|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
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 - basti
101
« on: February 05, 2009, 04:49 »
With microstock you know the rules: Your rights = NONE - agency can change or ban anything anytime and you can cry but thats all. In case anything goes wrong, all trouble fall on your head - micorstock agency is never responsible for credit card frauds, misuse of images or thefts. We all know this.
I think microstock matured abit and its time for more "fair-play" game. If agency takes 80% of money, they should also taky some responsibility and really work for photographers, not just squeeze everything possible out of them. Thats exactly the reason why I do not upload any ppl on micro - absolutely no control.
I said it again - the dealing with MR and PR is very wrong and insane in some cases. Agencies require MR or PR for every possible stuff, on the other hand they accept pics of post stamps, coins, maps, car parts etc. which are all protected by copyright. Outside US or EU MRs and PRs simply do not exist, even post-comunist part of EU is mostly untouched by PR. And in some law-systems you cannot sell the rights or copyright etc. and all the law about identity protection, human rights etc. still apply even if the model signs MR.
In fact agreements with all microstock agencies would be illegal to sign in my homecountry - so which law apply? How are you going to sue with agency across half of the globe with not a single written paper from them?
102
« on: February 04, 2009, 01:21 »
No Lisa, I do not own them. Tho I was pretty interested in comparing them, becuase I wanted to switch to Canon. I did pretty much searching around web a saw heap of test images in various conditions. Maybe your experience is different but Ive heard and read enough ppl saying it reverse that Im pretty unsure about what is better. However I strongly disagree about 40D being "too bad for micro" - most ppl here shoot with much worse cameras, often 350D, 400D or cheap Nikons. Im using Olympus which is considered crap by many ppl who know nothing about it. Pixel-peeping is a disease of microstock - some do even check at more then 100%. Every serious graphic designer will tell you that offset print with 300dpi is MUCH smaller then what you see at 100% on your monitor. Btw. you often use CMYK and nor RGB for print - cropping colors in conversion from improperly postprocessed jpegs is much worse problem then some pseudo-noise visible only at 100% or above... Many folks use cheap lenses on superb bodies. I know its not your case but I warn against "only fullframe" approach. Most ppl have NO idea what it is about and its much less painfull for them to start with 40D and set of average lenses then buying FF + 3 stunning quality lenses and then shoot jpeg, no postprocess and using that as P&S. Buying superb pro gear will not make you a pro... (Yes I know a Lisa is real pro  )
103
« on: February 03, 2009, 02:16 »
Paula: From what Ive read about your workflow, you first need to remake your workflow. No camera will produce stunning results when you do not edit properly. I would suggest Photoshop CS2 or CS3 - much cheaper and not really weaker in most features then CS4, also PS Elelments arent bad with most features for beginners with PS. You can try it and see if it fits you. Some ppl like Gimp, which is freeware and definitely good tool, however it has not many PS features and I foud its user-interface pretty non-ergonomic. I know there are screamers telling you "buy 5DMkII" or "only FF is the real camera". I say thats not a whole story. To feed sensor of 5DMk2, you need lenses which are above grand each and long tele lenses easily cost several grands. And you will quickly discover, that despite more then hundred lenses offered, Canon has only few capable for 50D or 5DMkII which are not extremely pricy and those left still arent cheap. Lisa said that 40D is much worse then 5D - well, many reviewers including dpreview.com disagree with that because of many reasons. Its not true that 40D has "high noise" - in fact its one of the world top cameras about noise level. 40D is by some reviews even better per pixel quality then 50D and comparable to 5D, while much cheaper then both. Except fullframe cameras there are only few which have same or lower noise. For 40D there is available pretty good budget lens option: Tokina 12-24 + Tamron 17-50/2,8 + Tokina 50-135/2,8 (all pretty good and much cheaper then comparable Canon stuff) In case you have enough money you can go also EFS 10-22 + EFS 17-55 + EF 70-200/4 but I would prefer other kit Tokina 12-24 + Canon 24-105/4 + 70-200/4 in case you decide to go FF later. For 5DII I would go C16-35/2,8 + 24-70/2,8 + 70-200/4 Just my suggestions
104
« on: February 02, 2009, 03:47 »
Im not Canon fan, however I must admit that even 400D is excellent image quality and first you should check why you have "horrible noise" at iso100. 400D produces nearly no real noise up to iso400 and very low on iso800. In case you have high noise, then you probably do big mistakes in postprocess or have pics underexposed.
Im selling pics from my old Olympus E-300 and now using E-410 mostly, and both of them have much higher "noise" then 400D, however I had just one rejection for noise in the whole year!
Btw. upgrading to 5D or 5DII isnt the solution - at first you need high end lenses to feed such sensor. None of your lenses is capable to feed it, maybe we could argue about 17-40/4L on 5D but definitely not on 5DII. I would suggest going to Canon 40D (which is pretty cheap compared to 50D or both 5D versions), some reviewers and users say its even better then newer 50D (which has ridiculuous pixel density not suitable for most Canon lenses). Then you can go for lenses like Tamron 17-50/2,8 or Canon 17-55/2,8, C 24-70/2,8 and C 16-35/2,8 to get really stunning picture quality. With no limit on budget my set would be 40D + C10-22, C24-70/2,8 and C 70-200/4. In case I would somehow decide to go fullframe, then 5DII + 16-35/2,8 + 24-7,/2,8 + 70-200/4 and thats it.
105
« on: January 29, 2009, 02:22 »
Yep, its possible to create artifacts or noise with any camera. Better say all jpegs must have artifacts by th definition, just depends how much overcontrasted and oversaturated is your LCD and how much you magnify. If you cant find them at 100%, you go to 200%, 300% ...
I can judge my own pics pretty well, not doing only microstock and selling pics couple years already. Its strange how all those "artifact/noise" images got 90% accepted if you resubmit them. What a coincidence, isnt it? If you resubmit them via "resubmit" feature, its likely to be rejected again, but if you just upload them again as new, suddenly they are ok. Something stinky in this...
106
« on: January 23, 2009, 09:25 »
Those number are value-less because there is missing portfolio size. Eg. I have about $330 in first year with aprox 200 pics at SS and DT and 90 at IS.
107
« on: January 23, 2009, 01:59 »
Outside the * US rules which usually mess with general worldwide rules its obvious copyright problem. Any car design, postal stamp, coin, map etc. HAS ITS CERTAIN author who is the copyright holder regardless if he/she paid some bureau for it or not. That means even shooting small part of a car (eg. front light) is a copyright violation, because it was designed and it can be recognized, logo or not. Same with all those pics of cars with typical porsche or BMW design - cloning out the logo isnt the solution. Whole car including every little detail is copyrighted. Post stamps, coins and maps has also author/designer.
Copying one page from the book is bad example. Copying part (20% mentioned on example above) of a book and selling it is ok then? In every book is written "no copies in any form under any circumstancies", isnt it? Same is usually on maps. Even small portion of map is still copyrighted.
108
« on: January 22, 2009, 03:33 »
I have portfolio at SS, DT and IS and some midstocks. Folder for stock photos where are "to process" pics, then subfolder for each stock agency with "to upload", "pending", "accepted" and "rejected" subfolders. Uploading to SS and DT via ftp, to IS with DeepMeta (IS website and uploading process is a complete disaster). Keywording with Exifer (postcardware).
109
« on: January 16, 2009, 07:00 »
There are several problems connected do this "CPL issue" - its not necessarilly true that dark skies have negative impact on sales. Most great landscapes and architecture shots are done with CPL, same with flowing water etc. Nothing to do with "unnatural" look - those oversaturated and overcontrasted pics widely present at all microstock sites are "natural"? HDRs or IRs are "natural"? And those shadeless studio shots or swapped (sandwich) skies at many landscapes are "natural"? Dont think so...
The problem is that some editors simply hate CPL and so reject, Im suspicious some of those even dont know how CPL works and think you "overfiltered" that in postprocess. You must realize there are many folks amongst microstock reviewers often hired from contributors - many of those do only studio work or even illustartions and have NO idea about anything like HDR, landscape filters or real world print. Some of stated "artifacts, noise or banding" issues are also result of non-calibrated and/or cheap super-overcontrasted LCD monitors.
Another issue is your real shot - shooting white building and blue sky with spot metering on white results in seriously underexposed areas in the sky because its far beyond the capabilities of sensor dynamic range. That means there is real noise even at iso 100. If you push levels too much in postprocess or push too much on noise reduction it results in typical blocky artifacts and banding. Its not necessarilly always this way but its typical technical problem.
110
« on: January 14, 2009, 10:53 »
The solution is not the upload limit but deleting over million (billion for US folks) of crappy images already online. And give more money to reviewers and hire some really educated staff really knowing what is real-world photography and printing about. However I have least trouble with SS inspectors with approval somewhere between 80-90%. But we see dozens of bad compo/light images accepted every day and thats not good.
111
« on: January 08, 2009, 03:26 »
Rarely using tripod (night shots, fireworks, streams), started using RAW not so long ago though I shoot RAW+Jpeg. I do process only single RAWs in case I need more tweaking then just minor tweaks on jpg (little contrast + sharpness).
Shooting usually in P (auto exposure) mode, central point AF, integral exposure, iso 100 or 200. Rarely going up to iso800 (street shots in bad light). Using EV compensation to balance exposure, M-S-A modes using only when shooting from tripod or when I need certain DOF or speed.
Saving usually into folders by years with location/session name + month number. Backup on external HDD, I always keep copy of untouched stuff from camera (though I delete obviously bad shots).
Keep folder for each agency with two subfolders - accepted and rejected.
112
« on: January 03, 2009, 10:44 »
Canon - no high quality zoom lens under $1000, Nikon no metal sealed body under D300. Olympus no camera over 12Mpix, on the other hand best zoom lenses ever made, Pentax with uncertain future, Sony with some quality issues... Depends what you need. Best outdoor camera is definitely Olympus E-3 with no competitor, best studio is disputable but probably any pro Canons or Nikons with fixed focal lenses.
Truly there is very little (if any) difference between all modern "semi-pro" dslr models up to iso 800, which is too much for any stock agency anyway. Go to the shop, try all options and choose at least average quality lens. Its more about how the camera fits your needs and lenses available then the brand.
113
« on: December 17, 2008, 11:32 »
Grab your camera, go to the photo store and do couple tests shots with both of them. Nothing better then personal experience. I saw reviews on Sigma 24-70 where both the built and optical performance were ranked as excellent, some reviewes say its one of the best lenses Sigma produces. Forget about Canon being 3x times better, it might be 20% but it might be less. The Canon 24-70 is superb quality, no denying that.
I was more or less decided to go for Canon 17-55 and when I saw in person, I must admit it was big disappointment. Dont be fooled by reviews, read them, but better go to test it yourself - do couple shots with your camera and both lenses, check them at 100% at home and then decide.
114
« on: December 16, 2008, 10:44 »
You should add Tamron 17-50/2,8 to your list, despite some pixel peepers reffer CA, its well over average quality. Sigma 17-70 is pretty ok and its often recomended for 40D. Generally the group Tamron 17-50/2,8, Sigma 18-50/2,8, Sigma 17-70/2,8-4 and Tokina 16-50/2,8 are pretty about the same quality. For general purpose mid-budget zoom I would go for Tamron 17-50/2,8 - Canon 17-55/2,8 is not as much better to pay 2x more for it. Canon 17-85 is abit too dark and has some optical quality issues.
Sigma 24-70/2,8 has some excellent reviews results and could be really killer for its price, especially for stock photography it could be best choice. For me 24mm is abit too long, though you have Sigma 10-20 to deal with that.
Canon 24-70/2,8 is superb quality, but also remember its very heavy and pretty expensive. Nearly 3x more then Sigma 24-70 with definitely better built quality, but we could argue if its really better in optics in case you choose good Sigma piece. I would choose it only in case I have really lot of extra money. However if I have to choose between Canons 17-55/2,8 and 24-70/2,8 I would rather pay more and choose 24-70.
115
« on: December 09, 2008, 02:18 »
IS crappy upload is nightmare and IPTC worked only in few cases for me. Im now using DeepMeta and its completely ok. Without this SW I would likely quit uploading to IS.
116
« on: December 02, 2008, 07:04 »
20 pics online since april or so with 1 $10 sale in Nov, so Ive uploaded another 10 pics  They keep refusing ALL architecture shots despite they were all made from public accessible place, are all state owned medieval castles and here in czech doesnt exist anything like PR for 600 years old buildings... I wrote message to the editor but it seems they dont care...
117
« on: December 01, 2008, 10:00 »
It very strongly depends on quantity and only much less on quality - I have online over 200 pics during last year (which I admit is not much) and aproximate YEAR rpi is $1,60 with portfolios at SS, DT and IS. Unless you upload regurarly in quantities eg. 20 pics per week forget about rpi like $1-2/month. Mind you I do not upload crap, I admit its mostly nature/travel which are less sellable but still do not expect more then 2x higher rpi even if you upload stock photos in same speed as me. In case you want to know why I do not upload to all "big 6" - Im not going to upload to another 3 agencies just to get extra 10%, its not worth the time spent. FT rejected about 80% of pics with "we dont need this" - ok, I dont need them then
118
« on: November 23, 2008, 07:02 »
Ad CC frauds: Here in Europe or in Asia are CC not much widely used but US is completely different market. Many dumb users, millions of CCs on the market. There are hundreds of specialists on stealing CC numbers. You think its difficult or expensive to get/buy CC number? Wake up... I just buy stolen CC number, register on agency under false name and buy thousands of pics in few days. How you think you can track me? I just login via some server in Africa or from internet cafe and you are out of luck...
Ad safety: Yes, internet safety is low. Photo or passport number on SS? Haha! You think its a big problem for experienced photoshop users (which we are) to tweak passport number, name and photo? How could anyone from SS know how does Burkina Faso passport look like? Its extremely easy to just steal dozens of pics on eg. Flickr or Picassa (where dumb ppl post even huge size pics), then built up portfolio under false name and passport and send it to paypal, where again is NO real personal ID unless you transfer more then $200/month. But you can have many paypal accounts, dont you? Is that scary?
Ad agencies policies: How you think you can push them? Just cry loud and your portfolio is gone, you are banned on every phorum etc. Theoretically we can make some union and try to push hard or withdraw from certain agencies. However its not likely to work because there is simply too many photographers and that also means thousands of ppl who care only about few extra $$. Microstock is a new and special type of market in photography, its hard to predict how it will evolve. But we can say that ALL agencies have agreements extremely unfair to photographers. You have nearly no rights, they can delete or ban anything anytime they like, take huge commisions and most of work and risk is on us. Its sad but the option is to shut up and adapt or give up and try different market (macro, contracts...). In case there is group of ppl trying to push Im in, but the chance it will change something is in my opinion pretty low.
119
« on: November 21, 2008, 02:49 »
We all know why this happens - always keep in mind that you are just small fish, who hears your complains on big Olymp? Who cares? Just another way to squeeze few extra bucks from us.
120
« on: November 19, 2008, 09:59 »
Well, we can blame them. With dozens of very disputable rejections Im not very open to any excuses - some editors obviously have no real photography or legal background. Keyword spam hurts both agency and non-keyword-spammers. In my opinion its no.1 problem - if pics after editing keywords go again to reviewer and they pass, something is very bad. However I personally know some ppl using at least pretty disputable keywords and do not have any trouble even with direct uploading. The problem is that except IS agencies really dont care. On the other hand IS with their crappy dictionary lacking even some common words and rejecting local names from keywords is another extreme.
Just search for any word at SS, DT and then Panthermedia or Photographersdirect - you see the difference immediately. In picture quality also. In case Im buyer I do care more about picture quality rather then saving few $$ and browsing tons of crap and spam. Hour of my work is $25, its more painful to spent hour with searching thru crap then paying $10 instead of $1.
121
« on: November 19, 2008, 02:47 »
ROFL! Report bad keywords? Open your eyes guys, every second image on SS has obvious keyword spam! Editors have enough time to check images at 200% for just a little amount of "noise" but they obviously have no time to check keywords...
122
« on: October 16, 2008, 07:56 »
Well, Im pretty satisfied with my CS2 but ONLY because Adobe is not able to keep their ACR independent on PS version, I must upgrade to CS3 which is able to open RAWs from my new camera. This really pi**ed me off. Either I do upgrade to CS3 or I have to put another step (new program to decode RAWs) into my workflow. However except this pretty stupid situation Im big fan of Adobe.
The other thing I dont understand is why PS costs more in eastern Europe then in US while average income does behave excatly opposite? It means you earn less so we want you to pay more?! That of course force many ppl to steal it, cause many of us are not going to pay their 4 months salary for PS licence. Of course there are other solutions, but we all know why ppl want PS and not eg. Gimp.
123
« on: October 16, 2008, 07:02 »
sjlocke Well, good point hehe However I think you understood what Ive ment.
124
« on: October 15, 2008, 07:54 »
Djaburin: beware! Only lens able to competete with ZD 7-14/4 is Nikkor 12-24 but ONLY on D3! With not so clear results which one is better. The ZD 11-22 is also stunning quality. Also both Zuikos are much better built quality than any Canon or Nikon lenses. I would suggest 16-35/2,8 which is both pretty heavy and pricy.
For the first, I would probably go for studio portraits 85/something depending on budget and tele any of 70-200 line depending on budget again.
125
« on: October 15, 2008, 07:43 »
Just search eg. wilderness on SS, IS and then on photographersdirect.com - the result doesnt need any further info. In case Im buyer, I will rather pay $20 per picture instead of $1 rather then dealing with TONS of keyword spamed pics. Designers are maybe not searching something certain but many editors and other buyers need something concrete and if they type "giraffe", they are NOT searching something else.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
