|
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 - rachell
26
« on: October 01, 2006, 11:22 »
I see so many of the photos at the microstock sites include models, and I wanted to know how you go about finding them (are they all friends and relatives?), how much you pay them (who knows if you'll ever recoup this expense), and do they ever act weird about signing the model release forms?
27
« on: September 25, 2006, 22:32 »
I agree with your 'rambling option'  I also think there will always be a market for the photographers who don't want to 'devalue' their work. If they've already built up their clientele, they will most likely keep them; There will always be the businesses who want a customized, original photo; And the macrostocks are available. Another option is for them is to specialize -- I am mainly a wine industry photographer taking pictures of vineyards, grapes, wineries, and the wine making process. The microstock sites are a great place for me to sell my work until I get enough to form my own Wine Industry stock site -- if it wasn't for microstock these pictures would just be collecting dust.
28
« on: September 25, 2006, 09:28 »
I have heard the disdain with which many photographers hold microstock sites, and this just sounds like a lot of the same. (Isn't this site done by photographers for photographers?) I bet the photographers who disdain microstock sites have this luxury because they are already making a comfortable living from their work. I wonder if they would keep these principles if they weren't bringing any money in.
29
« on: September 24, 2006, 12:48 »
It always amazes me the number of people who don't do this basic experimentation when entering the world of SLR photography. It's even easier now with digital SLRs. Hope you got a couple of good pics of your boys and the dog! Its not that I haven't wanted to experiment, its just that I was feeling so overwhelmed by all the variables.
30
« on: September 23, 2006, 14:48 »
I was inspired after reading your posts last night (not to mention you helped me to understand a little more about the processes) so I made my poor sons model while I took 20 million pictures of them in the same pose using a ton of different settings. (They got smart -- after about 20 minutes of this they substituted the dog for themselves while I was changing the setting on the camera)
Besides showing me ways to make the picture better, it also showed there is an almost mind-boggling amount of variables!
31
« on: September 22, 2006, 22:27 »
This does help a lot! I've already started playing around with my camera.
Do any of you have favorite settings for daylight, indoor, product, twilight?
32
« on: September 22, 2006, 20:57 »
I'm currently shooting large jpeg -- will shooting raw help to clear my photos up even more? And how difficult is it to work with raw files? (I have Photoshop CS)
33
« on: September 22, 2006, 18:18 »
outside it will generally always work, inside it will generally never work.
what lenses do you have?
If you don't have it allready, a fun little lens (and cheap) is This One - 50 1.8 Since it has an aperature as wide as 1.8, it can shoot is pretty dark situations.
OK, so the darker your shooting environment is, the wider you want the aperature? And the higher the ISO? So 100 ISO and a low aperature setting is good for well-lit situations, and maybe 400 ISO for dark? I know I've deviated from the original noise post, but this information is priceless to me. And you are putting it in such a way that I can understand -- unlike the manual 
34
« on: September 22, 2006, 17:19 »
I can't thank you guys enough for all the information! I had read through the manual, but until I had my own examples to apply it to it wasn't really coming together for me. Now that I know what to look for, I'm going back over it and applying the settings you mention. One other question -- will an ISO of 100 work with most shooting situations?
35
« on: September 22, 2006, 16:25 »
How accurate are the standard settings the camera comes with? (I have Canon Rebel XT) I usually use the standard settings (unless I'm shooting in the studio) and actually have a very steady hand -- I thought the pictures I submitted to Shutterstock were noise free and they were accepted everywhere else. (I'm not disputing their verdict, they just made me realize I need to look more closely at my pictures.) I checked one of their rejected photos and now that I know what to look for, I spotted the noise -- but I think it is very slight. Could you guys possibly check out one of the photos and let me know if I'm correct in thinking its a slight amount of noise? Or if I've deluded myself and need a lot of work? I put the photo here http://www.rachellcoe.com/grapes.htm (Its at 100% so you can see what ShutterStock saw) If the noise is only very slight, would I be better off using the noise software than changing my camera settings?
36
« on: September 22, 2006, 15:06 »
NeatImage - but I don't use it anymore because it softens the images. I found out that if I shoot at 100 with a tripod, the pictures remain sharp and are not rejected.
I am inexperienced where shooting settings are concerned (frankly, they overwhelm me). When you say 100 -- that is in regards to the ISO, correct? Are there any negative results to shooting at that low a setting? If so what should I look out for? Unfortunately I can't use a tripod -- I need to move around way to much.
37
« on: September 22, 2006, 11:39 »
I just had a bunch of photos rejected at ShutterStock because of 'Noise'. I hear this is a common problem at ShutterStock, and since I want to be included in their database I'm willing to jump through the hoops.
What are some of the good noise reduction software? These particular photos I hadn't thought had noise, so I didn't even use Photoshop's noise filter -- how do the 'professional' noise filters compare to the Photoshop noise filter that comes with the program?
Thanks!
38
« on: September 18, 2006, 10:29 »
I know about Corbis, GettyImages and Alamy, but what are some of the other Macro Stock heavy hitters?
39
« on: September 09, 2006, 14:32 »
I took a lot of concert photography over the summer, and was thinking of selling them at Shutterstock (from all my research, it looks like Shutterstock is the best one). Of course I would have to mark them as editorial since the faces are clearly visible. The photos I have are of Dierks Bently, Ani Defranco, Floater, Cowboy Junkies, Death Cab for Cutie, etc -- so I have some major names. Would these even really sell? If not, do any of you have ideas as to where they would sell? Here is an example of one of the pictures: 
40
« on: September 08, 2006, 17:21 »
Hi! I saw on some of the other posts they were selling on Alamy, but it is not in the top 5 list -- is it a good stock place to sell to? If so, they offer two plans: you get 65% commission and pay no storage fees, or you get 75% commission and pay 10 cents per photo per month for storage. Which of these plans is the better choice?
41
« on: September 08, 2006, 16:04 »
That is exactly what I was looking for!!!! Thank you so much!!!
42
« on: September 08, 2006, 15:40 »
I'm one of those people who is very smart at anything creative, but understanding the legalities of who owns the rights to a photo once its been submitted and accepted by a stock photo company is beyond me. I was hoping one of you could answer a couple of questions regarding this? And hopefully answer it in in idiotese?
If a stock photo company like Dreamstime accepts my submitted photos, does this mean they now own the image and I can't sell or use it anymore? If not, can I submit the same image to several stock companies?
Also, what has worked better for you guys -- Royalty Free or Extended License?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
