|
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 - null
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 63
326
« on: April 18, 2009, 04:42 »
What's a "tripod'?  
327
« on: April 18, 2009, 00:42 »
LOL you are right. I can see the flow of designers searching for blown out pictures because of the mighty recession Haha Yes and the carbon footprint, global warming and other replacements for the boogieman that make us swallow higher taxes. That's one of the secrets of Yuri Arcurs' success on billboards: his shots are very light and high key. In times where they like to tell us that every Google click will make the sea level rise by 1m, you shouldn't underestimate the contribution of less barrels of print ink in saving the planet. 
328
« on: April 17, 2009, 23:56 »
These are stock pictures, not fine art. Can you imagine them blown up on a billboard with the reflections six foot tall? Well it would certainly save on print ink.
329
« on: April 14, 2009, 06:59 »
And there is nothing wrong with being able to see reflected stuff going on in the studio or location. I always wondered... on all my cropped closeup portraits outdoors, with focus on the eyes, I can clearly recognize myself in the reflection of the black cornea/pupil of the model. Would I need to upload a model release of myself too?
330
« on: April 14, 2009, 05:50 »
I'd love to hear the free info, but there is no link anywhere where the videos are. So where are they? If you want my postal home address, no thanks. Just put a link online to the free material so we can judge.
331
« on: April 14, 2009, 00:04 »
Hm, in the video - is that your livingroom? Or bedroom? A dirty mind is a joy forever
332
« on: April 13, 2009, 23:59 »
Sigh. Like in Eleanor Rigby: All those stupid people, where do they all come from? What's next? A Nigerian banker with a deceased uncle, a virgin from Elbonia fell in love with my underwear shots on Facebook, or a secret and successful method for guaranteed p@n@s enlargement? 
333
« on: April 13, 2009, 20:49 »
To do so, you have to bring a polar bear from north pole to south pole and then take pictures of the bear eating penguins. I think a polar bear under a palm tree with Palin serving cevapcici would sell much better.
334
« on: April 13, 2009, 20:43 »
335
« on: April 13, 2009, 15:06 »
I hope iStock look after this guy in some way They do (sealed lips).
336
« on: April 13, 2009, 14:54 »
I take a ton of pictures of family members and pets, which are useless as stock. Not at all. Family and generation images in a natural environment are sought after in stock. You just have to "direct" your models well, so they look cheering and happy, or inclusive and caring. Just go to any stock site and look for "family" and check the best selling shots for ideas. Everybody has to start, but you might try some easier subjects before people shots, where you have to divide your attention between your cam and the people. Your cam mastering should be automatic in people's situations. Or you can try all possible settings in the environment when the models are not there yet, then just keep those settings. Look carefully at the histogram and zoom in to 100% on the LCD (if your cam has one) to check for lighting and focus. If not, just halt the shoot, and look at a laptop at 100%, then adjust if necessary. You also need some basic digital photography tutorials, like cambridgeincolour and Photoshop tutorials. There are many online if you Google for it. There are a lot of good stuff, how to handle/guide models, and Photoshop tricks on Youtube too.
337
« on: April 13, 2009, 14:43 »
I don't have one yet but I am seriously considering it. The reviews I've read on this lens have been very favorable. For stock, lenses like that have a far too wide range > color aberration - vignetting - softness - speed. Stock has much higher technical requirements for the image than assignment or editorial, even print. You're better off with a 50mm prime for models, and something 100-300 for tele. You can replace the prime by 18-50 or 18-70 when you like landscape and models both. One size doesn't fit all in stock, alas.
338
« on: April 13, 2009, 14:34 »
I must say that Fotomina has something good if they have got funding from Tekes (In next years list of funded companies we can check the amount they got). I guess every government has funding schemes like that. I worked on research funds before, and it was just a lot of paperwork to write the projects. Implementation and marketing were never funded. For that you needed to team up with a private partner. In the mean time I hooked up with "Sat" in private, and I know a bit more. He's a nice chap, but he has a lot of tough work ahead. I won't comment in public any more from now on, since that would be unethical, but I'm sure they deserve a chance. Time will tell whether they can stand the hard competition and the rat race. Chances are virtually zero, but as William of Orange said: Point n'est besoin desprer pour entreprendre ni de russir pour persvrer (no need for any hope to start, no need for success to go on).
339
« on: April 13, 2009, 06:49 »
Ofcourse you knew him Flemish No, not. I just Googled  Well you don't have to apologize since I had the same initial reaction. But the "slant" got my attention I was born far too curious, sigh. And you know what happened to the curious cat.
340
« on: April 13, 2009, 06:44 »
Plus to be honest I'm interested in the uploading part of deepmeta and looking at their timescales that's not going to be implemented till 05/2009  It happens that I knew the guy as he is in Brussels too and we started around the same time at iStock. He has a small design company that's run very well, with top software products. Apparently he has been looking for a framework that supports both Mac and Windows, with most of the code on top of it. Probably because he missed some market share as the established designer's world is still predominantly Mac. I just guess that Deepmeta (which is free) has to share his time spent on porting other products. If anyone can do it, it's certainly him. I happen to know he has small kids so he probably took some time off during the local Easter break here, which ends tomorrow. I'm sure he will produce results as soon as he is able to.
341
« on: April 13, 2009, 06:22 »
Me too, but we need a model release for it, I mean her mobile number .. I hear you. Well I planned some shoots with "slants" later this month, but when I upload her MRF to you, I will make sure the cellphone number on there is the one of her very jealous boyfriend.
342
« on: April 13, 2009, 06:18 »
when we not even know you? He is an illustrator on Dreamstime. So that makes him a colleague, not just a spammer. Of course he got my vote, I hope he wins his trip.
343
« on: April 13, 2009, 06:08 »
Whether he's new here or not doesn't bother me, the eiffel tower being on a slant does though! I voted for this one. I like the slant there much better! (I wasn't talking about the horizon)
344
« on: April 13, 2009, 05:41 »
I think the Eiffeltower by night is copyrighted. It is. But it's allowed only as editorial on DT. About 100 of those online there. Every tourist that passes by Paris rushes at the photo op spot in large cohorts, and takes the faut faire shot of it. I wouldn't call it exactly an original travel photo.
345
« on: April 13, 2009, 05:21 »
I wish they'd hurry up and get the Mac version working! " The first test version of DeepMeta for Mac OS X is now online!" : Link
346
« on: April 12, 2009, 23:20 »
What's "LCV"? Low Commercial Value.
347
« on: April 12, 2009, 23:17 »
very true! Some does better then others. It is easier to upload to.I would like to see some consistency. I like the Hamburger-flipping criterion a lot Istock makes me about the same per year, but it takes 20x the upload time. That's 40hrs per year. Well, even if I have the images ready and keyworded, it's a loss to upload to iStock for me since I get less out of it than flipping Hamburgers during that time. That's not emotional at all, it's just logic.
348
« on: April 12, 2009, 20:10 »
I've been with them well over a year with very little increase in sales. 3 in feb,1 in march,and nothing in april as of yet. Ouch. You can not deduce trends from a number like that. I just looked and I had a meager 24$ there till now in April. Apparently, mileage may vary. Let's assume 30$/month, that's still 360$ per year. Easy upload, no categories, model release added in bulk. For those 360$ earned in a couple of hours per year, I can't go flip hamburgers.
349
« on: April 12, 2009, 19:56 »
Everyone who's found it difficult to delete or disable their photos on a stock site, please post. I'm taking names. Crestock, Albumo.
350
« on: April 12, 2009, 19:48 »
@ FlemishDreams:
I am not reviewer on Dreamstime ;-) I hardly suspected you of that, Milinz, since with about the same number of uploads on Dreamstime as me, you have not even 1/3'th of my downloads there. I'm doing very badly on iStock, because, as you hinted in private, I'm a crap photographer. But yet, with 83 times more downloads on Istock as your amazing # of 17 downloads there, it remains a sort of mystery to me where some people get all that testosterone that isn't matched by meat. And now, you kindly have to excuse me. I just got things to do. So I'm sorry if it means a plonk. Enjoy those cevapcici always, but as Clivia said, they look like poo.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 63
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
, I had a couple run away from the BBQ last weekend 
