|
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 - epixx
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47
1026
« on: February 22, 2007, 06:31 »
Here's a quote that I think sums up the 1DIII quite well:
"The EOS 1D Mark III isn't just for sports anymore. It's a more universal camera for the vast majority of pro photographers. With the multiple improvements in the new camera, photographers will no longer need to trade off resolution, image quality, and speed against each other. The 1D Mark III now has enough of all three to satisfy a huge slice of the market in a single camera body."
That is the first Canon camera ever that has made me consider changing from Fuji/Nikon. Apart from ergonomics, where Nikon still excels, this seems to be the best all purpose DSLR ever.
1027
« on: February 22, 2007, 06:28 »
Jpeg for stock, raw is too time-consuming,and you can change white balance , and just about anything else with jpeg, just as easily as with raw-if you need to. If your exposure is "spot-on",and your white balance matches the degees Kelvin, at the time of the shoot,why would you need to play with massive files that take so long to download-get it right in the camera, it's not that hard-Don't just read your manual-Read and understand your manual. Raw for fine-art, where the compensation (Dollar Value) makes a difference! " Shoot like Thomas Knoll isn't born yet!"
It's possible, but there's extra work involved, and the change sometimes brings out noise, particularly in the blues. Still, I do mostly shoot jpegs. This is after all microstock.
1028
« on: February 22, 2007, 03:39 »
Was thinking of this overnight. If the merger goes ahead. Getty will slowly kill it off. You cant have premium (istock) and other (StockXpert) at the same price point especially when one gives them 80% and the other only 50%. They cant even merge as the photos wont be upto the image standard of istock.
StockXpert is dead within 2 years if this goes ahead.
Unless this is the reason for StockXpert's new reject strategy. I have a much higher acceptance rate at IS than StockXpert now.
1029
« on: February 22, 2007, 03:37 »
Has saved my skin on a number of occasions, like when I've forgotten to switch white balance. Now, hand's up who's done that? (Looks around ... What? Is it only me?  )
Ummm... one complete day, a major event, thousands of people at a bridge opening, all wearing yellow t-shirts (converted to yellowish green by me), and some unique shots of the bridge, taken from locations that have now been taken over by Bangkok's never ending traffic jams. All jpeg's of course 
1030
« on: February 21, 2007, 23:14 »
Sales at 123rf are slow, but consistent.
1031
« on: February 21, 2007, 22:29 »
I submitted my first batch of 20 files to them about a week ago (just wanted to test the site out see how they do) and this super long review time is not going to cut it for me. For a supposed up and coming site they sure are not trying very hard.
If it had been a new site, it would have been understandable, but they have been around for a while, so they shouldn't have problems like this. On the other hand, IS also has increasing review times now. It's strange to see how some handle this well and some don't.
1032
« on: February 21, 2007, 20:36 »
1033
« on: February 21, 2007, 20:34 »
I agree wholeheartedly. I also shoot as if there's film in the camera, and I have to pay for each frame. Makes me concentrate real hard every time I push the shutter release.
1034
« on: February 21, 2007, 20:30 »
The crop factors are:
1.0 - Canon 1Ds
1.3 - Canon 1D
1.33 - Leica R and F
1.5 - Nikon, Pentax, Samsung and Sony
1.6 - All other Canons
1.7 - Sigma
2.0 - 4/3 (Olympus, Panasonic and Leica)
Did I forget any? I hope not.
The 2.0 factor for 4/3 isn't really a crop factor, since the system is designed from the bottom with that sensor size, as opposed to the rest, which from the start were all to a certain degree based on 35mm film. But to understand what the FOV is, it's sometimes practical to think about it as a crop factor.
1035
« on: February 21, 2007, 20:22 »
I just started uploading there, and with a very small portfolio I've already had a couple of sales. Looks good to me. Uploading is easy, and the design rocks. The latter may be important to some customers.
1036
« on: February 21, 2007, 02:59 »
That depends. On SS, I think it's very important. Lots of downloads there are probably for "the archives", since it's an "all you can eat" site. Uploading good photos regularly is a part of the game.
I absolutely have some of my best images on micros, but the fact that it's good doesn't necessarily make it unique. With unique, I mean a photo that is difficult or impossible to do for another photographer, or was expensive to make.
Obviously, a photo that are only interesting to a few, but important to those few, is also better placed on a macro site. Those who want it are willing to pay, while others won't download it if it costs 5 cent.
1037
« on: February 20, 2007, 23:28 »
You mean that they don't sell nearly enough of my photos and don't let me upload unlimited quantities of whatever I have on my hard-disk? I thought I was the only one suffering from that 
1038
« on: February 20, 2007, 21:34 »
It doesn't look too bad. Not worse than a lot of other upstarts anyway. One thing though: is it only me, or do others feel the combination of greens in their web-site a bit intrusive? It's like the background colours come out of my monitor, making the photos less dominant.
If anybody from Raw Stock (RSI?) is reading this, I think it's something you should consider.
1039
« on: February 20, 2007, 20:20 »
Have anybody else experienced this: I have three photos in the queue at IS that require a model release. The release was uploaded with each photo. Still, when the first photo was reviewed (or "inspected", as they call it, what a terrible word to use about creative work), the reviewer claimed there was no release. So I re-uploaded the release, and to be on the safe side, I re-uploaded the release for the two others as well. Still, I've now had rejections for those two as well, for the same reason: no release. To top it off, it has taken them ten days to review (or rather: not review) those images. I don't mind long review times, but when they end up rejecting the images for the wrong reason, it's rather annoying 
1040
« on: February 20, 2007, 20:11 »
EDIT: I suppose I could have asked this on Istock forums but well. I already had this open.
There's another thread about it further down the page.
1041
« on: February 20, 2007, 20:09 »
Has anybody had any sales on SS today? The search engine still isn't finding my newest images.
Lots of sales. The best day so far this year, but I suspect that two customers cover more than half of it, since their are two big groups of related images.
1042
« on: February 20, 2007, 20:05 »
I just did a quick count. "Travel" photos make up more of my sales at StockXpert than my portfolio suggests, and since they have rejected all the good ones lately, those that are selling aren't even of very good quality. I'm more and more curious as to where they are going. On the other hand: maybe I'm just a very bad photographer. I suppose my customers will discover eventually 
1043
« on: February 20, 2007, 20:02 »
My rejection rates there goes up and down all the time as well, and it doesn't follow any particular pattern. Since it's so totally unpredictable, I can as well submit the same as I do to most other agencies, and let them do the picking. The sales I have there are spread on all kinds of themes anyway.
1044
« on: February 20, 2007, 19:55 »
The fact that travel photos don't sell well at StockXpert is more a result of their marketing (or lack of such) than anything else. I sell lots of "travel" photos all over the place.
Believing that travel photos should remain with the full price agencies only forever, is a bit short sighted. Nowadays, stock photographers come from all over the world. I live in Thailand, and travel to Cambodia, Laos and Malaysia within a couple of hours. That makes those locations as available for me as Manhattan is for someone living in New York state.
While I agree that it's a nice thought that we should try to get as much as possible for our "exotic" shots for as long as possible, the whole point with microstock is the fact that anyone form any part of the world can become a contributor, given some basic quality requirements are fulfilled.
The world becomes less exotic that way, and we may or may not like that, but it's the way it is, and we're all participating. When it comes to truly unique images, the situation is very different. If I know that one of my images has that quality, it's not micro. The challenge is where to set the limit. How unique is unique?
1045
« on: February 20, 2007, 19:34 »
For stock photography, I would absolutely recommend primes. A 50mm f/1.8, which is cheap, fast and sharp, and/or a macro around 100mm (Tamron, Tokina and Sigma are all excellent) should do the trick.
My Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 is my most used lens, since I also use it for portraits and as a short tele. Sometimes, I even use it as a walkaround, since it's great for candids.
1046
« on: February 20, 2007, 11:05 »
I'm seriously considering a high-quality P&S that will slip in a pocket for such trips (I'll never give up my Nikon) but give high enough quality for stock, both macro and micro. Anyone know of one?
Nikon launched a new, advanced p&s today, the P5000. It weighs in at 200g, has VR and even a command wheel to change parameters. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022006_nikonp5000.asp
1047
« on: February 20, 2007, 10:50 »
Sales are not affected though. I seem to be getting my best day at SS so far this year.
1048
« on: February 19, 2007, 13:40 »
Doesn't look too promising. I think I'll let this one pass.
1049
« on: February 19, 2007, 08:08 »
I guess you are right. Using a DSLR, I'm used to thinking differently. Exposure is still a result of aperture, shutter speed and ISO, but you don't see it in the viewfinder in the same way.
1050
« on: February 19, 2007, 08:05 »
Many thanks.
So the habit of always getting the latest DSLR body is mostly luxury or the result of a very constraint / demanding usage environment, right? Good to know :-)
All the best,
Michael
Absolutely. Although sensors evolve, and new ones with more megapixels or better low light performance are introduced, the cameras are basically the same. I have recently had images shot at ISO800 with my E-1 approved by more or less all agencies. Already when the camera was introduced three years ago, it was criticized by the pixel peepers for having bad high ISO performance. The problem with the pixel peepers, those who buy a new DSLR every 18 months (this is according to the gospel of the great god Canon, the same god who reigns in the kingdom of L), is that they are just that: pixel peepers. The rest of us are hopefully photographers. Unfortunately, many of the reviewers at the microstock-agencies are pixel peepers as well, but as long as they get properly exposed, sharp photos that are real stock material, they'll let your images through.
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
