|
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 - travismanley
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11
101
« on: May 02, 2009, 13:16 »
A little OT, but who is this Atilla I keep hearing about?
102
« on: May 02, 2009, 13:05 »
Hey thanks for the tips.
The more I think about it I guess blue screen would probably work better, it just didnt occur to me for some reason.
I wonder if there are many stock photographers out there using blue screen?
Well, there are telltale signs, travismanley. Study the point source of light, shadow cast, difference between object shadow detail and background. You can spot it easily if you know what to look .
Unless you're a great movie producer who looks for every minute detail to correspond in the image, I am sure the average stock photographer won't have much time or need to match those details to the background. Or not the eye to notice the telltale signs to match background slide to the actual lighting in studio.
I didnt think about the contradicting light source problem either. I bet there are probably ways of avoiding that, but to the trained eye (like you said) it would probably be obvious. Still something to look into.
103
« on: May 02, 2009, 13:02 »
I did notice that sometimes they wouldn't fire - about 5 of the frames out of the 300 I shot didn't fire. I don't know why...
I still can't get any reviews on the cheap $299 kit from Adorama.
I'm having this problem with my AB800 right now. But I'd say it's about 20% of my shots it's not firing which is starting to get annoying.
Maybe I got a lemon but I don't have that loving feeling about ABs that most other people do. The power cord connector doesn't stay secured in the back. The power switch sometimes doesn't work. And compared to some other lights I looked at they seem kinda homemade. But everybody raves about them so I figured I'd try them.
I contacted support to see what they have to say and am awaiting a response.
I'm also checking into the Genesis strobes that Calumet carries. http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/CF0514/
I was looking at those Genesis 400's too (I have heard good things about them), but they are about the same price as the AB800's and half as much power. The replacement bulbs are like twice as much too. Is there any good way of determining how much power you need? I dont want to spend the extra $ on watts I dont need.
104
« on: May 02, 2009, 12:46 »
Hey thanks for the tips.
The more I think about it I guess blue screen would probably work better, it just didnt occur to me for some reason.
I wonder if there are many stock photographers out there using blue screen?
106
« on: May 02, 2009, 11:43 »
As a kid I used to grab my dad's slide projector and his Twin Lens Reflex to photograph the projection on the wall. You can do that, if you use a slow shutter speed . The only thing is that the contrast is ghastly. Even for kid, I knew it was not ideal for projection. But in the 90's we did use equipment for such things. Same thing used by Malak ,that famed product photographers in the 90's . They are the same blue screen that are used in movies today , except they cost much less.
You could try getting them from the pro stores. I am sure some of these are selling in used AV stores .
Batman to the rescue lol. I could see how a regular old projector would work for product shots with slow shutter speeds, but im thinking of portraits (guess I should have said that). I would need at least a shutter speed around 1/60, but 1/200 would be ideal. who/what is Malak? What equipment are you talking about here so I can Google it. Thanks
107
« on: May 02, 2009, 11:26 »
Hey all,
I was struck by lighting the other day and had this crazy idea of using a projector as a backdrop so I could use my own images for quick and easy photography backdrops.
Obviously the light from a normal projector wouldnt be powerful enough, but couldnt you use your camera flash as the light source?
The idea seemed simple enough, but I havent had any luck. I have been playing around with just sticking slides in front of my flash but no luck. Im thinking i probably need some magnifying glass somewhere to make this work, but I cant even get the image from the slide projected on my wall.
Any ideas, thought?
I know this is a crazy idea, but it seems like it would be awesome if I could get it to work.
108
« on: May 02, 2009, 11:21 »
Great thread, I have been asking myself a lot of these same questions.
I started out using off camera flashes for my studio stuff, they are great cheap and portable but also unreliable and very frustrating most of the time.
I have been looking at the AB800's, hoping to get two of those for my studio.
109
« on: May 02, 2009, 11:11 »
I would be trying to figure out how to make another $10,000 a month lol.
Seriously though, I would take some time off and work on personal projects and do some traveling. All the while taking lots of photos to sell as stock. I might start shooting for macro rather than micro too, less work more money.
110
« on: May 02, 2009, 11:08 »
Lots of good tips here guys.
In my experience I would say to be successful is being well rounded. You need to be able to take good photos, you need to be able to do necessary post production (editing), you need to be good at writing keywords, descriptions and titles. You need to be efficient in your workflow from shooting to uploading.
On top of that you need to keep up on your uploaded files and update them when needed. Work your top selling photo, get the most out of them by adding new keywords etc.
You also need to promote your portfolios.
111
« on: April 30, 2009, 11:15 »
Thanks for the tip Warren, I never would have thought of that. I didnt realize you could submit links to Google, I thought you could only submit your website.
112
« on: April 30, 2009, 10:17 »
I've been using Cutcaster Clipfolders and adding the links to Google. I think a collection might work the same way?
What do you mean you have been adding the links to google? Is that like submitting your website or blog?
113
« on: April 30, 2009, 09:55 »
Is there any advantage of starting one of these? I have noticed a lot of photographers using them on IS and DT.
I guess it might be just another way of getting some views on your photos, but do they really generate sales?
114
« on: April 30, 2009, 09:52 »
This is my second day using it, I really like it. I just wish I could track more sites with it.
115
« on: April 29, 2009, 13:36 »
All kidding aside iStock is definitely worth it if you put the time into it. It can be very frustrating at times, but I can see IS easily overtaking my SS sales soon.
It just kills me to think of the sales I would be getting if I had as many photos at IS as I did at SS or DT.
116
« on: April 29, 2009, 13:27 »
Based on my own rejections, I would say that the IStock reviewers have "issues" with closeups of objects. They seem to be mistaking grain, surface irregularities, or just the unavoidable digitization of fine detail, for post-processing artifacts. Since they don't specify the artifacts, they leave us submitters to argue and speculate endlessly.
FWIW if I am submitting a subject that has a particularly grainy (or even sparkly like some women's makeup for example) I will include a note to the inspector in the description field. Something along the lines of "sweater texture may resemble artifacts". That seems to have helped.
Good tip Lisa, I will have to remember to add "note: freckles on skin may resemble sensor spots" lol
117
« on: April 29, 2009, 13:01 »
The weird thing is all the files approved by scout after reconsideration. I havent send in many though, but 8 out of ten has been approved in average so far. What does that say about those reviewers? Theyre like all the others probably...
I have had only one approved by scout out of probably 10.
118
« on: April 29, 2009, 11:44 »
S reviewers have been issued magic glasses, which let them detect "artifacts" which neither I, nor the reviewers at SS, DT, FT, or 123RF can see.
Oh man, that is the funniest thing I have heard in awhile. I think it is great that they sometimes send little thumbnail's of your rejected image so (in theory) you can see why they rejected it, but most of the time I have no idea what they are talking about. They sent me one the other day of a freckle on a model and tried to tell me it was a sensor spot. On another note (im probably going to get run out of town for saying this) does anyone else find it a little frustrating when someone had a perfectly valid complaint with any given site and an exclusive member from said site feels like they need to jump in and defend the site? Exclusive photographers have just as much right to post on MSG as anyone else but their opinions (in my opinion  always seem so skewed. SS is my top earning site but I dont feel the need to jump in and defend it every time someone has a problem with it.
119
« on: April 27, 2009, 19:18 »
I like Twitter more than myspace and facebook because it is so simple. If you have a thought/message/update you want to share with a bunch of people about your photography just post it on Twitter.
I really like the Twitter-Fox add-on because it sends tweets from the people you are following to a little toolbar in Firefox so you can be working etc. on the web and get updates without having to actually check it at Twitter.com.
It is a great way to keep tabs on people too.
121
« on: April 25, 2009, 13:54 »
I know there were some older threads about Lensbaby's, but im curious if people are using these successfully for stock and how hard it is to get shots with these accepted.
I originally wrote off Lensbaby's when I first heard about them awhile back thinking "I could do that in Photoshop." Looking at The Composer now on some sample shots (not to mention seeing these showing up in movies) im starting to like the idea of playing around with one of these.
I am suprised how many people think these are a waste of money, I think we might all be getting a little brainwashed from submitting stock for too long. The cheapest one is around $80 new on Amazon.com, I only know of one other lens that cheap.
Im sure there are a hundred different ways of achieving the "Lensbaby look" without buying one, I would just like to hear from some peeps that have some experience with them and using them for stock.
Thanks!
123
« on: April 24, 2009, 13:06 »
124
« on: April 24, 2009, 12:48 »
Wow! privacy is a thing of the past.
I know, im really not too worried about it though...when they come out with "Google Live Feed" then we are going to be in trouble. lol
125
« on: April 24, 2009, 12:08 »
I recently had a couple sales, 1 euro a sale is not bad. Uploading is really easy so I will probably stick around for awhile.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
