|
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 - araminta
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14
226
« on: May 28, 2008, 02:46 »
Un autre petit Suisse (mais un d'origine cette fois) de suisse romande prs de Lausanne. Et non, je ne suis pas un amateur de hockey non plus 
227
« on: May 25, 2008, 18:25 »
POV-Ray is an old classic!! But not for the faint of heart 
228
« on: May 25, 2008, 18:19 »
Same for me: why not an answer for Premium Members ;-)
229
« on: April 23, 2008, 15:24 »
I've started doing photo, then 3D now I'm also starting vectors.
As I enjoy all these techniques (for different reasons), I will continue doing all of them because I think that if quality is the most important quality for a portfolio (sic), diversity is the second one and quantity the third.
The advantage of 3D and vector is that "objects" you create are easily reusable: the bigger your library of objects is, the easier and faster you are able to produce new pictures.
Another advantage is that the only limitation with vectors and 3D is your imagination... and your skills.
As a conclusion, I would say that if you can produce photo and vectors, you should not limit yourself to only one technique as it is an advantage you have compared to most contributors who are either good at photo, vector or 3D.
Now, concerning your portfolio, I think that your photo are not very stock oriented (animals, landscape) while your vectors are (icons): this is also one of the reason you have far more success with your vectors IMHO.
230
« on: April 21, 2008, 12:32 »
You definitively have rough edges in your isolation. You should learn to use the pen tool in Photoshop: this is the simplest way to produce good isolation! And you will not get rejection for isolations if you keep the shadow: I have many isolations and always keep the shadow without any rejection for this reason. I even create 3D isolation with a shadow on purpose 
231
« on: April 20, 2008, 15:15 »
Contakt,
You have a unique sense of humor that runs parallel to mine.
I'm living in a country where nobody would find anything funny in Contakt's post. I guess we are not living in the same country The MIZ. Even though I'm sure it was an attempt at humor it comes across as a personal attack.
It's not a personal attack: it's an attack against a group of people based on their origin. There is a word for that I think. What a pity to see such comment here.
232
« on: April 20, 2008, 06:18 »
I think my post was incomplete but I never said I have a solution for vectors. I was referring to photography and my solution still stands for it. Anyway no agency would go for it because it would decrease their income and increase traffic.
PS: By the way selling vectors for .25 never looked like a good idea to me
Not all photographers shoot in RAW (not all camera have this option). Moreover, RAW is like the old negative: I don't want to give my RAW files to an agency even if it is not available for sale. And RAW don't apply to 3D and composite photo. Not a very good idea IMHO 
233
« on: April 20, 2008, 06:12 »
Do you agree or do you think I'm some sort of pompous a**hole on an ego trip.
My answers to both questions were terse and to the point. 1. Almost agree. 2. Skip this one I think that people have or don't have a "sense of aesthetic" and that you cannot learn it.
235
« on: April 19, 2008, 04:50 »
http://www.compfight.com/Why would you even think of putting stock ready pics on Flickr. People won't buy them because they already have them. The copyright notices mean nothing there in today's world, making it a big dash and grab. And yes, even businesses have done it.
My point of view is that any business or person who choose to steal a photo instead of buying it will never buy it. Buyer will thus not steal pictures and thieves will not buy pictures
236
« on: April 19, 2008, 04:31 »
If you take the buyer point of view who buys a stolen photo, he may get into trouble if the actual copyright holder sue him. I think that it is thus very important for all microstock agencies to do whatever necessary to prevent copyright infringement from photo they sell: this is just a smart business practice. It's up to them do decide whether they ask their reviewers to check this point, but you have to remember that it is already the case as a photo will be rejected for copyright infringement if it contains a logo, a copyrighted building or design etc. It seems quite logical to me to check also for stolen photo at review time. Concerning the case you are talking about here, it was quite obvious that some photo were stolen from very well known microstock contributors (Misha, Kristy Pargeter and the second best all-time earner at SS). Any reviewer who know the microstock business, and I hope they know it, should have noticed that point and should have raised the red flag. Now, from the contributor point of view, it is in our own interest to inform the agency whenever we see such situation. We do not have any legal responsibility or direct interest, but you have to see the big picture: buyers will no longer purchase photos at agencies which allow stolen photo to be sold for their own interest and it is bad for everybody, including the thief
237
« on: April 18, 2008, 18:10 »
The MIZ, thanks for sharing your sense of humor and your wisdom.
You can now go make more images.... please.
239
« on: April 18, 2008, 15:29 »
The only way I can justify it is maybe these guys work for an animation company and they worked together while modelling that bank vault so it belongs to all of them!!??
But what about the florals and japanese images???
Kristy Pargeter is one of the most famous microstocker... do you think she works in the same animation company? 
240
« on: April 18, 2008, 15:12 »
This guy is just trying to get money by selling pictures taken by others.
It's not about being inspired by others (as I am quite often), or even using some copyrighted artwork to build his own picture (a font, a shape, a silhouette etc.), it's just about downloading tons of commercial stock photos and trying to make money by seling them.
This is just plain stupid and he just get caught.
I know The MIZ that you do not sell your photos for the earnings (at least you pretend so) and I guess you don't care if someone just take your photo to build his own portfolio.
But I care.
241
« on: April 18, 2008, 13:44 »
Has anyone reported this person to Admin at Dreamstime? If not I'll do it - we really shouldn't allow people to get away with this.
I sent a message to DT, yes.
242
« on: April 18, 2008, 11:54 »
As he was french (the guy), an old tv program passed in his memory "burger quizz", quiet fun program ! Ah, Canal+, Alain Chabat... cool en effet ;-) Bonne chance pour PixBurger, mais la lutte sera dure j'en ai peur.
243
« on: April 18, 2008, 11:20 »
244
« on: April 15, 2008, 06:43 »
Many people prefer the nikon r1c1 style thingy with two flashes on the sides (I think there is a canon equiv.?) http://www.usa.canon.com/html/cameras_speedlite/mt24ex.htmlI don't have one, but I've recently purchased an ultra-macro lens (Canon MP-E 65mm) and I think I will have to purchase one soon
245
« on: April 14, 2008, 07:38 »
They will not reject mixed media: my all time best earner is a very simple mix of a photo and some photoshop elements. Concerning vectors, I have myself tried to submit some of them recently and I even succeed in becoming a IS contributor (after three attempts) My goal is not to become a master in vector art (because I'm afraid don't have the artistic skills), but to be skilled enough to produce simple vectors suitable for stock. The idea is to know enough all the main techniques which can be used to produce stock images (photo, bitmap illustrations, 3D and vector) as it is important IMHO to have a portfolio as diversified as possible. But as many explain you, vector illustration is definitively not an easy technique especially because you have to upload EPS 8 compatible files (no transparency, drop shadow, no open path, no strokes etc.)
246
« on: April 11, 2008, 10:34 »
SS 1
IS 1
StockXpert 0.8
FT 0.5
DRM 0.5
123RF 0.1
BS 0.1
247
« on: April 10, 2008, 14:02 »
I highly, highly doubt that the new Rebel will be useful for stock in any ISO other than 100.
You should not. I've a 350D and I never get any rejection due to noise issue. I shot mostly at ISO100-200 and sometimes at ISO400. I agree that you may have problems at ISO800 with the 3 year old 350D, but with the brand new 450D and it new DIGIC III processor, I bet it should be OK. Do you really think that all that skys at SS have been shot with a $2000 camera?
248
« on: April 10, 2008, 13:26 »
to add to what waldo4 said..
The advantage that the full frame gives the 5D is less noise. Because it is a full frame sensor there is a lot more room for all the pixels to fit in. When the pixels are tightly packed like on a Rebel (with a 1.6x crop factor) or even worse on a point and shoot, the image quality suffers in the form of noise True but false  Agree 200% for non-DSLR: noise is horrible, but those camera are aimed at people who most of the time do not even see that there is noise in this blue sky Manufacturer do not put a lot of (expensive) technology in those models to reduce the noise. For DSLR, the size of the photosites is not the whole story. The EOS-1Ds Mark III has a 21Mp 36x24mm sensor and the 350D a 8Mp 22x15mm sensor: the "pixels" are almost the same size on both camera, but I guess (hope) that the noise is less present on the brand new $8000 Mark III compared to the 3 years old $500 Rebel. We also have to take into account other technologies and post-processing aimed at reducing the noise and Canon is strong here. Some example of High ISO (1600) photos taken with the 450D are available here http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos450d_preview/and this new camera seems to produce quite good photos even at ISO1600 http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/photo.aspx?gallery=canoneos450d_preview&photo=15In fact, I HATE the noise and it would be probable the only reason for me to spend that much money on a full frame. But I'm not convinced on the true advantage on a full frame here. At least not an advantage which is worth several thousands of dollars.
249
« on: April 10, 2008, 10:08 »
The advantage of having a full frame is undeniable. Could you tell me more about that? Apart from specific needs (robustness) and personal preference, what are the undeniable advantages of a full frame over an APS-C? Especially when we talk about a quite old full frame model (5D) and a brand new 450D which get some features the 5D does not have (14bits processing, DIGIC III, Live View, integrated cleaning system). I know that a 450D may seems like a toy compared with the 5D when you hold it, but is there any advantage in purchasing a $2500 full frame from a picture quality point of view? I dont' think so, but I'm interested in your opinion.
250
« on: April 10, 2008, 09:19 »
It's time to spend some of the money I've earned in microstock
I did that and bought the 5D! Didn't see the point in upgrading from a 1.6x crop to a 1.6x crop. Full frame is sooooo much more lovely!
I don't see any clear advantage in a 5D compared to a 450D when I consider my own needs. I don't need a robust body and the 5D is twice heavier and a lot more expensive that the 450D. Moreover, I have EF-S lenses which are not compatible with a full frame. And I don't see the point in purchasing a more expensive camera only because it is more lovely
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
