MicrostockGroup

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - MacphersonPhoto

Pages: [1]

Dreamstime.com / Re: Hell of rejections on "well covered..." blah

« on: April 30, 2009, 08:16 »

Quote from: Inga on April 15, 2009, 17:58

I just uploaded a flower pic

Was it accepted?

I just had 13 of 13 flower pics rejected. *sigh*

General Photography Discussion / Re: Advice on DOF?

« on: April 01, 2009, 06:21 »

Depth of field at 1:1 magnification (true macro) is tiny. As alias says, usually less than a 1mm. And the longer the focal length of the lens, the smaller depth of field is anyway (I don't know if this also applies to the virtual focal length created by the crop factor).
One way to improve it, where it is feasible to do it, is to shoot the subject at an angle that maximises the amount of the subject that is within the focal plane. i.e. if you shoot a flat leaf from above, with your camera parallel to the leaf surface, you will obviously have more in focus than if you shoot it at an angle to the camera. (This can be tricky with moving subjects, obviously! And with subjects that are not relatively flat, where you just have to choose what you want in focus.)

Are you using autofocus? With extreme close-ups it is usually better to focus manually, to make sure you get the focus where you want it. (Though that doesn't change the depth of field.

New Sites - General / Re: Picture Nation

« on: January 10, 2009, 09:59 »

Quote from: Iriz on January 10, 2009, 04:40

Welcome representative of Picture Nation. You're doing a fine job. Now, can we can have the real truth and nothing but the truth from someone else please.

That seems very harsh just based on what the poster said - that PN is not new, that it accepts images for editorial use as well as RF stock and that he has good sales there.

I am not a "representative" of Picture Nation either. I do know the founder, Jane-Louise Green and I have sometimes contributed bits of legal advice. I also have a small portfolio there. NewsFocus1 is correct. The site has been active for more than two years, and it was a considerable time in preparation and planning before that. It is not brand new and the payment has only just been introduced - it isn't some kind of scam. There is an open discussion, including complaints, about the introduction of the annual fee on the PN forums. People who already have a portfolio there will only be required to pay the fee if they upload more images, so no-one is being forced to pay. And no, I am not successful there. I have a relatively small number of images and my earnings are next to nothing, but clearly some contributors are doing very well. I hope the site weathers the current economic storms because I know how hard the founder and her team have worked, not because I am earning loads of money there, or have any financial interest in its success.

New Sites - General / Re: Picture Nation

« on: January 09, 2009, 12:45 »

Moral rights under the CDPA include the right to be attributed as creator of the work, the right to object to derogatory treatment of your work and the right not to have someone else's work falsely attributed to you.
The first two would not be consistent with selling images as RF stock, hence the waiver. The copyright remains with you, however.

Crestock.com / Re: Crestock Rejects?

« on: December 14, 2008, 10:59 »

And there I was feeling defeated by my 90% Crestock rejection yesterday. I hadn't realised that a 10% acceptance rate had suddenly become something to aspire to!

Pages: [1]