|
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 - RT
Pages: 1 ... 55 56 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 64 65 ... 77
1476
« on: January 16, 2009, 15:16 »
I see this thread has turned personal about whether or not you like Yuri's style of photography, I don't think it's fair to select another persons images and pull them apart if they didn't start the thread.
Whether you like that style of photography is subjective, and I imagine the reason Yuri hasn't stepped in and said something is that he probably doesn't give a t**s what anybody here thinks, and quite rightly so.
He sets out to achieve this style, it's not a result of bad exposure or lighting and he pays attention to the way the set is dressed and the same goes for the models, I'm sure he could get a more traditional look if he so desired.
But my answer to the OP's original question is - I'd hazard a guess the majority of this type of lighting is achieved after capture on a computer.
1477
« on: January 16, 2009, 06:42 »
RAW. As raw as it gets. One of the advantages is you can recover blown out highlights since raw is over 16 bit mostly and JPG is only 8 bit.
I don't think so, if the highlights are blown out it means there's zero information in the file, and therefore nothing to recover.
1478
« on: January 09, 2009, 17:00 »
Well that didn't last long!
1479
« on: January 09, 2009, 14:05 »
Unless they sold the videos, but then you wouldn't get to ask questions.
There's an opportunity staring you in the face  It's sounds like a great conference but a bit to far to go for me, I would be interested in a video though.
1480
« on: January 09, 2009, 13:21 »
Hey thanks everybody. I probably should have been more clear but RT's example is what I'm talking about.
That's "Colorize" in PSP, as I said. Then you choose the hue and saturation you want.
Regards,
Adelaide
Actually in the example it's a Cooling filter, but you could get a similar sort of result with Colorize, the difference is that by using a Cooling filter your whites and blacks get the blue tint, whereby using Colorize they don't because theres no colour in the first place.
1481
« on: January 09, 2009, 07:14 »
Well done Steve, mine showed up this morning
1482
« on: January 09, 2009, 04:51 »
If I ever was to shoot film again it would be color neg. for how wide it is.
Yeah but then the wife would start complaining about taking up all the room in the fridge, digital solves so many arguments.
1483
« on: January 09, 2009, 04:44 »
I don't think the OP has explained his question that well, but apart from what Sharply has already said, if you mean where the photo would be a black & white albeit with a blue tint then that is done in Photoshop by just applying a Cooling Photo filter. Like this:  Of course you can always do that to a colour image if you just wanted a more blueish looking image.
1484
« on: January 08, 2009, 17:44 »
Congratulations Leaf and well deserved, you should take a 'screen grab' now because I doubt Yaymicro are going to be around much longer.
I pulled out of there a while ago but I must still be on the email list, today I got an email from them, it was the funniest thing I've read in a long time, it was like playing that game where you have to say the exact opposite of what you mean!
1485
« on: January 08, 2009, 13:46 »
Now that you mention it, maybe I should take it out of the garage...
and send it to me 
1486
« on: January 08, 2009, 12:52 »
Hey RT, do you use your hotlight with your strobes or is the colour difference too huge? I have some of those cheap Chinese ones you mentioned and they are yellow yellow yellow and haven't been used in likely 2 years.
I read in some *old* course material that most product photographers use hotlights. Do they still use them now that they have gone digital?
That's why I made reference to cheap Chinese copies, mine uses 800w bulbs that are specially designed for the film industry, the cheap Chinese one's as I understand just use the sort of bulbs you could get in a home hardware shop which is why yours are yellow I presume. As for product shots, personally I use whatever I can, but generally speaking I'll use a flash (strobe) under my still life table on a low setting, that's not to get the background white just to eliminate shadows if you have it too high you'll get light spill on the subject, then light the product with either cool light, hot lights or flash and over expose by about 1 stop to burn out the background. The stuff you read in your old course material still applies and to be honest nearly everything to do with lighting will, digital has just changed the workflow (made it easier) not the way you photograph, the only advantage is not having to use compensating filters as you can just stick a grey card in and do it in PS. I'd like one of the new Sekonic light meters that measures colour temperature but even though I asked Santa didn't bring it.
1487
« on: January 08, 2009, 12:45 »
Hey RT,
You ca make a good make shift snoot that shapes to your needs out of Cinafoil. It is a dense black opaque foil used to wrap around lights to control spill. It is also flame safe. A box looks like a roll of foil only black you can get it pretty cheap at camera stores and reuse the pieces after you remove them from the day a box lasts forever.
Best,
AVAVA
Hi Jonathan, I've got a snoot for my Elinchrom's but I actually wanted a genuine spot light like the sort you'd get in a theatre, but they cost thousands. Incidently for anybody in Europe I buy a lot of stuff from FotoWalser in Germany, their softboxes, octoboxes and snoots are as good as if not better than the major manufacturers but at about half the price. Re your Cinafoil - I've got some of this that I use for Gobos, over here it's made by Lee Filters and is just called Matt black foil, very good stuff and like you say comes on a huge roll and lasts forever. This and my reference to a red head above reminds me that we should have a American-English terminology dictionary, what would you think if I referred to a 'bottletop'?
1488
« on: January 08, 2009, 07:50 »
Hey RT what is this Red Head you just got.
AVAVA
Sorry terminology, they're also called Hot lights, Fresnals and Stage lights, beware of cheap Chinese imitations, this one is by Strand and costs a lot, I actually bought it because I wanted a spot light although to be honest even though this does do a spot it's not what I wanted so I'll stick with a snoot. And because I'm never one to miss an opportunity here it is!  Actually I'm not that sad, I'm building a new studio and wanted to test the lighting on my infinity wall and Claude is still wrapped up, so as this was to hand I shot it then I thought might as well submit it!
1489
« on: January 08, 2009, 04:27 »
Getty has a new model release form. 
where do i get the new model release form? On gettys website is still the old one i'm already using for years. Though i'm not a getty contributor i'm using this release for all my macro work. The one i'm using is here http://contributors.gettyimages.com/article.asp?article_id=1767
Sorry, I don't know where you can find the new ones. I suppose SJLocke knows, he's with Getty. I am not. In fact I am with none other than Alamy. I am not that organized, yet.
It's via the contributor section, if you PM me your email address I'll send you the release which is a PDF. Or in case Leaf missed this the first time round is there a way to attach a PDF here? http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=6611.0
1490
« on: January 07, 2009, 17:49 »
I always shoot RAW 16bit whether stock, assignment or family snaps. Indoors - Manual everything and use a Sekonic lightmeter, people handheld everything else tripod or studio stand. Outdoors - Usually AV and AF, tripod if needed. I use flash (strobes) for the majority of indoor stuff but recently have been playing with other types of lighting, (bought a redhead on eBay - and wow it's bright) At the moment I use a PC but will switch to a MAC very soon, first thing I do after a shoot is copy all the RAW files (keepers) onto a seperate hard drive, then a RAW copy onto the PC hard drive into my work folder, then convert RAW via Bridge into a working TIFF which I proceed to bugger up in Photoshop to the extent it probably looked better originally. Keyword etc the TIFF and save onto another hard drive and then save a copy as a JPG which I keep on the PC until they're uploaded to wherever. Then sit back and watch as nobody buys them. Edited to add: I don't process in batches, I was telling this to someone once who thought it was a clever way of seeing whether something is selling before commiting too much time to the rest, I actually had to confess that although that sounds a good reason it's actually because I get bored with processing the same types of photo all the time, which is why if you ever look most of my shots come in batches of between 3-6. One other thing, I normally do a weekend project image, one that I spend more time editing and f***ing around with than I would normally.
1491
« on: January 07, 2009, 17:36 »
If you could convince the sites involved to introduce seperate passwords for financial transactions to that of the normal account then I would use your software tomorrow.
I appreciate you use a high level of security but personally I don't like the thought of all my user accounts and passwords being stored on one external (to me) system.
Good luck with the project though, very clever.
1492
« on: January 07, 2009, 17:12 »
Well there's been some good advice given, hopefully you'll read the sarcasm in my reply above, but in case not I was joking about asking these questions on Shutterstock, and here's a good example of why, just having a weekly flick through the forum there and saw this thread: http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=53479Loads of experts giving advice and yet they all seem to miss one blindingly obvious flaw in this guys photo, the building in the background!!! For a moment I thought somebody had stumbled upon the answer when they started to mention editorial but alas no it was regarding the model release issue, so ten replies and not one of them (including one of the worlds finest reviewers) noticed that the photo can't be sold as RF no matter what he does to the faces of the crowd 
1493
« on: January 07, 2009, 14:11 »
Hello everyone this is my 1st topic here.
I want to do that so called "stock photography"
do you have any tips to share withme?
what site should I work with?
can I upload the same photos on different sites?
how many photo should I upload?
what type of photos do these sites need?
how much do you make from stock photography
Join Shutterstock and ask the exact same questions on the forum there, you will be swamped with replies from self appointed 'experts', you might find an 'expert' who will tell you all about himself and how successful he is, then maybe try to flog you his book (well CD) and maybe a course or two. However if you don't want to waste your time and money you could do what sjlocke has suggested and search for yourself, which I'm sure would be a much more successful option. Edited to add: As I mentioned books, there is an actual real book out about Microstock photography written by Douglas Freer - search Amazon and you'll find it, I've never read it but those that have said it's good.
1494
« on: January 07, 2009, 05:00 »
Does StockXpert have forums of their own?
Yes it's in the menu on the left of the screen marked 'Forum' !
1495
« on: January 05, 2009, 12:00 »
it doesn't work with 40D, neither it worked with 350D. I've read that Canon SLRs don't show it in EXIF unlike Nikon... perhaps it's different in 5D MkII
Maybe it's just for full frame SLR's, it works with the Canon 1Ds range just fine. Don't know about the 5Dmk2 maybe Lisa will try and tell us or someone else that has one.
1496
« on: January 05, 2009, 10:12 »
You can also do it out of Photoshop. I can do it out of CS2 and Adobe Elements 6 just fine.
Take the last frame you shot, or shoot a frame if you dumped them all.
Go File info, hit Advanced in the left column when the window opens.
Go to the line that says http ns adobe.com.exif/1.0/aux and hit the little plus sign to expand the info
You will then see a line that says aux:ImageNumber:
That number is the tag for the shutter actuation.
If you have to shoot a frame to do this, hopefully it won't put you over the limit
And just a note for anyone who wants to try it - it only works on cameras that supply Aux info, usually SLRs. Won't work with a point & shoot.
Yep this is the way to do it, no need to download any fancy software.
1497
« on: January 02, 2009, 20:52 »
...
As for JPG magazine, I never read it and to be honest I used to get fed up of all the forum threads from people on microstock sites asking others to vote for their images, if I entered and won a contest I'd want to know my image won on merit not because I begged for votes.
Although there was indeed voting for images, I think that was more of a gimmick than anything else. It was the JPG editors who selected images for publication, not the masses of people voting for their friend's stuff.
You mean I wasted all that time going and voting for everyone else's photo apart from the begger that started the thread
1498
« on: January 02, 2009, 20:44 »
Load of bollox, can't see that working!
I think you should give it a try, you never know you might meet a nice guy.
1499
« on: January 02, 2009, 20:26 »
The way to rethink is that when you start upload to traditional stock agencies and mid-stock is traffic and buyers... When you make $300 from one image on traditional or mid-stock agency, you will be at least 6-12 months older! The micros are something different and there is mass-downloading... I have my images on micros, traditional and mid stock agencies all over... Traditional and mid stock agencies are something completely different as you will learn in the future if you already are not represented by some.
Well I've been submitting to macro sites for 6 years so I think I have an idea of what makes a good stock photo, one thing is true however and that is nobody can tell what will and won't sell. However one thing I have learnt in all that time is what is a good well composed well lit photo, and what is a snapshot, are you really trying to tell me you used additional lighting and spent time composing that shot - come on as I said earlier bow out now you're just making yourself look silly. By the way which macro agency is this shot on, it's not on Getty, Alamy, Jupiter, Corbis or Inmagine so where exactly did you make this illustrious $300 sale which incidentally is a not a big sale on macro. As I said earlier there are hardly any shots of this 'cevapcici' sausage thing on any sites be it micro or macro and that and that alone is the only reason the photo has sold it is nothing to do with the technical quality of the shot. I'm pleased for you that you're happy with the shot and the amount you say it has made, but your original argument was because it got rejected and you're trying to convince everyone it's a great shot which quite obviously it isn't, it's the type of shot that makes me think you were at a bbq with your camera and while standing in front of the grill you decided to take a quick picture, which you've then uploaded to a few sites and had a few sales. A couple of years ago someone used their camera phone to take a photo of Beckham in a night club with another woman, they made a fortune from a small badly composed pixelated image, but that doesn't make them a good photographer and it was still a crap photo. Good luck for the future.
1500
« on: January 02, 2009, 13:01 »
Please take this the way it is meant I'm not trying to insult you.
The image is terrible, I doubt it's made you $300 in 6 months but if you say so all well and good.
But the reason it has 1 sale on iStock and 3 on Fotolia is not because it's a good stock image and has nothing to do with Europeans taste in photography to that of Americans, it is purely and simply because it is one of only five shots featuring that particular sausage on microstock sites, and the others seem to have other items on the grill.
Now this is good and bad, it's good because you may have cornered the market in something, but it might be bad because that might mean this particular subject doesn't sell.
Either way your image is not a good stock image no matter how you try and defend it and 4 sales in 6 months ain't worth shouting about, a good way to define the difference between a good and a bad stock image is ask yourself the question 'Could I have taken the same shot with my camera phone'. I'll let you decide the answer!
You happen to have a shot with little competition and a small demand, my advice is take the $300 buy some more sausages and shoot it better.
Pages: 1 ... 55 56 57 58 59 [60] 61 62 63 64 65 ... 77
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
