZE.

Upload the JPG.

Once you see the difference between the IMAGE FILE SIZE and the DISK FILE SIZE, you'll have no problem understanding why file size, doesn't equal file size.  ;D

Yes IMAGE FILE SIZE is in the little box in the lower left corner on Photoshop, CS3 and Elements.

Hope that helped?

It's not Alamy's fault that two different measurements of a file size, have the same name.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2008, 04:28 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #26 on: February 21, 2008, 04:35 »
0
oooouh! I got it! Why didnt you say so at the first place like that! OK! All clear now! I thougt I'd have to upload 50 (or more) megabytes (disk size), that would take ages... lol! It is reasonable now! Gee, it was so confusing, but I got it now! Tnx!
« Last Edit: February 21, 2008, 04:37 by Chode »

graficallyminded

« Reply #27 on: February 21, 2008, 08:42 »
0
I really wish Alamy could build this process into their site, like most other sites do.  Instead of us having to upsize, the sites do it for us.  Maybe Alamy will catch on someday.

« Reply #28 on: February 21, 2008, 08:52 »
0
What is also good about having to upsize yourself though, is that you can't hide flaws.

Often advice is given in micro forums to downsize to get rid of noise etc.  With Alamy you can't do this, the work has to be great even when enlarged, showing more potential flaws.

Separates the wheat from tha chaff.  ;)

« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2008, 10:29 »
0
I guess if I had EOS 1D mkIII ds, with 21MP, I wouldnt have to upsize. lol.

« Reply #30 on: February 27, 2008, 06:14 »
0
Ok, I submited my first 4 images, an I PASSED! Whoho! Now I will start uploading like crazy, and hope to fill up about 1500 images by the end of march. What can I expect in sales? If I sell only 1 per month, I will be happy!

« Reply #31 on: February 27, 2008, 06:21 »
0
Don't "Expect" sales, because you'll only be dissapointed.

1500 is quite an impressive amount to have kicking around waiting to upload somewhere!  Don't forget that if one photograph in a batch is not up to standard then they'll reject the whole batch - watch that bandwidth with repeated uploads, might be better to send a DVD.

Also don't forget, many find it very unethical to upload microstock pictures to a traditional agency.  In my opinion, Alamy will go the same way as photoshelter on this, and not allow it in the future.

« Reply #32 on: February 27, 2008, 07:53 »
0
My upload bandwith is unlimited, so no worries about that. You say I can send them a DVD and they will upload it for me? Nice!

So, if I have a batch of 100, and 1 is not good in quality, they will refuse all other 99 as well?

And, what is the difference between microstok images and macrostock?

I saw some very poor and bad images at alamy, that I think would be rejeceted even on microstock sites....

« Reply #33 on: February 27, 2008, 08:16 »
0
At the moment Alamy check a random sample of images from EVERYTHING you have waiting in the queue.  If you send them 4 DVD's totally 1000 images, and they check one image and find it's not acceptable, then they reject the whole lot - all 1000 images.  Same if you're uploading them to the site.

The difference between macrostock and microstock is the price, and also usually the usage rights.  For instance, at iStockPhoto you can't sell rights managed images, at Alamy you can.

As for the quality issue...  photos do not have to be technically perfect to sell.  Often the photo is so good, the actually image stands the test of noise etc.  For instance, I have kayaking images published in magazines that were shot at ISO1600.  No agency would touch them, bar a specialist sports agency.  In that case, the picture was more inportant to the magazine than the technical flaws.  Alamy generally lets photographers set their own standards, as I said before only checking random samples.  So theoretically you could get some technically bad stuff through there, but you've got problems if a customer decides to complain.
It is considered bad practice though to sell an image at a microstock agency for $10, and at a tradtional agency for potentially thousands.  People still do it, but you're potentially sacrificing sales on the traditional agency.

Also, most traditional sites don't like you selling images as rights managed that have previously been sold as royalty free.

These aren't set in stone rules, but they're the generally accepted "best practice".
« Last Edit: February 27, 2008, 08:18 by Seren »

« Reply #34 on: February 27, 2008, 08:30 »
0
To be more precise you can't manage the rights of an image already sold as royalty free because you can't grant exclusivity anymore.

If a customer who boughts the rights of your image through Alamy (or Photoshelter or whatever else macro agency) discover that the same image has been sold royalty free elsewhere you can be legally sued.

So you can still upload your images as RF on Alamy because that agency doesn't tie you with exclusiveness, but not as Rights Managed or Licensed.

Still I don't think is a good commercial choice selling the same image with so huge difference in prices. I kept separate collections of images, one for micro and the other for macro. The market segments (and needs) are also pretty different.

« Reply #35 on: February 27, 2008, 08:37 »
0
To be more precise you can't manage the rights of an image already sold as royalty free because you can't grant exclusivity anymore.

If a customer who boughts the rights of your image through Alamy (or Photoshelter or whatever else macro agency) discover that the same image has been sold royalty free elsewhere you can be legally sued.


Not strictly true.  For instance:

I can sell an image royalty free to "company A" for $1000.  This gives them the right to use the image over and over for anything.

I could then sell the same picture to "company B" for use on the front cover of their magazine for Feburary's issue.  Since they're only using it once, and they're a smaller company, I decide that they can pay just $250 for the one time useage.  That would be a rights managed (or Licensed) usage.

The problem occours when "company B" says to me "have any of my competitors used the image in their magazines?" and now I can't answer that question, because I don't know where "company A" has used the image.

But if "company B" want to use the image anyway, even without knowing the history, then that's fine.  I can still sell them a managed license.

« Reply #36 on: February 27, 2008, 11:10 »
0
tnx for explanations. :) I tagged my images for royalty free licence only. Because those are not exclusive to alamy. :) I guess it is OK?

« Reply #37 on: February 27, 2008, 14:09 »
0
tnx for explanations. :) I tagged my images for royalty free licence only. Because those are not exclusive to alamy. :) I guess it is OK?

Yep it is. Just remember that once an image has been sold as royalty free isn't usable as rights managed any more (in Alamy you can't change back from RF to RM for example because it's impossible to manage something you gave away freely before, sorry Susan but that's the way it works).

« Reply #38 on: February 27, 2008, 14:16 »
0
If you're referring to me, I'm not called Susan.

And I'm afraid you're wrong.  As I explained above, it's perfectly acceptable to sell both licenses at once.  The rights managed license primarily protects the seller, not the buyer.  That's one of the reasons it is cheaper.

We are NOT talking about exclusive licenses here.  Clearly you cannot sell RF images as exclusive licenses.

« Reply #39 on: February 27, 2008, 18:41 »
0
If you're referring to me, I'm not called Susan."

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to insult you at all, just a pity case of writing when I was tired. My excuses.

And I'm afraid you're wrong.  As I explained above, it's perfectly acceptable to sell both licenses at once.  The rights managed license primarily protects the seller, not the buyer.  That's one of the reasons it is cheaper.

We are NOT talking about exclusive licenses here.  Clearly you cannot sell RF images as exclusive licenses.

While your explaination makes sense teorically, the hard facts are that on many agencies you can't sell an image as RM if it has been sold as RF before because some (not all but many) of the RM licenses include exclusive usage relative to time, space and medium. I saw on some stock sites lines like "image not available for the US till 31/12/09" or "image not available for book covers till 31/12/10", etc...

And on Alamy this concept goes to the extent that once you tagged your image as RF you can't switch it to RM anymore (while the inverse is always possible).

To be safer I also choosed the "licensed" option on Alamy for images that I submitted to Photoshelter (always as RM) because this way I can manage if I can assure exclusivity on an image or not. It's my responsability, not of the agency and I can be sued if I fail to accomplish it professionaly.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2008, 18:47 by ale1969 »

« Reply #40 on: February 28, 2008, 01:55 »
0

While your explaination makes sense teorically, the hard facts are that on many agencies you can't sell an image as RM if it has been sold as RF before because some (not all but many) of the RM licenses include exclusive usage relative to time, space and medium. I saw on some stock sites lines like "image not available for the US till 31/12/09" or "image not available for book covers till 31/12/10", etc...

And on Alamy this concept goes to the extent that once you tagged your image as RF you can't switch it to RM anymore (while the inverse is always possible).

Yes, like I said, it's not a good idea to sell RF images as RF on agency websites.  However, I was challenging the fact that you said it can't be done - because if you know your collection then it can be done.  I have done exactly the above - licensed an image to someone for one use that had previously been sold RF.  As long as the person is aware it could be used in a competing market.  What they don't need to know is the prices you sold it for.

But it's interesting you say that about Alamy.  In fact, they categorically DO allow you to switch your license on the site from RF to RM.  Because they recognize you can make a mistake, and will change it even if you've had sales.  I believe that one guy actually took his whole RF collection there and sold it through them exclusively as RM.  It's in the forum somewhere over there.

So it can be done, but it's fairly unusual.

« Reply #41 on: February 28, 2008, 13:14 »
0
Personaly, I don't understand why somebody would put a photography on one site for 200 $ or more, and the same one on another site for 1$ or less.

To me, it seems like shooting oneself in the foot.

« Reply #42 on: February 28, 2008, 15:30 »
0
Why does Jimmy Choo sell his shoes for over 1000 a piece, yet you can pick a pair up at an outlet store for 100?

Two different markets that will pay two different prices.

« Reply #43 on: February 28, 2008, 16:42 »
0
People have a hard time with this at Alamy saying you should sell the same at Microstock and Alamy because you are undercutting you business. If you are a small scale, unknown photographer then it is likely they will never find you images on something like iStockphoto and Alamy. There are over 11 million(!) images on Alamy now and I have a hard enough time finding half my images on iStockphoto, much less Alamy! If you are a big time photographer like Yuri Acurs, I wouldn't try it, but for many of us little guys it's a way to make an occasional large sale. I only have one sale in a year on dinky portfolio of like 20 images and it was for $250!

« Reply #44 on: March 30, 2008, 16:49 »
0
If it take so much time for you guys to upload to alamy , why don't you just send them a dvd every 1-2 months with all your new material ?

Cheers

Konstantinos

« Reply #45 on: June 17, 2008, 12:02 »
0
I'm brand new to this. I scaled up a 6mp image to 5025wide and got a 170 megabyte image in the GIMP. That should be a 48 megabyte image if I am understanding this thread correctly.

So, what am I missing here?

It is a late sunset image, so naturally it is 'grainy' at that scale.

I only have a Kodak Z612 IS at present, which is 6 megapixels. Is that good for -anywhere-? If so, is it then the best route to sell through microstock sites until I can get a 'real' camera? And only sell the images from the DSLR through traditional sites like Alamy? Or would I be permanently banned from traditional stock sites due to having sold micro in the past?

I am baffled by the contracts, such as Alamy's. I don't understand clearly what I am binding myself to.

« Reply #46 on: June 17, 2008, 12:41 »
0
I'm brand new to this. I scaled up a 6mp image to 5025wide and got a 170 megabyte image in the GIMP. That should be a 48 megabyte image if I am understanding this thread correctly.

So, what am I missing here?

It is a late sunset image, so naturally it is 'grainy' at that scale.

I only have a Kodak Z612 IS at present, which is 6 megapixels. Is that good for -anywhere-? If so, is it then the best route to sell through microstock sites until I can get a 'real' camera? And only sell the images from the DSLR through traditional sites like Alamy? Or would I be permanently banned from traditional stock sites due to having sold micro in the past?

I am baffled by the contracts, such as Alamy's. I don't understand clearly what I am binding myself to.

If you are serious about photography, get yourself a half serious camera.

A point and shoot will not do for agencies like Alamy.  You might get some accepted at the micro sites if you downsize considerable.

Sunset pictures are not automatically grainy.  They are grainy because of your settings or your camera.

« Reply #47 on: June 17, 2008, 13:06 »
0
Seren, I know this. I even said so in my post. As I said in it, when I can, I will get a decent DSLR. At present, I cannot.

I believe I read in this thread that when you take a 6mp image and blow it up to 5025x3800 (give or take) that imperfections will appear. It was a very low light picture that I tried this on, I might get different results with a daylight shot. I am not new to photography, just digital photography. I know about settings. The sensor might also be to blame. I doubt a prosumer long zoom is going to have nearly as good a sensor as even a bottom-end DSLR. But you can't get a K20D or a 40D or a D80 (or better) with 100 dollars Christmas money. Take a deep breath. You answered what I already told you in my post. I did ask questions in it, so if you have any answers to -them-, they would be welcome.

« Reply #48 on: June 17, 2008, 17:24 »
0
I upsized mine and they rejected them for being soft.

« Reply #49 on: June 17, 2008, 18:25 »
0
Steve,

I don't know the Kodak you have, but what I have seen from Kodak is not very good glass quality.  Compact cameras normally suffer from two technical issues: poor glass (unsharp and often showing CA) and noise (a ISO50 image from my Canon A620 shows more noise than a ISO100 image from my Canon 400D).

I do have a lot of images - most of my microstock images - taken with compact cameras (Fuji 2650Z, Canon A520 and then Canon A620).  What is difficult however with them - and I think this is what Seren was trying to point out - is to get a sharp and clear enough image that you can upsize it to Alamy's specs. without losing quality  Soft focus, CA and noise will be much more evident.

I haven't uploaded anything to Alamy yet, although they have already accepted me, so I can't tell if some of my best A620 shots (7.1Mpix originally) will be good enough for them.  However, in their native res, or sometimes downsized for better look in some situations, they get accepted in lots of places - and they sell - but you will surely face more technical issues than you would with a DSLR, and therefore more rejections. 

You can still try them at Alamy, just be ready for a possible rejection.  In any case, you can still use your camera for microstock and maybe make enough money for the upgrade.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #50 on: June 17, 2008, 21:37 »
0
Madelaide,

The Kodak Z612 IS is a 'bridge' rather than a compact. And it says that it has Schneider-Kreuznach Variagon 35mm-420mm equivalent lens. Maybe that isn't true? Most importantly to me, I could afford it, and it had manual everything. I'm very unhappy that it doesn't have RAW or TIFF. I'm someone who'd be happy with a K1000 if it had a digital back and in-camera metering. I prefer to set aperture, shutter and focus manually, I don't really like the automatic forms. I'm not saying I'm a great photographer, or that there isn't a -lot- for me to learn.

At the present, since I take a lot of pictures when it is snowing or could suddenly cloudburst, my wish-camera is the Pentax K20D. There are better cameras out there, no doubt,(for 8 times the price) but I like the weather-proofing and that it has in-body stabilization and will use my old lenses from my film days. It is seven times the price I paid for the refurb Kodak.

I was kinda dreaming - I don't think that it is realistic, that I could make money towards that DSLR through stock sales. Ok, that is probably unrealistic, but that was my thinking.

Thank you, Adelaide :-)

Steve

« Reply #51 on: June 17, 2008, 21:46 »
0
Steve41,

just submit to 7 top sites on the right side and see for yourself.

« Reply #52 on: June 17, 2008, 22:37 »
0


I was kinda dreaming - I don't think that it is realistic, that I could make money towards that DSLR through stock sales. Ok, that is probably unrealistic, but that was my thinking.



That's how I financed my dslr (with microstock sales), and I doubt I am alone. However, looking back at all the effort I had to go through with the p&s sometimes, I should have gotten the dslr a lot sooner.

on another note, Alamy should just say "we require over X mpixel images saved as high quality .jpg" and save everyone the confusion. X seems to be somewhere around 16.8 mp (I had a 16.1mp file rejected as too small)

« Reply #53 on: June 18, 2008, 11:28 »
0
And it says that it has Schneider-Kreuznach Variagon 35mm-420mm equivalent lens. Maybe that isn't true?

Steve, I don't think they would lie to you, but even a Canon or Nikon lens may not be very good (and if they are cheap, they are probably not so good!). Given the very long range of your lens, optical issues are likely to occur even in good brands.

Again, this may not be a hindrance, but just a limitation.  As vphoto said, try the sites (even Alamy) and see how they like it.  They can be VERY picky, and you simply have to be prepared for that. 

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #54 on: June 19, 2008, 18:58 »
0
 :'( 

Well, even well-lit scenes show 'noise' in soft focus portions of the image, such as the sky, or leafy backgrounds. It is subtle, but it is definitely there. It doesn't compare to the hot pixels I had in my old Oly 725, and looks no worse than a friend's Rebel produces, but I am suspecting either the sensor isn't good enough, or else the jpg software, even in the 'fine' setting, is compressing too much. And only jpg is available (grr).

I'll try, but I wonder if it is possible to bootstrap up from this camera.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #55 on: June 19, 2008, 19:25 »
0
You can't afford what you want but how about a used DSLR off of ebay or something? You could probably pick up a Rebel 300 kit for $250. I think you could get by with what you have but it'll be frustrating.

« Reply #56 on: June 19, 2008, 19:40 »
0
Interesting thought. 

Though my lenses are all Pentax K-mount. Nothing outstanding, but I do already have them.

I'm learning on a fast curve here. I looked at a demo image from a K20D which is highly spoken of for image quality, and it has the same artifacts. . . And even some mottling, which I only get when very underexposed. Maybe it was just that one image. I will keep learning (!)

Seren is basically right, just not how she said it :-)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
5026 Views
Last post May 23, 2006, 16:46
by madelaide
2 Replies
2986 Views
Last post July 26, 2007, 11:09
by stokfoto
3 Replies
2521 Views
Last post November 06, 2007, 07:19
by SAMMYC
7 Replies
3240 Views
Last post March 06, 2008, 23:25
by graficallyminded
5 Replies
2613 Views
Last post June 21, 2017, 09:23
by cthoman

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results