MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Yes, Im crazy! 60Mpix photos for micro...  (Read 8459 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 16, 2009, 17:46 »
0
Hi,

Maybe Im crazy, but... what . :) Ive just put some photos from Phase One P65+.
Quality is awesome of course. Check full at http://www.fotolia.com/id/12081951



e-person

« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2009, 17:48 »
0
It's not as good as you think.
Check with DXO, they have rated digital sensors, and digital backs are very much average.

« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2009, 17:50 »
0
That's some ugly moir in the upper left corner...
« Last Edit: February 16, 2009, 17:53 by Perry »

« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2009, 17:52 »
0
It's not as good as you think.
Check with DXO, they have rated digital sensors, and digital backs are very much average.

Nah... the DxO rating doesn't have anything to do with resolving power (digital backs wins 35 SLR's hands down). DxO is ony for color/dynamics/noise and the dynamics/noise doesn't have much relevance in studio work.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2009, 17:57 by Perry »

« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2009, 18:49 »
0
I sense some envy here.  If I had more cash Id get the best equipment on the market.  Are we supposed to have cheap stuff in micro industry? why?

Dash! If I ever become single Ill come and visit you. (and some of your models) ;)
« Last Edit: February 16, 2009, 19:08 by Magnum »

« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2009, 20:41 »
0
I sense some envy here.

No since you are a fantastic and versatile artist. You would be the same with any cam. Technology is no substitute for talent. Anybody can buy an expensive cam. Talent (yours) is priceless.

Are we supposed to have cheap stuff in micro industry? why?

Yes, because prices are too low. I could well "afford" a D3x but I chose not to. Not for 33 cents per image.

« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2009, 03:27 »
0
That's some ugly moir in the upper left corner...

Such an easy to see technical problem on a crop like this...

« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2009, 03:51 »
0
nice camera!

« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2009, 05:58 »
0
Looks like the picture is too sharp, we can even see small hairs on her chest !

« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2009, 06:11 »
0
BTW, how about processing 60MP files? That must require some horse power I would imagine...

« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2009, 10:47 »
0


Are we supposed to have cheap stuff in micro industry? why?

Yes, because prices are too low. I could well "afford" a D3x but I chose not to. Not for 33 cents per image.

Well, Its about the quantity in micro.  Its not like you sell 10 images/year?

tan510jomast

« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2009, 14:02 »
0
I sense some envy here.  If I had more cash Id get the best equipment on the market.  Are we supposed to have cheap stuff in micro industry? why?

Dash! If I ever become single Ill come and visit you. (and some of your models) ;)

magnum, if you keep talking like that, you will be SINGLE SOON  ! ;D

« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2009, 16:48 »
0
magnum, if you keep talking like that, you will be SINGLE SOON  ! ;D

Do you have your wife spying on you on the Internet ;)

tan510jomast

« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2009, 17:53 »
0
magnum, if you keep talking like that, you will be SINGLE SOON  ! ;D

Do you have your wife spying on you on the Internet ;)
OT,
no, i am single, ha!ha!... but if ever i get married, i make sure she does not know how to use the internet, ha!ha (just joking !)

« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2009, 19:39 »
0
If you can sell 120,000 images per $0.33 it's would justify to use this camera for micros :-)

« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2009, 20:03 »
0
Well, Its about the quantity in micro.  Its not like you sell 10 images/year?

Correct. I'm back at a 3-figure income at SS this month, but they only get 5MP shots. The point of my rant was a bit that many microstockers confound gross income with profit, and that a lousy 2 year old D200 is good enough for microstock. It would be different of course if you sell most by macro, but I'm not good enough for that.

« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2009, 20:12 »
0
If you can sell 120,000 images per $0.33 it's would justify to use this camera for micros :-)

On SS: 150k photogs x 120k images per month = 18g images per month. That's 18,000,000,000. I suspect the market doesn't absorb that. My point is that many "for fun" photographers don't count. But then, also Ferraris and Maseratis got sold :P


tan510jomast

« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2009, 20:17 »
0
If you can sell 120,000 images per $0.33 it's would justify to use this camera for micros :-)

On SS: 150k photogs x 120k images per month = 18g images per month. That's 18,000,000,000. I suspect the market doesn't absorb that. My point is that many "for fun" photographers don't count. But then, also Ferraris and Maseratis got sold :P

we are talking depreciation here, aren't we? if so, i tend to agree with FD.  or at least i think he is on the same page. i would not use a hasselblad for micro; not unless i am Yuri and getting that amount of payback. we forget that in the end, after shooting all these images for micro, we eventually have to replace the camera, mem card, bulbs, batteries,etc. these things don't last forever. so if you shoot continuously, as i expect most of you do if you upload hundreds of images weekly.
flemishdream, if i am off base, pls point me back to the right lane  ;)

« Reply #18 on: February 18, 2009, 00:03 »
0
flemishdream, if i am off base, pls point me back to the right lane  ;)


Well my rant was inspired by looking at my Dreamstimes sales, just to find out that I only had subscription sales for the last 5 days, one of them 24 cents. I remember a post of Achilles somewhere in 2006 where he advised to upgrade our cams to 10MP since we would make up by XL earnings. That was hardly the case, and then they introduced subsciption after the fact... That's why I was so pissed off at Crestock too, after finding out they give away top sellers for 25c.

I don't mind subscription at all to honest sites that tell in advance that subscription is their main business, like Shutterstock. That's fine and they get a minimal size of 5MP. What's happening now is that for me, SS sells much more on demands and extended than DT, but SS has my 5MP and DT has my 10MP.

There was a thread in the DT message board where a designer (0 upload, 0 sales) said that customers expect value for money, and they don't expect quality from microstock, not at 1$ per download. I answered that he might be right and that uploaders would probably quit uploading full sizes and the best at microstock, and that if DT continued to be predominantly a subscription site, I would only upload 4MP in the future. Of course, I expect that my post will be removed.

I'm more and more inclined to do volume shoots, process 10 minutes maximum (levels, cloning) and leave all the other stuff like noise reduction. Then downsize to 4MP to subscription microstock (included DT, StockXpert) et voila, all noise gone and tack sharp. The very best ones, let's say 10%, I will only upload to midstock, or even iStock with minimal processing as they like. I guess many came already to that conclusion. Subscription is not viable for contributors in the long run. The extra quality microstock now wants, compared to 2005, takes extra equipment and extra processing time. It should stay worthwhile or nobody will upload any more in the long run.

Fun? Deviantart was fun. Stock isn't that much fun, it's work.

SS (yellow) vs DT (red) earnings in Feb 2009. Will the real subscription site please stand up?

« Last Edit: February 18, 2009, 00:13 by FlemishDreams »

« Reply #19 on: February 18, 2009, 05:21 »
0
There is no difference in price on 31MP and 60MP image. Why bother with double size uploading, for same price (7 credits)?

« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2009, 03:49 »
0
Cant speak for the 65 but I wasnt impressed from the last model .. I just thought hmmmm this is a stupid waste of money. On a side note Dash doesnt need one anyway .. his pictures rock regardless

« Reply #21 on: April 06, 2009, 06:03 »
0
They say a picture get sharper if you downsize it.    Well, then I guess a 60Mp image downsized to 12Mp would be pretty sharp:o

Or how does it work?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
4623 Views
Last post January 30, 2007, 01:02
by litifeta
27 Replies
12296 Views
Last post February 19, 2008, 19:52
by madelaide
8 Replies
5586 Views
Last post July 18, 2008, 17:05
by HermanM
2 Replies
2957 Views
Last post November 07, 2009, 22:06
by vonkara
36 Replies
9181 Views
Last post December 08, 2019, 08:21
by trabuco

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle