|
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 - cdwheatley
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 20
201
« on: February 25, 2009, 19:19 »
.
202
« on: February 25, 2009, 13:40 »
 Striking resemblance to the female version of the character "Milton" in the movie "Office space" (the guy with the coke bottle glasses that burns the building down out of frustration) Just a suggestion: Tyler, how about creating an off topic "Funnies" section in the forum. A little comic relief is good for the soul.
203
« on: February 25, 2009, 12:10 »
I wish everyday was Wednesday.
204
« on: February 21, 2009, 14:00 »
After seeing this thread I requested Paypal payment yesterday the 20th and just got paid today.
205
« on: February 18, 2009, 23:43 »
Very honest and inspirational. Glad you posted that.
206
« on: February 18, 2009, 13:48 »
Really don't understand the EL thing. How can they expect to sell EL's for 1/5 the price of everywhere else and not have contributors freak out. 
my head hurts.
maybe they expect us to freak out for that and miss some other part.... 
Was thinking the same thing.
207
« on: February 18, 2009, 13:28 »
just found this on fotolia forum from Chad Hi Fotolians,
I just spoke with the CEO and there was a mistake in the newsletter. The X license will remain the same price. We are even thinking to raise the range a bit for the X license.
One other thing when the M becomes 4, the L will be 5, the XL will be 6, the XXL will be 7, and the XXL will be 8. we thought this was obvious to everyone but I am happy to make this more clear.
Chad Bridwell
Director of US Operations
Fotolia.com
208
« on: February 18, 2009, 12:49 »
Really don't understand the EL thing. How can they expect to sell EL's for 1/5 the price of everywhere else and not have contributors freak out. my head hurts.
209
« on: February 15, 2009, 21:38 »
The Gynecologist Who Wanted to be a Mechanic!
A gynecologist had become fed up with malpractice insurance and HMO paperwork and was burned out. Hoping to try another career where skillful hands would be beneficial, he decided to become a mechanic. He went to the local technical college, signed up for evening classes, attended diligently, and learned all he could. When the time for the practical exam approached, the gynecologist prepared carefully for weeks and completed the exam with tremendous skill. When the results came back, he was surprised to find that he had obtained a score of 150%.
Fearing an error, he called the instructor, saying, "I don't want to appear ungrateful for such an outstanding result, but I wonder if thereis an error in the grade."
The instructor said, "During the exam, you took the engine apart perfectly, which was worth 50% of the total mark. "You put the engine back together again perfectly, which is also worth 50% of the mark."
After a pause, the instructor added, "I gave you an extra 50% because you did it all through the muffler, which I've never seen done
in my entire career."
210
« on: February 14, 2009, 21:22 »
By the way, I'm a newbie at stock and Istock is the first that I'm applying to. Also, just because Istock rejects for over filtering doesn't mean that the quality is poor. Istock just doesn't want any images that are touched up very much, which I like to do. You can see this in my personal work on my site at www.andrewalwardphoto.com , which I know most of it is probably not suitable for stock.
Anyway, back to the origin of this thread, I'm not sure if you guys have commented on this one yet - http://a3.vox.com/6a011017a94106860e011017a94653860e-pi
I think Adelaide did, but I'm not sure. This one is like I said, no effects, no filtering like you asked for. The only thing I did was pull it from RAW, adjust levels because my exposure was way off, and brought the sky luminance down just a tad, and no sharpening, no Photoshop. Let me know if its any better or worse, and sorry Adelaide if this is the image you were talking about, I appreciate this criticism.
Thanks again.
Hi Andrew, Regardless of your skill level as photographer there is a certain "technical" learning curve when submitting to micro. Istock and the other big sites will in fact accept heavily filtered files, with Istock being the pickiest of course. The editing has to be done as transparent and clean as possible and can be quite tedious with heavily filtered files. Edit as you like but when you look at the image at 100% crop make sure you don't see any of the problems outlined in the Istock tutorial. Noise, etc...etc... The sooner you can quickly identify the problems the easier microstock life will become, pretty soon it will be second nature and you will know how far you can push the filtering. I wouldn't submit the image you mention above. The concept is a big seller but the file is to soft with some other problems as well. Read that tutorial and look at the example images to learn what to avoid. I would try to do minimal editing for your first submissions, your concepts are good and that should be enough to get you in. just need to get rid of the technical issues. Three totally different files is a good idea also.
211
« on: February 05, 2009, 16:53 »
I would think the more generic the better. If I could produce a lifestyle shot that would still sell 10 years from now I would be very happy. A designer emailed me once when I first started and said something like: "If you get rid of the jewelry you will have a longer shelf life and reach more buyers". So anything that can date an image might not be such a good thing in the long run. to each his own though.
Or if you only shoot nekkid (Adult) people there won't be a problem either
But my most recent work heavily involves jewelry. As a matter of fact the gems were the primary purpose of the shoot.
right, if the Jewelry or trend is the purpose of your shoot than it is what it is. I'm talking about adding accessories that aren't necessarily important to the concept. Like wearing a neclace that says 2007 on it.
212
« on: February 05, 2009, 16:46 »
I'm not sure if this is the answer you are looking for but, did you try going to your portfolio and copying the address bar?
213
« on: February 05, 2009, 15:51 »
I'll do selective sharpening on those borderline sharp images, usually just on the main focal point. There is one site in particular that is very picky on image sharpness. Without sharpening a little the image would never get accepted. 
If you used a tripod and remote switch you would not get "those borderline sharp images" IMO.
Even with an image stabiliser built in to a lens you may still get camera shake if you don't 'hold' that shot for a few seconds.
I shoot everything hand held, prefer to work that way. I might be a little pissed off when the next wave comes in and takes out my tripod, camera, and leaves me holding the remote.  I hear what your saying though. I do use a monopod on occasion.  It happens
214
« on: February 05, 2009, 15:17 »
I'll do selective sharpening on those borderline sharp images, usually just on the main focal point. There is one site in particular that is very picky on image sharpness. Without sharpening a little the image would never get accepted.
215
« on: February 05, 2009, 15:08 »
I would think the more generic the better. If I could produce a lifestyle shot that would still sell 10 years from now I would be very happy. A designer emailed me once when I first started and said something like: "If you get rid of the jewelry you will have a longer shelf life and reach more buyers". So anything that can date an image might not be such a good thing in the long run. to each his own though.
216
« on: February 05, 2009, 12:22 »
Congrats Stephen
217
« on: February 04, 2009, 15:55 »
I think the big six need to get together and have a "sitdown" lol
218
« on: February 04, 2009, 15:53 »
So, with 6-7 sites all selling the same product if everyone stays on the same page hopefully we will keep moving forward maybe there will even be some consolidation of the big 6 down the road. Who knows.
End up like the big 5 in the Audio world.
(just an opinion)
I think that is probably the only real possibility to any positive change in the future though it seems very unlikely. If everyone raised the base price, customers would have no choice. If all but one or two raise their prices, those sites will be the most successful. It isn't realistic to expect photographers to offer an image for sale at only one site. It works for me because I can sell my photo's for more money and receive a higher commission. Again, I know I am in the minority. I've just been watching people react to the I-stock thing and wonder if there isn't something to it that will ultimately benefit all photographers. If only I-stock does it though, I think they are going to be in for a bumpy ride with so much killer competition out there.
Right, only works if everyone is onboard. If all sites started different collections at different price levels we would have a mandatory midstock for those people that want to spend a lot of money on production, location, etc.. Maybe it could work. I'm dreaming here.
219
« on: February 04, 2009, 15:26 »
With so much riding on the placement of files within the search the more exposure the better. Its not uncommon to have a file sell 1000 times on one site and 100 times on another. Hard to tell the true potential of a file if just on one site. Sometimes you get lucky. Not everyone shops at the cheapest site either for whatever reason. The industry will only be as strong as the weakest link. which ever site is low-balling will need to raise its prices for everyone to move forward. Istock starts the trend and the others soon follow..usually. Thats just what I've seen with limited experience. I think any new upstart site will have a hard time gaining all the core contributors if they want to undercut everyone. Contributors are getting smarter having been burned a few times by the new guy that pulls the plug before payout. So, with 6-7 sites all selling the same product if everyone stays on the same page hopefully we will keep moving forward maybe there will even be some consolidation of the big 6 down the road. Who knows. End up like the big 5 in the Audio world. I also like the idea of all sites having collections priced differently. Some images are easier to produce than others. (just an opinion)
220
« on: February 02, 2009, 16:32 »
Hi Paula,
Not to be critical, but one problem I see right off are the smudges. If you look at the middle pair of candycanes at the bottom where they criss-cross. There is a smudge tail coming off the bottom. Its looks like I can see more of the same in other parts of the image. Is this a 100% crop??? This might be cause for a rejection. Hope that helps.
Actually, that's the whole picture. The "smudge" is the indentation in the snow that the candy canes made when I was laying them down. Probably should've fixed that. Would SS reject a picture for "poor lighting" on that aspect?
Actually I think they might because it looks like a strange shadow, greasy fingers or editing mishap. Easy enough to fix anyway And, Lisafx is making perfect sense as always.
221
« on: February 02, 2009, 16:15 »
So, what would you recommend? You already know what equipment I have (camera/lenses)....should I wait for the 5D Mark II and not have any money for anything else?
Actually I'm with Epixx on this one. Your cam is great, and I suspect it's your workflow that's to blame for your noise problem. Can you really justify for a top-notch cam from your stock income? I can't to be honest, and I'm not too shy to tell. I'm happy for now with my D200 and although I like to dream of a D3x, my name is not Sean Locke nor Avava nor Yuri Arcurs.
Before you spend any money, try to master your cam and workflow better first. Photoshop won't solve any noise problems if it's in the image. Raw is great for high-dynamic range shots, but for normal shots JPG is faster and it handles the sensor data well. Just make sure you turn off all the in-cam manipulations like sharpening and color-boost, and - of course - save JPG fine or top quality.
If you don't want to buy Photoshop, consider PS elements, which is cheap and can do most. Since you didn't use PS yet, consider using the Open Source (free) tool GIMP. It seems to be equivalent to Photoshop.
So, are you saying to put it on Standard and not allow any sharpening or saturation? I tend to get very dull images and have to boost the color when I use that setting. What if I just used some saturation but didn't do any in-camera sharpening? The problem is, my images never look very sharp without a little 'help'. I already use the best jpeg setting, so that is not a problem. I also seem to have some trouble with focus. I use auto focus, and even when I use the AF point on the part of the shot I want it to focus on, it doesn't come out tack sharp. I've tried doing manual focus, but that doesn't help...even though I have 20/20 vision.
I just looked in my rejection folder from SS and it looks like most of my pictures that were rejected due to noise are either HDR images or pictures taken by an older camera of mine. I'm still in the process of submitting pictures from past years as well as current. Focus, however, seems to be a problem even with my current 400D.
"Poor Lighting" seems to be my most common rejection. For a lot of my pictures, I can see where they would come up with. But this image I can't.
Hi Paula, Not to be critical, but one problem I see right off are the smudges. If you look at the middle pair of candycanes at the bottom where they criss-cross. There is a smudge tail coming off the bottom. Its looks like I can see more of the same in other parts of the image. Is this a 100% crop??? This might be cause for a rejection. Hope that helps.
222
« on: February 02, 2009, 14:32 »
I always over expose 2/3rd a stop to try and reduce the sky or shadow noise. You can recover most or all of the blown highlights in Adobe Camera Raw.
I found that trick too. Overexpose slightly, and you can recover most that's blown out in the raw (second development till the right edge of the histogram is flat) since it has a larger pixel depth than the JPEG. For clouds it's not a disaster even if you blown out the sunny edges, since you can always clone over that area at 15% from an area that has structure.
I'm totally on manual lately, and I look at the histogram. Even if you have to do a couple of trials, it always takes less time than selectively de-noise a sky in Photoshop.
Another trick that works on other smooth gradients like on faces (under the chin and the eyebrows) or in the folds of black business suits - is to paint over the noisy area with a smooth brush 15-20% and with a color that is slightly brigther (sampled in the neighborhood). I found out it's much better than de-noise since the crispness stays while de-noising, especially in skies, produces ugly blobs that are very conspicuous, plus you lose sharpness.
Recovering blown highlights in RAW sounds like a good reason to use it. I do use the paint brush technique, but my program probably doesn't do it as well as PS could. Do you use CS4? I have a hard time wanting to chunk down $700 for a program. 
Well, I guess it depends on your needs. If you spend a lot of time working on images and manipulating then its probably worth it. I have CS4 but still work in CS3 because its less buggy at this point. I like the RAW converter in CS4 though.
223
« on: February 02, 2009, 14:14 »
I always over expose 2/3rd a stop to try and reduce the sky or shadow noise. You can recover most or all of the blown highlights in Adobe Camera Raw.
I found that trick too. Overexpose slightly, and you can recover most that's blown out in the raw (second development till the right edge of the histogram is flat) since it has a larger pixel depth than the JPEG. For clouds it's not a disaster even if you blown out the sunny edges, since you can always clone over that area at 15% from an area that has structure.
I'm totally on manual lately, and I look at the histogram. Even if you have to do a couple of trials, it always takes less time than selectively de-noise a sky in Photoshop.
Amen to that The one thing that is really a pain is the perfect blue skies with no clouds. I am still pretty clueless on how to fix banding more frustrating than anything else. Don't always remember to get that second shot of just the sky by itself but working on it. will try your painting method, sounds interesting!! As of now I set up neat image under the "actions" menu so its just one button and then just paint it where there is noise and then adjust opacity.
224
« on: February 02, 2009, 13:21 »
I currently use a Canon Xti 400D. The noise on that camera is horrible, even at 100 ISO. I really want to upgrade BADLY!
I don't believe you. If you have bad noise at ISO 100 with the 400D, you should have a look at your exposure. I use a Nikon D80 for microstock, a camera that is supposed to make more noise than your 400D, and I haven't had a rejection for noise in ages.
There are many good reasons to upgrade to a 5D or 5DII, but noise at ISO100 is not one of them.
Agree. I had a 350D and now a 450D and there is no noticeable noise at ISO 100.
I can see the noise mostly in a plain blue sky. And since I'm a landscape photographer more than a stock photographer, it's a problem. I also get it with my infrared shots because of the longer exposures (sometimes 20 seconds). I would also like to do star trails, which are much longer exposures (30+ minutes) and the 400D would produce so much noise that the picture wouldn't look nice.
The noise is unavoidable in really dynamic light. A sensor cannot cover all stops of light. So, you can either use a neutral density filter or pick your poison with blown highlights or noise in the shadows. I always over expose 2/3rd a stop to try and reduce the sky or shadow noise. You can recover most or all of the blown highlights in Adobe Camera Raw. One day perhaps they will invent a camera that takes three simultaneous images at different exposures and blends them at the same time. Now that would be camera everyone would be exited about
225
« on: February 01, 2009, 23:08 »
I agree with cdwheatley & gostwyck: getting a used 5D will easily give you the biggest bang for the buck. On the downside, you'll only be able to make XL images on IS with it. As far as a vendor goes, I highly recommend B&H - go here to check out their used camera inventory.
On a semi-related note, here's on old post showing my income from XL and XXL images on IS. Is it worth upgrading solely to make larger images? I made 26% more by using an XXL camera, and I would have made 13% more by using an XL one - if your sales volume is large enough you can reach payback within one year.
Sharply, I believe you might be right. I have only been uploading xxl's for 6 months, so... probably better that I give it some time to see how it works out. thanks, I feel better now. Then again, would be feeling really good about things if I was smart enough to wait and buy the new 5d II ,with lens 24-70 f2.8 and 85 f1.2, for less than the 1ds.. must learn to exercise patience next time Paula, I think you might really enjoy the full frame of the 5d for landscape like gostwyck mentioned. Your 17-40 lens will seem like a whole new lens without the cropped sensor.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
