All this technical info means nothing until we see some test shots of noise at 200, 800, 1600 and 3200. FPS...well, I would hardly ever use that. 51 AFS points...well, slight overkill if you ask me. FF....yeah, great for landscapes but not so useful in studio.

I will probably wait for the D3X which is rumoured to be 23mp. That will give XXL size on IS and will still be able to crop and get XL.

For a couple of months, FT was my highest earning site and I was 100% behind FT in all it did. Now my sales have dropped by 50% and it doesn't look like it's going to get any better any time soon. If this is happening to the other Emerald photogs then it means FT are losing some serious cash and they must be totally regretting the upgrade to V2. What with the troubles at IS and now FT, makes you pray that SS and DT don't do anything similar. As it is, I am having to re-think my business strategy as microstock is not the guaranteed income that I thought it was a year ago.

Does anyone know how to stop LR putting keywords in alphabetical order? I usually want them in order of relevance so I can speed up the Fotolia upload process.

Apart from that, just got the software and already can see how it's going to speed up my workflow.

I recently did a photoshoot for a band I know, who have signed to Universal Japan. As it turns out, the band and the record company love the shots and want to use them for promoting the band and in particular, want to use one image for the CD cover. The aim is to sell at least 100000 units across Japan, Asia and then worldwide.

Before the shoot we didn't discuss money as I wanted to help the band out. I've known the drummer for about five years and it's great to see them progress from a band playing at school to fully-fledged rock outfit! Before the shoot I did make it clear that if the band and the record company were happy with the images then I would need to be paid, especially if it was to be used for CD cover.

My dilemma is what to charge. As it turns out, Universal have given the band money upfront and they will be paying me themselves rather than getting money direct from the record company. I will probably charge them less than the market rate but not really sure what the market rate is for this sort of licensing.

Here is a link to the band's profile on the Universal website:
http://www.universal-music.co.jp/u-pop/artist/saw_loser/index.html featuring one of my shots

Quote from: jlye on May 24, 2007, 10:23
Selected photos    1319
Sold photos       4069
Rank (all times)    111
Rank (7 days)    443

Having a bad week? Must upload more!

No I didn't refer the company portfolio and had to write and ask permission of all the sites for them to allow this. It's not something that you can do without permission I feel.

10000< Rank 5 < 20000 

Kngkyle - you are spot on. One is my personal portfolio and another is the portfolio belonging to a company I set-up with one business partner. I am still the only photographer who has submitted to the company portfolio but that might change soon.

I have two accounts at Fotolia (like all the sites except IS who won't allow it)

phildate: Rank 5
eastwest.imaging: Rank 103

Would like to know what I would be overall with both accounts combined but will probably never know. Maybe 4, maybe 3 but not 1 or 2 I doubt.

Not wanting to rub salt into the wounds of people who are stuck at work for a while but I'm at the preliminary stages of planning a 12 day trip through Tibet in August, flying in to Chengdu from Singapore first and then on to Lhasa. Can't wait to get away from the computer for a good two weeks and just enjoy the photography a bit more for a change!

My sales have been in a downward trend ever since the big changes made at end of last year, despite uploading as many new images as possible. It's still my second best earner but I would've expected revenues to increase given the extra exposure in different languages and the time/money I spent sorting out my portfolio.

They are definitely squeezing out the non-exclusives I feel however it's their choice to do that.

Quote from: latex on May 17, 2007, 01:39
as a buyer, croped heads are a very annoying thing. when you find the perfect one, but the head is cropped, you just can't use it (most of the time). the same thing with objects. there are very few opportunities when you can use a cropped image.

Can use for your avatar! 

Quote from: Daneel on May 07, 2007, 16:55
Hi!

Can anyone explain why HDR increases the noise in the resulting photos?

Thanks,
Michael

Done properly you shouldn't experience any increase in noise.

Quote from: Eco on May 06, 2007, 18:41
In principle I am not against the limitation of 15 keywords.  Problem is that I prepare my images principally for the top earning sites and embed my keyword in the IPTC data - invariably more than 15 keywords.  With images ready and keyworded I do occasionally upload to CanStockPhoto because it does not take a lot of time.  However, if this now implies that I will have to reduce my keywords especially for CanStockPhoto I am afraid it is bye, bye CanStockPhoto. It will simply not be worth the time and effort for a site with such meager sales.

Agreed - if I have to change my workflow to get images uploaded to CanStockPhoto then I am afraid that no more images will be uploaded there. I am just too busy to justify the extra time to do this given expected revenue from CanStockPhoto.

If you do a search for HDR on IS you will find some images but they tend to look very natural. I haven't tried submitting any of these yet but I will let you know if I do. Part of me feels like too much work has gone in to them for them to be sold at 25c so I will probably just sell them exclusively at Fotolia and can then see a nice high price for them. Yes downloads will be fewer but at least I will feel that people have paid the right value for them.

Miz ...please allow me to point out a few slight errors in your post:

HDR stands for "High Dynamic Range" compared to LDR "Low Dynamic Range". HDRI is "High Dynamic Range Image"

If taking three images, you probably won't get the dynamic range required with -1/0/+1. Instead you'd be better with -2/0+2 or even -3/0/+3. I prefer to take at least five exposures, sometimes seven and occasionally nine.

Most people agree that you get a much better final result if you merge your images and do the tone mapping in specialist software such as photomatix by hdrsoft. Using it's batch function on a single RAW file (I know it's sounds weird but it works) you can get an HDRI from a single RAW file. This method works much better than turning one RAW file into three differently exposed TIFFs or JPEGs and then merging those.

From what I have read on other HDR forums, the majority feel that you get the least noise by turning RAW files into TIFFS and then importing them into Photomatix. However, I feel that the ease of using RAW files directly outweighs the slight increase in noise this might result in.

Anyway, here are a couple of my HDRIs:







I tend to try and get a realistic picture that represents what I could remember seeing with my own eyes. Over-processing can lead to a very distinctive look which, whilst neither being wrong or right, is not usually the effect I am after.

I am slightly confused about the MRF management system at DT and Achilles message on the homepage has me slightly worried.

I've shot over a hundred models I imagine and the newer forms (since the new system was introduced) are all in order. But does this message mean I have to go back and sort through 2000 images and place them into the correct MRF?

Also, what do you guys (and gals) do when you have another shoot with a model you've used before. Do you just add these images to the MRF already uploaded for that model (which seems to make sense as it groups all that model's pictures together) or do you upload a new MRF for each shoot. I use the former method but I am slightly worried about doing so even though it make sense to me.

Anyone who can shed some light (official or otherwise) on this I would be most grateful.

I just took a look at the images from my portfolio that have been placed in the dollar bin and to be honest, I think it's a good thing that this is done. Saves me a job of tidying up my portfolio myself and looking at the images themselves, quite glad they will prob be deleted!

Yes, you are right, this should be pursued further. However I didn't really expect a reply from the agency until after the Easter break and tomorrow I am off to Angkor Wat for a five day photography trip. Internet access will be limited but if I hear anything I will post here for sure. I believe I have done the right thing by not posting anything about the site directly or posting on the forums on that site. I will be very interested to hear exactly what went on.

Here's an interesting one for you:

A few days ago I got a sitemail from someone saying that they had seen two of my images being used in a web template site. They were concerned that this wasn't allowed under normal licensing agreements and thought I should see what was going on.

I located the images in question and managed to send a query to the owner of the web template site. He replied saying the images had been downloaded from site A (I do not wish to name the site here). I replied saying that if the images had been downloaded from site A then an extended license would have been needed and from my records, those images had never been downloaded with an EL.

A reply came insisting that the images had been purchased with correct agreements and I replied that if that had been so, I would've received the correct payment, thinking that the buyer had not purchased the correct license at all.

Running out of patience, I explained what had occured in an email to Site A, hoping that they might follow this up since the buyer had admitted buying from this site in an email to me. Nothing heard from Site A as yet.

In the meantime, we exchanged a few more emails, with both of us getting more irate, with him insisting he had bought the images correctly and me insisting that I hadn't received the commission due to me. In the end, the buyer insisted he contact site A himself.

Not long after that, I find I have several EL sales, making Easter Sunday one of my best days ever on this site. So I am wondering?

Had the buyer gone back to the site to buy the ELs? OR
Did the site realise that I hadn't been paid for the ELs and credit me retrospectively.

If it's the latter (which I suspect it is), it's got me thinking....how do we really know if we have got the credits for all photos sold?

I try not to upload on a Thurs or Friday either if I can help it. It's definitely better to have files approved first thing on a Monday morning instead.

Quote from: CJPhoto on March 10, 2007, 08:22
Since we are all being helpful, you may want to consider tax implications.  Might not be an issue if only transfering a few "unproven shots" but Phil, if you transfer your entire portfolio will the person you are transfering it to be making payment for them (I assume you are transfering it from yourself to a company owned by you or something similar??). 

There maybe implications if you do it at nil value.

I am thinking more along the lines of employing someone to work for my company, who then shoots stock but the photos will belong to the company not the individual. Since the employee will be paid a salary, I guess this would avoid any tax implications, not that we have such difficulties in Singapore anyway I think.

Still can't upload to 123rf - wonder when it will be fully migrated.

Approving is definitely a human process with different interpretations all the time. I recently had about 15 shots rejected at SS for lack of focal point. I checked them again, deleted 2 that were iffy and uploaded the others again, without a note to the approver. Guess what, they were all accepted. People have bad days, good days and aren't always totally objective. If you think your work is good enough, keep on trying, they will see it in the end!

A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to shoot a few great artists up-close at the Good Vibrations Festival in Singapore:

Jurassic 5


The Beastie Boys


Cut Copy


And you can see lots more of them here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/82024072@N00/

It was great to be in the photographer's pit between the stage and the fans and for some of the smaller bands, I was even able to get on stage and shoot 

I think Leaf is right. A simple agreement tranferring copyright of photos, signed by both parties and witnessed should be suffice. I will be doing something of the same soon I hope.