Quote from: heywoody on January 20, 2015, 16:45

I have always thought that a point would be reached where this thing would simply not be worth the effort to upload - even for the "weekend shooter" like me, never mind the pros, at which point content will start to go where it does remain viable.  If I were a betting man I'd say SS will probably react first to maintain content. We're not there yet so not holding my breath

We're not there yet because there aren't enough alternatives but I'll ask a hypothetical question.
If you had an agency that paid 20 times more than SS but had 1/20th the sales who would you upload to first? In other words if you were earning $400 at SS over 500 sales or earning $400 at X on 25 sales which would be your preferred agent?
Would SS still look so good? Would IS, FT or DT?

I'm not on Stocksy or Creative Market but it sounds like they are pushing that barrier right now and I do get enough Symbio sales to make me seriously question the need for sub sites.

Since I'm relatively new (spring 2013) and realistically view microstock as .. a hobby (or something to pretend like I'm actually doing something) ... if I ever get my self-hosted site to work the way I want it to, and bring in enough revenue to sustain itself I will be entirely self hosted. It's bad to be paid a quarter for a product and even worse when you consider all of the thievery ...

For 2014 my passive income (microstock, blog and whatever else) probably accounted for ... like 5% of my total income ... but, I used to like playing around in illustrator, and drawing silly cartoons n crap. Getting involved in stock has kind of ruined that, as well as given me a false sense of ... worth? or ... doing? idk ... if I spend 10 hours on a few illustrations there's a high probability that they'll make me $.50 over the course of a whole year ... Might as well just run to the office, clock in ... and go to lunch.

Quote from: captain on January 17, 2015, 22:13

I am not optimistic about Microphoto revenue in 2015. More photo upload but less sales from them.   

Have you thought about changing your name to 'Captain Gloom' 

Count me into the gloom club then.

If I upload to microstock this year, it will be because I had to tell the wife that I was doing something.

The upload process for vectors is such a pain I backed out of getting started there. It'd take me hours just to get my files ready to upload.

Quote from: ArenaCreative on January 13, 2015, 11:35

My recommendation is to stick to the XXD series to start, just because you are getting a solidly built camera body made of magnesium that also fits larger hands a lot better than the Rebel series.  The rebels are plastic, but also solidly built.. but no review wheel controls on back, which was also deal breaker for me.  With the XXD series around the same prices as the rebels, used... it all comes down to personal preference.  Nikons are just as competent.  I just went Canon because I could swap lenses with my friends.

Thank you! He says it has the 28-135 3.5-5.6 VR lens and he's thinking around $500 :/

Double posting again ... The Nikon 3200 seems like a significantly better camera than the T5 ... ? (comparing on http://snapsort.com/)

Some good cameras there. The full frame cameras tend to be bigger and heavier (some much bigger and heavier!) and more expensive. They need good glass to give the best results (think bigger, heavier, and yes, more expensive). The later "entry level cameras, like the D3100 (think I'm right on that), and the Canon t3i tend to be a bit light in construction. They still need decent glass to give good results.
There's no right choice as such. If I wasn't "a photographer" and didn't want or need interchangable lenses, and wasn't bothered about an optical viewfinder, there are all sorts of options these days. Hence the RX100. I became sick and tired of lugging a big bag of gear around all the time. Another option is something like the RX10. A "compact camera" with 24-200mm lens. Decent stills output, and apparently outstanding video output.

I can definitely see the benefits of having a smaller camera, something that I could pretty much keep in my pocket or vehicle all of the time ... but, I also kind of want the versatility of being able to grab a longer lens and shoot the kids' school programs and stuff without having to elbow other parents out of the way. The little buggers are growing right up and the only photos of some things are terrible. Do you think a http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=8925877&CatId=3631 would be too much camera for my needs? I could probably convince the wife that that isn't too much money ... otherwise I might have to buy a used D3100. I was kind of leaning toward Canon (as I understand it Canon lenses are more interchangeable? )

What model camera do you have? What ISO were you shooting at?

Getting back to your original question... there are numerous causes of grain/noise... having to brighten the image in post because the original was under-exposed is one possible cause and given the snow in the background of your shot, I wonder if that's the problem here. Spot metering would have helped there.

Alternatively, if your camera is a few years old and you were shooting at a high-ish ISO, grain might be inevitable even if you get the exposure right in-camera. Is the problem so bad that using noise reduction in post doesn't fix it up to an acceptable level?

Edit:http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405181,00.asp A bunch were at 800 before I realized how terrible they were, I dropped to 400 for the rest. (probably should have went to 200 )

No, not with many of them. I spent a good 10 minutes on each of the grainy ones just to get them to where they're at

Shots won't be helped by the ISO 800 with a small sensor like that camera has. Also snow and /or white clothing "fools" the camera into thinking the scene is brighter than it really is if metering is set on average. Use spot metering if available or centre weighted at least. Camera may have a "snow scene" program. Also select single focus point if possible. Thus allowing you to focus on the subject, lock focus and recompse.
Any reasonably modern DSLR will be better in terms of noise and image quality. There's a big choice, and little in real terms to choose between the main players.
You also might consider some of the later type "point and shoot" cameras which have larger sensors and are more "pocketable". Sony RX100 in it's various incarnations is one, but there are others.

Thanks, we have a decent little point and shoot around somewhere. I just prefer to have at least some control, even when that means it messes up the whole set ...

I probably will be looking for camera. This one has quite a bit of grain even in auto.

If they are going to use it in a newspaper or in some ad, they will buy the small version and blow it up for whatever they need it for.

While I don't agree with much of what you said, this is actually true ... I'm a designer for the newspaper here and the people that I end up having to oversee rarely have a decent understanding of resolution, let alone vector vs. raster ... and don't even start talking about filetypes and compression ...

The college here is complete crap, and it seems on a budget most businesses will hire anyone who seems the part ...

We drove out for some family photos this evening for some shots. I got a few good ones but, tons of grain in some. Thinking I still want a new (or new to me) camera in a month or so. Anyone selling their old equipment or have suggestions for working with my crap camera.

http://drpgraphicdesign.com/winter-2015-family-photos/

I have mixed feeling about editorial cartoon industry. On one hand as a profession it is almost completely died in United States - I heard like last staff editorial cartoonist laid off recently and that is truly sad.

On the other hand Shutterstock not so long ago announced that they are now open to editorial illustration and editorial vectors and that is a really great news in the world of stock images. I already have some growing set of editorial vectors on Shutterstock (though they rejected couple of my too aggressive images - for example they rejected this one on Obama: http://toonstyle.com/image/december-9-2014-vector-illustration-of-president-barack-obama-as-a-lame-duck-politician/?r=toonstyle.com):

http://www.shutterstock.com/sets/3747336-editorial.html?rid=321775

Maybe we'll see some changes soon in this industry, who knows.

I don't know how much it has "died" the publication I work for uses syndicated editorial cartoons every week, and most weeks they are quite political. Actually, https://www.facebook.com/LaMontagneCartoonInk https://www.facebook.com/pages/Gary-Varvel/216216295106639 Are just a couple I know that make their entire living on editorial cartoons and I feel like your work is at least on par ...

Not trying to say you're in the wrong spot or assume anything at all but, you seem to have a real talent for portraying characters ... I'd hate to see it wasted on Microstock :/ (unless microstock is making you decent money, in which case have at it. lol)

I know I'm double posting but ...

Editorial cartoons make money ... quite a bit of it actually if you can get syndicated. Have you ever looked into doing that sort of thing?

I was just kind of window shopping some SLR cameras on Ebay and noticed that the T3i and D3200 cameras have dropped pretty significantly in price since the last time I got curious.

I doubt I would be shooting much for microstock but, more for my own collection, family,friends and the like ... Is there any reason not to jump on say http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-D3200-Camera-Kit-w-AF-S-VR-DX-18-55mm-lens-L-/291345854093?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item43d590ee8d or one of the others that include a lens? 

Pretty good holiday.

Was expecting to sell more of my holiday stuff but ... I can't complain much ... and it seems that I've been one a two week "do absolutely nothing" binge.