|
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 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24
476
« on: May 15, 2012, 11:07 »
I really liked the TV series of Bottom, but I got the live version, and it didn't do it for me at all. Different somehow. I'd agree about "Hotel Paradiso" Top notch silliness!  More stuff that is worth a look IMO is : Being Human (Dark, comedy horror drama) Him And Her Early Doors Garth Merenghi's Dark Place (I think I spelled that right) Saxondale The League Of Gentlemen I'd watch any of them any time.
477
« on: May 15, 2012, 04:45 »
Try "Lead Balloon" and "Not Going Out"
478
« on: March 18, 2012, 06:37 »
Three shots, three different types of subject. Good composition, lighting (natural or artificial) exposure and focus. Show that you know how to use the equipment to get the best results from it.
If it was me I'd avoid anything that might be "difficult" like the things you have here, backlit subjects, extremely shallow DOF, or fast moving subjects unless you really are an expert at taking them.
Turn off all in camera processing like sharpening, de noising, or other "improvements". Use single point focus, and use spot metering on the subject. (I see you're already doing most of this.)
Get the exposure right in the camera, (expose "to the right") and don't rely on post processing to "save" under exposed images.
Post back here when you have some more images. Good luck!
479
« on: March 18, 2012, 06:16 »
I can see your point about someone not wanting to upgrade RacePhoto, but while you or I might be able to get the output from a camera like this accepted, we would be fighting the camera at every step. It would be an uphill struggle for anyone, particularly for someone new to the game. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it's a heck of a lot easier with the right gear. If the OP is serious about this then they should consider upgrading. Incidentally for anyone interested I had a look at the exif on Jeffrey's Exif Viewer here: http://regex.info/exif.cgi
480
« on: March 17, 2012, 11:57 »
Looks to me from the exif as if you're shooting with a Canon PowerShot SX110 IS "Point and shoot" type camera. I don't know anything about the quality of the output from your particular camera, but in general I think it's fair to say that unless you know exactly what you are doing as far as image quality requirements are concerned you'll have a job getting the output from this type of camera accepted at iStock these days. Most people are shooting DSLRs.
Also the exif shows a jpeg quality of 93%. I understand the highest PS quality is 98% so you have some compression there somewhere.
481
« on: March 02, 2012, 07:38 »
Wouldn't it be easy enough to just not have the anonymous data shown at all?
If you want to see your data, then everyone else can see it too.
Put ads on there too if need be.
It's a shame it's all just gone.
I don't think that would work - pretty soon you'd have someone with 4,000 downloads as the top seller
But wouldn't it work if everyone was anonymous except the person logged in? You'd see your rank and whether you were up or down, you'd see what sort of uploading those above you were doing. The only thing you wouldn't know without a ton of leg work on your part (which should be enough to discourage lazy copiers) is who the various people were.
I sort of assumed that they'd keep the ranking, counting the "invisible" contributors. Otherwise, as you say you'd have some weird results! IIRC anonymous people were in the minority (but I didn't used to look that much, only really to see whether I was going up or down) But yes, logging in would be a better answer.
482
« on: March 01, 2012, 09:19 »
Wouldn't it be easy enough to just not have the anonymous data shown at all?
If you want to see your data, then everyone else can see it too.
Put ads on there too if need be.
It's a shame it's all just gone.
483
« on: February 22, 2012, 06:04 »
I think you have to make the images public for us to see them. Again I think that the link should then be http, and not https.
484
« on: February 14, 2012, 14:07 »
Not bad last week, but this week so far it's dire. Certainly today is the worst weekday I can remember for a while.
485
« on: February 08, 2012, 06:04 »
Who is this guy anyway?  Quite good programs I thought. Saw them a week or two back. Liked the "What sort of camera is that?" comment when he was shooting with the SLR. Also the way he was getting the negs "uprezzed" to medium format. You can imagine can't you "We are sorry that we cannot accept your submission "Jean Shrimpton On Roof In early 1960s New York" as it appears to have been uprezzed"
486
« on: February 08, 2012, 04:52 »
Yeah, same here. Good days, bad days. Always been a bit like that for me, though there seem to be more quiet days lately. (Obviously)Seems worse when there are a lot of small or xsmall sales in the day.
487
« on: February 05, 2012, 11:03 »
What a stupid, meaningless thing to get fired for!
I think it's not about what he has changed in the photo - it was about THAT he changed something in the photo.
As a photojournalist it's a big no-no but apparently some always will keep trying to get away with it, to get this "shot of the year" picture and get some fame.
Just saw the link "To Our readers" off the top of the Sacremento Bee page http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/04/4238484/to-our-readers.htmlAccording to that, part of the problem is that he's done it before.
488
« on: February 05, 2012, 08:53 »
I didn't see much wrong with the original either. I suppose the temptation is always going to be there to make a shot "better" when it's so easy to make changes Of course this example also shows that it ain't really as easy as popular perception might have it to be! The guy ought to have stuck to the rules.
489
« on: February 05, 2012, 06:50 »
It's also surprising that a manipulation like this with the duplicated background went unnoticed by everyone putting the paper together. Perhaps they need someone at the paper who knows something about image manipulation to check images before they're published.
490
« on: January 24, 2012, 06:16 »
What amazes me is the stuff that's left there. Almost like people just walked away or vanished. Must be a weird atmosphere. Thanks for the link.
491
« on: January 23, 2012, 06:18 »
Great find!
492
« on: January 07, 2012, 08:37 »
I helped one guy get started. He had a good eye to start with, but had to learn a lot the technical stuff and stuff particular (peculiar?) to stock. I gave him quite a lot of time really, I used to see the guy socially, so stock was the main topic then, plus I gave him several tutorials, "phone support", critique. etc. etc. He does something else in the photographic field now, I don't know how he's doing at that. Stock wise he doesn't look as if he's doing much. I don't even see or hear from the guy any more.
The other example I had was a member of my family asked me about doing stock, so I told them about iStock, what I knew about the various other options, and told them if they wanted any help to ask. (This was before the first guy incidentally) Next thing I heard they had applied to iStock, been rejected, and had said about the rejection "They don't know anything about photography there"
Yeah, right!
Personally I shan't be doing anything like either of these again.
493
« on: December 27, 2011, 15:10 »
A lot of this has been said already. Nothing wrong with the leaves shot particularly, just not what I'd use for application. As already said anyone can point a camera at some leaves. Statue shot as already said, composition isn't the best. Lighting possibly a bit harsh. I wouldn't use statues as as an application shot. Epilator? type thing. Isolation needs some work. Grey border, on curve in to base on left, various other places look slightly "off" image needs mid range brightness. Again I wouldn't use an isolation as an application shot. you're making it more difficult for yourself. Send in three good shots, well composed, well lit, and correctly exposed with good focus. A portrait, a landscape, a still life. They don't have to be complicated or particularly clever, just show you can use a camera. While I'd echo ShadySue's comment about not needing a PF full of people type shots, if I was applying now I'd put in a portrait. Doesn't matter what you want to do in the future.
494
« on: December 27, 2011, 14:18 »
This best match will give a boost to exclusives but also will makes life harder who plans to throw their crown.
If there is a cunning plan behind this, this could be it.
Anyway, whatever it means, my sales seem normal for the time of year. Go figure.
After the RC thing I can believe the cunning part. I'm not so sure about the plan though. Sales are normal for Christmas. (hopeless in other words) Nothing on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day which is unusual, but even so normally only one or two. Very slow at a couple of sales yesterday and today. Someone else I know is also very slow. I expect the best match to be put back to "normal" (whatever that is) when they get back to work. When's that. Tomorrow? A lot of people will have this week off anyway, and it will be the second working week in January I expect before things will be "business as usual"
495
« on: December 12, 2011, 14:37 »
My figures for the year are looking down by almost exactly the percentage I lost due to bringing in the RC system. So in effect I've lost ground even though I've been ULing regularly.
This month is dire. I had the worst week I've had for ages at the end of last month, start of this. Last week looked a bit better, but this has started really badly. TWO DLs so far today is ridiculous for a weekday, and is totally unsustainable for me in the long run. I just don't know where this thing is going any longer. I don't think I'm alone in that either.
496
« on: November 26, 2011, 07:11 »
Hi Chris
I don't know what's going on. It looks like they've completely lost the original plot and are going off who knows where. The whole thing of these large amounts of outside content coming in presumably diluting sales, and the way normal contributors complaints and concerns seem to be dealt with at present don't give me a great deal of hope for the future.
What I do know is that my own sales are about 60% of what they were this time last year / early this year.
497
« on: November 19, 2011, 06:26 »
What the. Bad enough they broke it. And then the clock-watchers just bugger off home for the weekend. Incredible. Truly incredible.
As JoAnn says, if this can happen, what other accounting messes occur behind the scenes? We need proper sales reports. But we'll never get them. Jeez I'm pissed off.
I never quite worked out how a big business like iStock which is open 24/7 every day of the year can get away with this 9 to 5 attitude. There are numerous times when things are broken on POETS day, and they just get left 'til Monday morning. It really is unbelievable. The sales report thing REALLY needs addressing. As you say it won't happen though.
499
« on: November 11, 2011, 14:49 »
I don't think it invalidates the point, but I did check today and yesterday's sales total was actually 3, courtesy of one more sale at 11:27pm!!
3 sales in a day from a proven PF of what 2500 over there? I really don't know where this is going to end.
500
« on: November 11, 2011, 09:11 »
If we can't see it's value as art, then it must be because we don't understand it. At least that's what I was told by someone in a gallery once.
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
