|
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 - JPSDK
Pages: 1 ... 52 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62 ... 74
1401
« on: November 09, 2012, 04:20 »
Thanks OM.
I have a lot of white in the "on white environment", so Ill have to look for the purple spot. Good that you mentioned, else I would not have know what it came from.
1402
« on: November 08, 2012, 21:43 »
Thanks.
Aha, then dof is shallow, because you have been near the closest range.
1403
« on: November 08, 2012, 16:03 »
It posts fine, thank you for showing. What aperture did you use?
1404
« on: November 08, 2012, 10:06 »
Yes I have tried google. I was more interested in hearing news from real people.
As for hair and axes? The indian scalp concept?
1405
« on: November 08, 2012, 10:03 »
or you do?
1406
« on: November 08, 2012, 09:13 »
you have 3800 x 2400 pixels.
You have a title saying Flower.
Then fill up the picture with flower.
1/3 is the main subject, the rest of the pixels are supportive.
same with cannons and cars.
Same rule.
Use your background to support your main subject.
it is the background that sells the picture.
1407
« on: November 08, 2012, 09:04 »
the propblem is all those pictures that istock does not manage to sell.
oops. I should not comment, im not an exclusive.
But when an agency does not manage to sell your otherwise excellent pictures, they should be taken with a grain of salt and maybe be relieved from their duties.
1408
« on: November 08, 2012, 07:45 »
what would I know?
My port is old, so what would I know about new ports?
1409
« on: November 08, 2012, 07:42 »
I just bought that lens via ebay, it has not arrived yet.
I bought it because in my small studio, my macro lenses are not really handy, either to long or too short, as istock would say.
Now I wonder about sharpnes, contrast and bokeh, and I cannot wait to find out and therefore I ask. Has anybody had any experiences with that lens?
Would it be good for subjects about 50 cm? Like axes with handles or other tools?
And how does it perform with portraits, especially hair?
I would love to see some picture samples, from studioworks and from outside.
Please?
1410
« on: November 08, 2012, 05:45 »
No, I say that "It is the background that sells the picture"
meaning anybody can or should be able to take a sharp photo of something, but it is an art, to create a background that supports the image.
With the crocus, the blurred flowers in the background support the flowers in the foreground, since they are the same, and such the main subject just repeats itselv and produces no distractions. However, they could be less prominent and still do the job.
1411
« on: November 08, 2012, 05:19 »
Well, how many do you get?
Your port is very widespread, and many of the images are not presice ( deer and such). I think it is the kind of port that would get dls from newest first but less from searches and that it needs constant improving and uploads to not soon sink into the masses of mud.
My guess would be 30--> 15--> 8 per month without serious maintenance.
1412
« on: November 08, 2012, 05:15 »
The vulcano is the best stockwise.
The rest have huge problems.
You need to be able to get rid of noise, - or not produce it, and you need to be able to produce a sharp picture in 100%.
1413
« on: November 08, 2012, 05:05 »
Yes, you are right, or if the flowers were a bit less prominent. The background is quite, striking, and it shouldnt be. it only half works because it is the same flowers.
1414
« on: November 08, 2012, 04:12 »
IF and IF. It all depends on the appeararance and especially on the background. The background must support the subject, or not be there. See, here.... the blurred background supports the subject:  And here there is no background: 
1415
« on: November 08, 2012, 04:01 »
Sdeva... Your photos are good!
See, now, a classic example of the limited keyword dictonary:
STOCK, like the stock of the gun.
Did you mean...
Stock (Essex)
Soup (Food)
Stock Certificate (Certificate)
Stock Market (Finance)
Gravy (Sauces)
Maybe I should wing of GRAVY!
1416
« on: November 08, 2012, 02:38 »
There are several problems:
1.. As said, the frame is filled with irellevance. Every element in the frame must support the main subject that should occupy at least 1/3 of the frame.
2.. It is not sharp
3.. DOF is far too shallow.
So move closer use a tripod a 8-16, s at least 125 iso 100.
Then still after doing that, it has LCV.
A timelapse would be something else.
BTW, when I do macro i work in the s 5 - 16 area, never beyond, because of diffraction. Preferable 8 outside. In the studio 16.
1417
« on: November 07, 2012, 15:55 »
You are being circulated.
1418
« on: November 07, 2012, 15:41 »
leaves cannot be either to feathered or to rough.
Thats a good thing.
1419
« on: November 07, 2012, 15:38 »
I agree.
The worst problem is the lack of resolution. There is noise and the pictures lack sharpness and impact.
Downsizing might help.
You definately need to get rid of blur and it is true, why choose shallow dof?
1420
« on: November 07, 2012, 15:32 »
It has come.
1421
« on: November 07, 2012, 15:11 »
oops I had a double post. ill change it to... Thanks for commenting. I dont know what photo + is, and I dont care. Im sure its something annoying. And here iis the hunter: 
1422
« on: November 07, 2012, 14:40 »
Today I took 167 shots up in the studio.
Of a hunter in a camouflage suit.
You know, You look through the pictures and process the most striking of them.
Like pointing left or pointing right. You choose the most dynamic and put them into photoshop and pop them up.
Keyword them, it takes 10 minutes via dusegard.
Then mass upload some to one agency, others to other agencies where you think they can earn a little bit.
Then comes iStock and you press a button.
And you are stuck!
It takes so long time to click yourself through a single picture.
You do it, and it comes to category choices and you have to click many times and try to figure out where your image fits. Is it nature or isolation or people in love.
Every stupid choice annoys you and feels meaningless.
Then the endless clicking to make keywords pass through. And My Good! the definitions of those keywords. Have they bought their dictionary in a flea market in Kansas? Its so far out. And again lots of choises of half meaningless things, is it a cow or a guitar brand you have never heard of?
You manage to get through with one of your pictures, the other prepared ones, you dont bother to upload. Its is not that it takes time, though thats bad enough, its is more the many impossible choices, because the categories are unnatural and the disambiguation is based on such a primitive data set.. We can always do that if it sells, you think. Then you stop and get a relief since you are not at work and have to do it and the is no boss who looks.
My guess is that iStock thinks they are mighty smart and only get the best of the best pictures that way.
Maybe so.
But they also gets a lot of annoy factor.
So that persons like me builds up such a deep and longgoing frustration that they cannot keep their mouth shot (as you see).
But there are many things iStock doesnt get:
Like variations of pictures in series.
Like the different picture with different keywords.
Like a lot of appropriate keywords its easier to wing out than to qualify.
There is more but I will spare you.
I wont even mention the word rejection.
Point is, There is so much iStock doesnt get.
and take a look, its visible in the searches.
phew rant over. Im sorry. I have now finished my uploading and spread my load of pictures to 4-5 sites. Istock got one.
1423
« on: November 07, 2012, 02:51 »
It is an asset and a value can be agreed on. It compares to a family business.
When the value is agreed on it becomes a part of the estate, like the car and paintings, and shared between the divorcees.
Putting a value to the port is not easy, so the only way is to negotiate it, and if you fail to agree, you may want to have a specialist put a value to it. A specialist would be the agency that distribute the portfolio.
In divorces the important document is the settlement of dividing the estate. Which can just be a piece of paper signed by the parties or it can come from endless tracasseries via lawyers.
1424
« on: November 06, 2012, 18:21 »
I still can't see why we should pay for their inability to check their buyers' credentials.
By the way, the mere fact they are effectively and systematically giving our pictures away to such nice people who use stolen cards, should entitle us to a compensation, not the other way around.
How are they protecting our copyright if they don't even know who's buying our pictures? (I doubt they use their real names with stolen cards)
Exactly. They are even stupid when telling us about it. Again this a case we could win against the agency. They are middlemen and live from redistibuting our copyright, not so much the images, it is the copyright that is the important good in the shop. It is a quite serious offence from the agencys side, since the stolen good can be endlessly copied and dont loose value by the copying process. Actually, instead of us being refunded, the agency should be charged the amount that compares to selling the rights, because thats what they do, let our work be stolen, so it can endlessly be copied. Why dont some guy invent a selfdestructing jpg that destructs when the licence has expired? THAT would be a powerfull innovation.
1425
« on: November 06, 2012, 17:56 »
So 3 pages of christmas pictures were uploaded after your pictures in 10 hours.
So if there is a server lag or the pictures are not showing up relatively soon, the "newest first window" will close without having been opened much at all.
So then it depends on keywords, image quality, image relevancy and demand.
Thats healthy enough.
Just not for the contributor, who faces even more competition. Supercompetition as I use to call it, since he has to compete both with quality and quantity. And noone can do that for ever. Everybody looses in the end since it is impossible to continuously improve both numbers and quality.
That is why ports mature, and income stabilizes at an equilibrium where, no matter what you do, you cannot get better sales.
The industry may thrive but every single contributor is doomed in the long run....it is impossible to compete with crowdsourcing.
Natures response to the same phenomenon over time is mutation and migration is the solution at the moment.
Translated to our world it means that you need to mutate your photography into something more competitive: that could be using new programs and techniques or it could be keywording or to be on the forefront with trends. In this case invent a new christmas something.
In nature species migrate to less suitable environment, exactly as we do here, when we begin to upload to the low earners.
Nature has examples on "continent jumping" where a species jumps into a completely new unused environment. Microstock as it started was exactly that. But when first equilibrium is met, its the same old story. That is where we are.
It is also why agencies can be very vulnerable, when they do not adapt their business model when the environment is not new and unused anymore, and which is why they should listen carefully when the contributors complain about reaching equilibrium, its an early warning so to speak.
Pages: 1 ... 52 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62 ... 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
