It doesn't look like National Geographic was very impressed with the new terms either

http://instagram.com/p/TZaMHuoVRh/

I clicked your link to see the example and saw that I had missed the post about Sharply_done's death somehow. So you've already proved the usefulness of the concept...

thanks

Yeah, when there is lots of discussion going on it's pretty easy to miss a single thread, even if there is currently a lot of discussion in it.  Topics also often get buried after a few days, so those who only check in once every few days or every week may miss some big topics.  Hopefully this helps bring those topics to light (for those who want it)

Thanks for the updates Alex

only 2 for me.

SS 44%
Fotolia 17%
iStock 8%
etc..

Quote from: leaf on December 18, 2012, 16:17

A common rule of thumb is the lens focal length should be smaller than the shutter speed (ratio)
.. so

if you have a 50mm you can probably shoot it at 1/50 (or 1/60 sec)
If you are shooting a 200mm you'll need 1/200sec for consistent results
Shooting on the long end of the 70mm, you'll need somewhere around 1/60 - 1/100sec

I think that 'rule' originates from the days of 35mm film when the image was unlikely to ever to be printed at more than 8"x10". The rule certainly wasn't intended for 20MP+ cameras, where the images need to be pin-sharp at 100% view and are to be submitted for stock technical inspection. That's a different ball-game entirely.

With my 24-70mm, shooting for stock, I'd be very unlikely to shoot hand-held at less than 1/100. I do actually pride myself on being able to hold the camera correctly, very steadily and bracing when I operate the shutter too __ because I've had a lot of practice. I'd bump the ISO up to 400 to gain a faster speed, even if it meant having to shrink the final result down a tad. Either that or I'd find a wall or something to rest the camera on. I had to improve my technique when I upgraded from a 12MP camera to 21MP. At first I was disappointed with the camera ... until, after some testing with a tripod, I realised the problem was me!

So that explains all my blurry shots
Yes you are right. It was my 35 mm teacher at school who first told me that rule.

I'm about the same as you tab... at least when talking about consistent sharp images.

A common rule of thumb is the lens focal length should be smaller than the shutter speed (ratio)
.. so

if you have a 50mm you can probably shoot it at 1/50 (or 1/60 sec)
If you are shooting a 200mm you'll need 1/200sec for consistent results
Shooting on the long end of the 70mm, you'll need somewhere around 1/60 - 1/100sec

It also helps to rest your 'lens hand elbow' on your hip/side, use one hand on the lens, one had on the camera, use a wide stance, breath slowly and calmly press the trigger

I was wondering too until I read the Alamy reply.

Hi all

We've followed up with the sales team and i'm posting their response.

A more accurate description would be as follows

Rights granted include usage in all formats (including electronic format) of Travel Guides, in whole or in part, and right to sublicense such rights to third parties worldwide provided this falls within the agreed print run. Duration 10 editions (provided the content change is less than 25% from the original edition).

So the licence means other publishers can publish the travel guide on their behalf so long as they keep within the rights boundaries defined in the licence.

This particular sale was also a re-use hence the lower price.

Apologies again, we are finding our way with free form additional details, if any contributors do have queries regarding the specfics of a licence please email member services, please also note that we won't be answering any other queries regarding licence details via the forum

Many thanks
Alamy

Fairly broad, but they are not reselling the image, they are reselling their entire guide. (if I understand right?)

Thanks for posting that Race.

Very sad news.  Best wishes to his friends and family who have lost a loved one far to young.

For reference here's his port. and user acct here.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/profile/?u=524
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1212762

Two posts were removed.  Obviously, by looking at this thread, it is OK to be critical to 123RF or other agencies but a certain level of professionalism is required.  Coarse language and black humor are not welcome.

Alex certainly does not have to participate in this thread, we should show a little respect when he does - even if we are disagreeing strongly.

Quote from: DavidBaker on December 17, 2012, 11:33

I am trying to decide which agencies to join and see which are the ones that i am going to blacklist.

Can any veterans here tell me Which Agencies is the most Stingy and cheapest so that i can blacklist and avoid.

123RF, at 20cent per downloads???

Well if you're starting out you will be getting 25 cents for subscription downloads on Shutterstock, for full res. images. In terms of stingiest as Leaf says, "If you want fewer sites because of a poor deal for photographers I'd probably cut out iStock, then Fotolia."

So will these 3 agencies be on the blacklist?

When IS were giving 20% to contributors, most people were happy as sales were great, now they give as low as 15%, which isn't massively different from 20%, ...

I beg to differ.  It's a 25% pay cut which is quite massive indeed.

Thanks everyone.
How do you keep track of the rejections from the various sites and know which files to resubmit where? Does Microstock submitter track approved and rejected files?

no it doesn't.  I don't keep track of rejected files most of the time.  If I uploaded a file to a site that I want to fix and reupload I make a copy of that fixed file and put it in a folder for that site 'to upload'.

I'm guessing (yes this is just a guess) that what they might be trying to do, is be able, to say..
If I clicked on an ad and said 'I like KitKat' that they they can post that on another person's timeline (especially my friends) and say, Tyler likes 'KitKat'... and possibly use a photo of mine in the process.

That said, the terms of service seems very vague and open and DO sound like they can sell my image to KitKat for a nation wide advertising campaign.  I'm guessing that isn't what they are giving themselves permissions to do though and they may make an amendment  sooner than later.  They have too much to loose otherwise (I hope).  I wouldn't go deleting my account before this settles at least.

Either way, thanks for the heads up - this is very relevant for us.

I'm sure folk are reading far to much into the 'conspiracy against Emeralds' theory. I believe that the reality is much simpler than that.

Not so long ago, that main complaint against FT sales was that it was always the same relatively few images that sold over and over. Basically, if you were lucky enough to have an image favoured by FT's default 'Relevance' sort-order, then it sold incredibly well. The slightly annoying issue was the difficulty in any of your images attaining 'chosen few' status whilst so much, often better, work was ignored.

Since then FT have radically changed the algorithm. Nowadays new images are very heavily promoted whilst, at the same time, older images are equally heavily penalized. You still get the odd older image that enjoys multiple sales but many fewer than before.

Try this experiment. Image ID 36000000 at FT is roughly one year old. Do some test searches and count how many images within the Top 100 are older than 1 year old (i.e. have an Image ID lower than 36M). Not many on the ones I've tried. On one search, with over16K results, only 19 of the images were over a year old (and most of those younger than 2 years). Another search with 3K results had only 9 images older than 1 year within the Top 100. Another search with 7K results had just 5 'older' images. Quite frankly, from what I can tell, images much older than 1-2 years have virtually disappeared from the top of the default sort-order.

Long-term contributors with large portfolios (which Emeralds tend to be) rely heavily on continued sales from their older images to sustain and grow their monthly earnings. In my view older images, but for a precious few, are now so far back in the default sort-order that they provide drastically fewer sales than previously. That's the main reason why Emeralds have been suffering with falling sales over the last year or so.

FT's default search results are in marked contrast to those at SS, for the same subjects, despite having mostly the same images. On SS it's easy for good images to retain high sort-order position for years. On FT you're lucky to keep it for months.

I think this is spot on and jives with what I'm seeing in sales from my images.... from both before and after the new search order.