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 - BaldricksTrousers
Pages: 1 ... 50 51 52 53 54 [55] 56 57 58 59 60 ... 206
1351
« on: April 14, 2014, 03:58 »
I have to say, Ive never seen a 4 times upsample.
Edit: I guess the person voting me down knows what I have and have not seen at Shutterstock. With skills like that you shouldnt be in microstock, but operating a psychic booth on a Carnaval
Take a look at this file then http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=186782621It's one that was rejected as focus not where we like it at 20MP so I downsized it to 6MP and now you can see it is on sale up to 6MP and with a "supersize" 24MP option. Obviously, the acceptable supersize version must be significantly lower in quality than the unacceptable original 20MP version. Go figure.
1352
« on: April 14, 2014, 03:49 »
I really don't see why you think it is inappropriate, or criticising, to comment about the subject of a blog that the blogger chooses to publicise on a discussion site.
I'd love to hear which bit of equipment it is that you have to buy to do this that costs more than this filter costs, or are you saying that this filter is a cheap option compared with, say, buying 600mm f4 lens? A Ferrari car also makes this filter look cheap but it doesn't do the same thing.
1353
« on: April 14, 2014, 02:43 »
The nice thing about photography, we all have the capacity to choose how we make our images. If Steve wants to use a filter to create the photograph he wants that is his choice. I happen to agree with him. I rather make my image in camera rather than in post production. Do not critique or criticize his method but his photos.
Well, he's talking about a method, Dave, the photos (very nice, too) are an illustration of that method. I'd be the last one to criticise anybody for choosing to make photos any way they want - in fact I've just come back from taking some shots with my Leica R4s from 1978. Last year I installed a darkroom in my house so I can develop and print in the traditional way. However, when you blog about the results given by a particular and very expensive filter it may encourage people to buy a filter that isn't the best option for them - it may even be a deliberate advert for a filter, designed to get commission - so I think people who might not be familiar with the pros and cons are entitled to hear different views about photo techniques. In no way is that a criticism of the blog or the quality of the review.
1354
« on: April 14, 2014, 00:25 »
That is an interesting filter but when you compare the price - $240 - with the price of the full Nik filter software - $149 - it's an extremely expensive way of filtering colours in a fairly limited way and I assume you have the problem of the effect sometimes varying across the frame, the same way you do with skies if you use a wide angle and a polariser. Traditional special effects filters seem to me to be more relevant to film than digital and these days even film is usually scanned rather than printed directly, allowing adjustment during the digital phase. That said, it's a nice blog.
1355
« on: April 13, 2014, 09:30 »
for me it was shooting a story for a major travel magazine on the subject of afternoon tea and tea in general. i had access to one of the top high society places for afternoon tea, but the access was limited to no more than 10 minutes so as to not disturb the guests, and i shot like there was no tomorrow, tons of great stuff. in my moment of glory, i at one point sort of figured out it was one hell of a long roll of film, never ending... once i figured out i totally screwed up big time and was shooting away with no film, i did actually get a moment to put a roll of film in and managed to cover my ass in the shoot - barely as the good stuff got away, but oh boy did i feel dumb!!!
A photographer on a newspaper I ran came in from a job one day, went into the darkroom and came out red-faced to admit he had forgotten to load the camera. He was a damned good photographer anyway (totally out of my class) and went on to become a major TV film cameraman and director (most people here have probable seen some of his work). Making a mistake doesn't mean you are stupid.
1356
« on: April 13, 2014, 09:22 »
Walking backwards to frame a scene until I staggered as my calves hit something hard .... then turning round and looking down the open well-shaft that I had nearly fallen backwards into.
A similar incident was taking a photo of my wife in a Greek ravine, shuffling to and fro to get the best angle, taking the shot, doing an about turn and as I tried to step foreward I pivoted over a spike of rock that made a hole in my shinbone that is there to this day (I landed with all my weight on my ME Super, which survived and still works today, give or take a door seal).
I had one even dumber, life-threatening experience which was so embarrassingly stupid that I won't even admit to it here. Suffice it to say that it could have put me in line for a Darwin Award.
1357
« on: April 13, 2014, 09:15 »
They may prefer large sizes as a company policy but I am far from convinced that the inspectors take into account the effect of size. By that I mean that a 20MP image may get the "not where we like it" focus rejection whereas downsized to 6MP it will not run into this problem. That is despite the fact that it is going to be offered supersized at 24MP..... so where is the sense in that? The difference is what the inspector is seeing on screen, not what the final version seen by the end-user will be. Also, why prefer a full-size 20MP image that you won't upsize instead of a 12MP image that you will resize to 48MP? How is that persuading the user that they are getting a greater choice? And if they upsize 12MP to 48MP, why not upsize 20MP to 80MP? It all makes very little sense to me.
1358
« on: April 12, 2014, 03:01 »
It looks as if they double both dimensions producing a four-fold multiplication. It's odd to think they would turn a 4MP image into a 16MP one, but leave a 15MP one unchanged but if that's what they are doing then you give the customer the maximum size choice if you upload at 14MP to provide a 56MP "supersize" download. A 22MP original would be at a disadvantage in comparison (at a disadvantage against anything of 6MP or more, come to that).
1359
« on: April 12, 2014, 02:39 »
I guess if they didn't offer a "supersized" version they wouldn't need to be so iffy about "focus is not where we like it" etc. I see one of my latest uploads is being offered as a 47MP version, from an original which is about 12MP in size, so if you upload a 6MP file they will resize it to 24MP. In effect, that means that what you and I see at 72MP has to be pristine if resized to 300MP. Now I've got to go and resize a batch of landscape shots they just rejected for "focus is not where we like it".
1360
« on: April 11, 2014, 10:57 »
Of course, iSTock do it by awarding themselves dividends from income that hasn't happened yet.
Of course if iStock does something bad then anything that any other company does is fine with me.
Now, now! You shouldn't say it's bad, it's a brilliant and entirely legal and legitimate corporate manoeuvre designed to reward people for their achievements.
1361
« on: April 11, 2014, 02:35 »
Facebook is reconfiguring its "sidebar" ads to be twice the size, and with larger size will probably come higher prices...no doubt folding in the cost of using Shutterstock images.
"No doubt"? What do you mean? Facebook will pay higher prices for the images they offer their clients for free to use in the ads? I doubt that.
I think she means that Facebook will charge advertisers more as a way of recouping the cost of images, not that the image price will rise.
1362
« on: April 11, 2014, 02:31 »
That's what I would do. The only reason I don't always downsize when submitting to SS is that it means the bother of having two differently sized files to upload to different agencies. I wasn't even aware that they said anything about not downsizing, it makes no sense that they would be happy with a shot from a 5MP camera at 5MP but would have a problem with a 20MP image downsampled to the same size. 20MP images are at far greater risk of being rejected for "focus is not where we like it" than 5MP ones are. However, if they do have a rule about not downsizing, they might object to you doing it on the entrance test - though they would have no way of knowing it was a downsize rather than a crop.
1363
« on: April 10, 2014, 08:44 »
Sounds like a watertight case to me, assuming her lawyer can produce the literature concerned and prove it is her in it.
1364
« on: April 09, 2014, 16:39 »
I'm on a bog standard Samsung screen for a bog standard Windows machine. Spyder tells me I can't even see 100% of the sRGB gamut, let alone the others.
1365
« on: April 09, 2014, 15:58 »
To SS you must upload in sRGB. They appear to ignore the color space when converting the images so if you upload in AdobeRGB your images will all look flat and undersaturated. Most other agencies are the same with IS being the exception.
I upload to SS in aRGB and when looking at my images on their site they look fine....both on my calibrated desktop and on my laptop. I guess I have no idea what someone else may be seeing.
I'll have to experiment with my next batch to SS and give sRGB a try.
Could it be that you are using a monitor capable of seeing the full gamut for Adobe RGB?
1366
« on: April 09, 2014, 10:43 »
Thanks for all your comments. Finally decided to go with Canon 10-22
If you shoot RAW and edit with DPP or Lightroom you should be able to automatically correct for any colour fringing using pre-loaded lens profiles.
1367
« on: April 09, 2014, 10:39 »
My screen can only see about 75% of the colour palette for Adobe RGB, the brighter parts of the range are missing, so a correctly edited ARGB image will not display on my equipment. It would obviously also be impossible for me to edit in ARGB because I would think the image was brighter than it was was and it would come out under-exposed (I think I was doing that at some point many years back, without knowing what was going on, to keep Alamy happy). It may well be that SS is converting from ARGB to sRGB correctly, but people who upload in ARGB have used non-compatible equipment to edit the image, so their work will end up lacking bright colours.
1368
« on: April 09, 2014, 08:23 »
1369
« on: April 09, 2014, 08:21 »
This section in the terms is a bit odd " If a Creator wants to remove a Creator Image from their portfolio after a Publisher has paid to use that Creator Image, the Creator must contact Imgembed [email protected] with the request. Imgembed will then contact the Publisher, who will be offered both (y) a refund of all payments made to use the Creator Image that the Creator wishes to remove, and (z) the use of a comparable Creator Image to replace the removed Creator Image. Imgembed will arrange for the refund of payments via PayPal. In addition, Publishers who have paid to use Creator Images may do so without attribution to the Creator." (I've no idea why "y" and "z" are floating in there). It says the terms are governed by the laws of California but the company is based in Singapore. I don't know whose laws the company is working under, but if it is the US I don't think it can make overseas providers responsible for paying withholding tax that would presumably be applicable for US earnings.
1371
« on: April 09, 2014, 04:14 »
Sorry to ask this, because I don't know, but if someone can paint a Campbell's Soup can or box of Brillo Pads and call it art, (Pop Art) then what's to prevent someone from drawing a Coke can? If they are actually drawing or painting it? I find less conflict with this than selling personal likenesses, or copying them from photos and posters and making modifications.
There have been major changes to copyright and probably trademark laws in the US since Warhol was doing soup tins in the 1960s. I don't know if it was legal then or would be legal now but many FAA artists (whether they know it or not) rely on the fact that major companies have no interest in chasing infringers selling a print or two to go on someone's wall. If the logo turned up in a way that was detrimental to the company's image it might be different.
1372
« on: April 08, 2014, 16:52 »
Of course, iSTock do it by awarding themselves dividends from income that hasn't happened yet.
1373
« on: April 08, 2014, 16:35 »
So it's not only banks that can print money. It must be a nice feeling!
1374
« on: April 08, 2014, 15:55 »
Yeah, but it's consitently come in 20% or so above the "experts" estimates for each of the last four quarters.
1375
« on: April 07, 2014, 10:11 »
Something is very wrong for me. I have not had a sale at DT for over a week. Do you think they are going out of business or getting ready to throw in the towel?
No. I've had average to better-than-average sales in the last seven days.
Pages: 1 ... 50 51 52 53 54 [55] 56 57 58 59 60 ... 206
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|