|
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 - Difydave
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 24
401
« on: January 27, 2014, 15:54 »
The thing that will kill most modern cameras long term will be unavailability of batteries at a guess. Can't see them being available as demand drops off. Dead battery = dead camera.
They're throw away items though. Even the most expensive and up to date. There was a guy at a big car boot I went to a couple of Summers ago. He was a well off amateur at a guess. He'd got several older Canon DSLR bodies, mostly mid range type just chucked on the table with a pile of other crap. No lenses or body caps on them. He'd finished with them. End of!
402
« on: January 04, 2014, 07:14 »
The newer Pentax system is amazing. My old k-x always had dust but my k-5 has over 35,000 actuations and never been cleaned, k-5IIs is over 10,000 and no dust. And I change lenses a lot.
Just went over a batch of 48 for Alamy looking for dust spots and found: zero.
Same here. I'm still on the K5 but it's fairly dust free. Haven't needed to wet clean it yet at well over 10,000. Have blown it out a few times though.
403
« on: December 15, 2013, 09:12 »
I think you are making a mistake in "trying to get the histogram even". It all depends on what sort of light was around at the time and what colour the subject is, histograms are not "one size fits all".
Also, a crow on a big patch of ground with nothing else to it is likely to have a reviewer looking for a reason to reject it. What use would that picture be to someone wanting to send a message in an advert?
That just about sums it up IMO. There's no real practical way to see exactly what the colour balance of an image is from the histogram. You can get a bit of an idea maybe, but that's all. Far better to do it by eye with a decent calibrated monitor set up. FWIW I normally shoot auto WB outdoors, and find that 90% of the time that does it. Might occasionally need to warm up or cool down an image a bit. Also sorry to say that I agree with the comment about subject. Small in frame common subject, dead centre on a lot of distracting background hardly makes compelling stock. Whether it gets accepted or not it's unlikely to make many sales.
404
« on: December 14, 2013, 08:15 »
I've taken the down four which look nearest to the ones in the article and am considering a few others in the 'grey area' and will send a PR for my own house. It turned out I had fewer than I thought, and luckily the ones I deactivated either never sold or had few sales, so no problem for me; that won't be the same for others.
I also have a very few 'architectural details' which don't look generic but which I changed in PS, and guess I'll have to root out the originals.
I'm not a lawyer, and it's certainly not worth it to me to check it out with an international lawyer, but certainly 'unreleased single houses without releases' will soon be a 'category' of images they don't accept, but agree their lawyers could twist that any which way. Their agreements are deliberately kept vague for exactly that purpose.
Anyway, a while back, there was another category of deactivations which would have affected me a bit more, so I wrote to the admin who had announced that change of policy, asking if I could submit them elsewhere and he said, in theory yes; but why would I want to risk legal action? I wrote back with specifics on my images showing why they were not a risk. Whether because of these details or whether they just haven't got round to it yet (after several years, at least two), these images are still on iStock.
As you did in the previous case, the only real way to know if something is allowed is to check with them. My images were either low/no sales, or had slowed right off, so I didn't see any great loss in deactivating. I can see that this could be really bad news for some people though.
405
« on: December 14, 2013, 07:45 »
I think the bigger question will be if exclusives will be permitted to take this content and sell it elsewhere once it has been deactivated. If not, then it could leave some people in a very bad situation who have already invested a lot of time and money to create these shots.
If they feel that it is safe to sell these images, it would seem that they are permitted to sell them elsewhere, per the EASA:
"2 Provision of Exclusive Content
a In this Agreement, "Exclusive Content" ... shall not include ... (4) Content that is of a category not currently offered for sale by iStockphoto"
"Content that is of a category not currently offered for sale by iStockphoto" will include, very shortly, unreleased house exteriors.
I'd always read that "category" to mean a type of content. ie logos, or editorial illustrations that aren't offered. Later on in the agreement there are other mentions of "category" which would tend to reinforce this view. I could well be wrong, but it shows how all this is open to interpretation, and so (expensive) legal argument. I didn't have any great selling house shots. Just one or two reasonable ones and a fair few less good. I've taken them down. If iStock aren't happy about the risk then neither am I. Apart from any IP considerations, you have to wonder about the issue of privacy for people living in a particular house.
406
« on: December 04, 2013, 06:57 »
The Gimp has a calendar maker script that produces overlays. http://registry.gimp.org/node/20193Put the script in the "scripts" directory under user if you're using Windows. To change the font colour, you need to change it in the text "tool options" window first, also use "export" to your preferred format, rather than "save".
407
« on: November 30, 2013, 05:49 »
The thing is that what you are talking about doing might not be all that simple in tax terms. There seem to be an awful lot of "what ifs" in there to me.
I think you will at least need to talk to an accountant before doing anything. The rules about one thing or another can change from year to year. The HMRC call centres will answer the questions you ask, but may not answer the questions you should ask. (If you see what I mean.)
I pay about the same as ShadySue to an accountant. He checks all my figures and does an online tax return for me. He gives me advice if I ever need it. Money well spent for peace of mind IMHO.
408
« on: November 29, 2013, 06:02 »
As bunhill says it has to be in the exact format they require. Think of it like typing a password. Near enough won't do. I would also agree with the advice to break it down into a couple of sentences, and make sure the sentences read OK. Apart from the rules, the caption could make the difference between having a sale or not. Short and to the point, with no repetition but with all the relevant information will do it.
409
« on: November 26, 2013, 06:46 »
Just a technicality maybe, but the Country should just be "Wales" shouldn't it?
Don't exactly repeat what you have as a title or description, and don't assume that something is happening that isn't actually shown in the photo.
It has to be 'town, Wales, UK'. And in fact, they'll accept just 'town,UK'.
For a while I got wrong rejections for putting 'town,Scotland, UK', (some inspectors mistakenly thought it should be only 'UK') but now all the inspectors seem to be toeing the official line on that.
I have also had some accepted with 'county, Scotland, UK' where it is an open countryside photo.
That's worth knowing Liz. Thanks. I put "town, Cornwall, UK" on shots taken down here, and they have been accepted OK. I usually put the nearest town on open countryside shots.
410
« on: November 26, 2013, 06:22 »
Just a technicality maybe, but the Country should just be "Wales" shouldn't it?
Don't exactly repeat what you have as a title or description, and don't assume that something is happening that isn't actually shown in the photo.
411
« on: November 19, 2013, 07:16 »
Unless it's changed, and as far as I can see it hasn't, then the standards for initial application shots are still as high as they ever were.
Apart from technical ability, you need to show an understanding of what makes a stock shot, and be able to show some sort of concept.
Follow the advice already given.
The shots Ron suggests look like a good bet as long as they're technically OK.
412
« on: October 15, 2013, 05:07 »
Just to check, there are lots of trigger voltages for different flash units here http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.htmlAFAIK older flashes should work fine with modern cameras as long as the trigger voltage is low enough. You obviously don't get "Auto" though. If it's not firing try a lower shutter speed. 1/125th.
413
« on: October 05, 2013, 10:59 »
A rocket blower is all I've ever used on my K20 or the K5 I have now. I try to blow the dust "downwards" away from the prism. Don't blow too hard. I bought some digipads and fluid for the K20 to give it a wet clean and haven't used them yet on either camera.
I might be just be lucky though.
The dust in the viewfinder is usually on the focusing screen. That should be removable to allow for fitting different screens. Fiddly job, and you can end up with more dust. Only use a blower on that. There are plenty of "how tos" on the net.
414
« on: September 30, 2013, 10:33 »
Baldrickstrousers has it when he said it's being part of the right social group (and being boggered if you don't understand it!)
The members of the art community are extremely jealous of their position within that community. Which means they are jealous of any newcomer who might offer competition, making it incredibly difficult to get "in" As already said the only hope is to get noticed by a gallery (and it has to be one of the right galleries) who thinks that you might have something. While all the time trying to get "in" socially.
While mentioning being in the "right" galleries, don't be tempted to put your work just anywhere to get sales. One way to kill any hope of any sort of real success is to have your work seen in the wrong sort of place.
I'm another anti social get, and although I had some moderate, local success in the applied arts, (furniture in my case) even that's not easy, and it requires lots of attending exhibition openings etc. Whether you have work in that exhibition or not.
415
« on: September 19, 2013, 04:26 »
Perhaps! I see no problem in them offering it, just them removing the perpetual license.
Only so long before that'll be reinstated at a guess. I can't see the $9.99 a month offer being much of a deal for them. It values the software at $120 an upgrade (if you reckon on yearly upgrades), instead of several hundred dollars. If I could get PS and LR outright for 120 over here (that's another thing why do dollars always get changed to Pounds with a 1:1 exchange rate?) I'd probably use them. I'm not having their hand in my pocket every month though. I don't personally "do" monthly payments for anything. It is different if you need the software to collaborate with clients or associates though, and no doubt that Illustrator is the best vector package at the moment. One thing that is sure, all these big software houses (and a few other types of business that spring to mind) don't do anything that doesn't directly benefit them.
416
« on: September 18, 2013, 04:25 »
Anyone thinking about getting cheap copies of the software online might want to read this guy's experience first http://tonysleep.co.uk/node/586.OK the blog's a few years old, but I'll bet nothing has changed. I don't use Adobe products. They always have been too expensive (for me as a business cost) IMO. What's happened as far as their falling profit goes, is that they have been offering less and less new "must have" features for the cost of upgrading every year or so. It'd be a cold day in Hell before I'd pay for a subscription to use any software!
417
« on: September 15, 2013, 04:40 »
Might be worth turning off the usb hub power managment . That can give all sorts of weird issues with usb gear. There's plenty about it on the net, but basically you need to go into device manager, find the usb root hub(s) and under "power management" untick the box and OK your way out. You'll probably have to turn it off in "power options" too. (Win 7) "usb selective suspend setting" needs to be "disabled" look under "change settings" and then "advanced settings" under "power options". Plenty of "how tos" if you Google it.
I've just been into this to sort a problem out myself. Main problem seems to be that usb isn't really that robust for transferring large amounts of data at high speed. USB drives can be very easily "upset".
Hope you've got your important information in more than one place, and are not relying on just one external usb drive for storage. You need a backup plan as well.
418
« on: August 21, 2013, 05:13 »
That article on clipping paths that Liz mentioned can be found here. http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=89Be careful though, clipping paths can bring their own set of problems. Particularly if the object to be isolated has changes in the edge focus due to DOF. As Liz said isolations are better done "in camera" with a proper set up. I'll repeat, unless I really knew how to do isolations, I'd leave them alone for an application. I wouldn't use a piece of statuary like that either for an application, set up a still life that has some sort of simple concept. "Going out" "Going fishing" "Making dinner" anything that clearly "says" what is happening in the shot. The statue is still underexposed "flat and grey" IMO too. Don't strip the exif for the application shots, or to show here preferably, it will help people see what you are doing. Save the file at maximum jpeg quality. Don't be in too much of a hurry to reapply. Get the right set of shots first. If you don't you'll just get another refusal, and a longer wait.
419
« on: August 20, 2013, 06:42 »
copyright\trademark issues might not be an issue for applications since the I.ages will need to be approved after you get accepted. Who knows they might have releases and the application doesn't ask for them. Diversity of subjects is probably necessary though.
It's already been said on the iStock forum that not sending in shots with trademarks or other IP problems shows an understanding of stock imagery. Again it's been said again and again that diversity of subjects is necessary, as is showing some sort of concept(s) and at least one shot of people . The subjects covered are otherwise up to the applicant.
420
« on: August 20, 2013, 04:40 »
For the reasons given above you are way off both in subject and level of technical ability. Technically you need to be able to take a well composed and properly exposed image with the focus in the right place on the subject, You need to show a reasonable level of understanding of the correct aperture, shutter speed and ISO settings to get an acceptable amount of noise and the desired depth of field etc.
Subject wise you will need to show a diversity of subject matter, and where possible show some sort of concept. One shot will really need to be of a person "doing something" the others can be, for instance, a still life, and a landscape. Unless you are an expert at white background / isolated shots then personally I'd leave them alone for application.
421
« on: June 18, 2013, 05:07 »
The upload date default is actually a severe distortion of the search. Files should appear by approval date, not by upload date. That way at least they could hope for a few seconds on the first page of the most recent search, which might get a sale, which might give them a chance to battle into contention on best match.
This is exactly the way it works, and has for a long time. With such large differences in approval time now, it's very easy to see. Do any popular search (e.g., 'business') and look at the results sorted by age. Exclusive file numbers start with 252, indies with 251 or 250.
Yup, I had a batch of Scout-overturned files last week, and they're showing as my most recent by Age, even though they were uploaded a couple of months ago.
If you get theasis' latest browser script http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352385&page=1There's an option to order your upload page by approval date. Just hover over the blue "DL" button the script gives you at the top of the page for options.
422
« on: June 11, 2013, 05:38 »
I'm afraid that i agree with Sean. I wouldn't submit these for an application. It's been said fairly recently on the iStock critique forum that shots for applications need to show some sort of concept where possible.
If I was the OP I'd take some time to read the recent application threads on the iStock forum.
423
« on: June 09, 2013, 09:11 »
There are PFs for "edumad" on Fotolia and DT. Also a link from a DeviantArt page for the same username to a Flickr page.
Looks like the same person. Same camera. Some recent activity. . .
424
« on: June 04, 2013, 14:47 »
Same here. Changed a couple of weeks back. Nothing I did (because I hadn't changed anything) It shows the balance in as well, I assume that's because that's my default currency, but requires me to actually convert the $$ amount to .
Looks like a policy change to me. Makes no real difference as far as I can see.
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
