|
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 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20
351
« on: August 20, 2008, 12:36 »
I'm just curious as to why the default search doesn't seem to update much, or ever??
I see a lot of images sitting in the same slots in the search for more than a year. Sometimes entire series that still are not selling after a year or more. I have an image that sitting in the #3 slot under "beach" search for about a year and a half now. I would love to replace it with any of 200 or more images that will certainly sell better. I don't understand the search at all? very confused. Anyone else baffled by the dreamstime relevant search?
352
« on: August 18, 2008, 20:07 »
.
353
« on: August 16, 2008, 11:44 »
Voted. Great image! best of luck!
354
« on: August 15, 2008, 18:58 »
Does this mean its safe to go back in the water 
355
« on: August 13, 2008, 01:02 »
looks good to me nice shot! Its their loss. Maybe after staring at it for a while they didn't like the blur in the front? first thing I see though is the cool colors and the lemon.
356
« on: August 13, 2008, 00:45 »
30 sub sales
average .57
not bad considering next highest site is .38
357
« on: August 09, 2008, 19:35 »
Thanks for the link. Checked out Rob Galbraith's site (long read!!) Looks like there is still a problem with both models. Lucky for me I don't shoot action. If I was a sports or wildlife shooter I would probably want the mkII as well unless they can fix the tracking issue. I will say I have yet to see a problem shooting still subjects.
358
« on: August 09, 2008, 15:25 »
Thats interesting, can you post a link?. Thats the first I have heard or read about focus problems with the 1Ds..The way I understand it they fixed the issue before they released the 1Ds. The only issue I have heard about with 1Ds is that some models were shipping with crooked viewfinders.
359
« on: August 09, 2008, 11:14 »
Here is a fantastic analysis of the AF concerns by Rob Galbraith:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068
Under certain conditions, the camera is unable to properly track a moving subject. We've shot numerous sequences of 20+ frames where no more than five or six frames are in focus, even when the AF point has been on the subject throughout.
Many claim the problems have been rectified with the firmware upgrades. Others aren't so sure. Very interesting reading.
FYI I was able to acquire a used Mark IIn from a reliable sports shooter on the Fred Miranda boards. I cannot wait for football season!
The article is about the 1d not the 1ds. I have only used it in one shot mode but it seems to focus better than my 5d. Especially locking onto shadow areas on bright sunny day. I had a few focus points on the 5d that were useless in this situation, very frustrating. I haven't had this problem with the 1ds yet.
360
« on: August 07, 2008, 16:29 »
At iso 100 pixel for pixel noise, the 1Ds is about the same as 5d possibly slightly better than 5d. If you downsized 1d file to 12.9mp it would not even be close. The autofocus is better on 1ds. The color transitions in blue polarized skies are smoother with less banding.
16 bit tiff files are a 120mb so a fast computer is important. Dust removal is working perfectly so far. The available focus points are a little more centered than I would like, other than that its an awesome camera.
Battery life is insane!! I think I went like 3 days without a charge. Not sure at this point why I bought an extra battery.
361
« on: August 07, 2008, 11:22 »
I think part of the problem is where new images end up in the search on the first day. If you start off on page 3 there is a good chance the image will get buried in week. If you get 10-20 downloads on the first day, there is a much greater chance of longevity.
Then again, if its a really good image its possible to come back from the abyss. If the image is just average, its almost always doomed if it gets bad positioning on the first day. So, with more and more content being added daily it gets tougher to get positioning. This is just what I've observed watching my own port.
362
« on: August 06, 2008, 23:02 »
As others have mentioned. I think it is important to look at the big picture and not go along with something that will surely harm our future. Sometimes that may mean losing a few bucks for the greater good of the community.
It was really great to see so many contributers ready or willing to take one on the chin to protect all our livelyhoods, very grateful for that!!.
I'm sure this won't be the last time something like this happens and its good to know so many have their heads screwed on tight. Great community.
363
« on: August 06, 2008, 13:12 »
Agree, this looks pretty good. just got 2 sales for 2.85 each which is pretty much on par with everywhere else. I hope this just the beginning of plans to offer a pay per download system??
364
« on: August 05, 2008, 02:29 »
I agree that opting in is a bad idea. We need to keep the prices moving in the right direction. No one is going to look out for us except for us.
365
« on: August 04, 2008, 20:09 »
.
366
« on: August 04, 2008, 14:37 »
Nice!! Congrats!!
367
« on: August 03, 2008, 19:31 »
IS 51% down
SS 22% down
FT 12% BME
STX 6% down
DT 5% down
123 3% BME
BigStock 1% down
368
« on: July 29, 2008, 11:42 »
It would be nice if we could set up some sort of union to protect the contributers interests. If you could get the top 5000? shooters to buy into it maybe their collective voice could make a difference. I'm sure this has been mentioned before. I bet there are many contributers that would be more than happy to pay a monthly or annual fee just to have a little piece of mind. All of us want to make money owners/contributers, we just need a little represention from our side.
369
« on: July 27, 2008, 20:26 »
I hope the EL for 30 cents is something they will change? Nobody benefits if everyone pulls their port. It would be interesting to see a show of hands for how many contributers favor this move. Not many I suppose. Subs are bad enough.
370
« on: July 25, 2008, 14:57 »
I just bought one today along with a 70-200L is looking forward to the increased dynamic range and being able to crop and still have an xxl size. Have to wait till wed though for delivery 
371
« on: July 20, 2008, 02:06 »
I think if you are going to shoot flowers and skies maybe brighten up the mood a little. Try some sunny happy skies instead of storms. I don't shoot flowers but I'm guessing that most of the images are used in positive light. Personally I like storms but probably a tougher sell for stock. I haven't had much luck with somber skies. Also, taking some of the black out of the images might help also, hard to say. Very nice images though!! Keep experimenting and you will find something that works better for stock. Just my own personal opinion. Having many more images will also help quite a bit.
372
« on: July 18, 2008, 19:26 »
Not to sure how uploading to new sites helps us. Wouldn't the competition between the sites just drive prices down? If there are 3 guys on the block selling the same t-shirts they can probably charge a fair price or higher price providing the demand is high. If there are 100 guys on the block selling the same t-shirts then what happens?..... Thats right! We get screwed  . Is this logic flawed? Also, I've noticed on certain sites that have lower prices I tend to sell XL's in bunches, sometimes with very few views and many downloads. This tells me that people are shopping at site A and buying at site B. Can't just be coincidence.
373
« on: July 17, 2008, 01:21 »
caspixel? is that you? 
374
« on: July 08, 2008, 14:29 »
http://photo.net/nature-photography-forum/006BTuHere is another forum discussion I found on this topic. Few years old but interesting anyway. It would be nice to see the wider format gain more support, if no one prints at that size it will never happen.
375
« on: July 08, 2008, 12:04 »
Its a tough question. They do offer frames, matting, foamcore, sleeves to fit an 8x12 just a little harder to find and a little more expensive. Personally I think it looks nicer. Maybe as demand grows for 2X3 it will become more commonplace, wishful thinking of course I chose 8X12 because I have a 2X3 camera. If I went with the standard 8X10 I would put tape on the viewfinder.
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
