|
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 - Phil
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 67
501
« on: May 24, 2010, 04:21 »
Really liked the video, thankyou. The potw however doesn't do much for me just doesnt work for me (not that I could do better  .
502
« on: May 23, 2010, 16:17 »
their new 'reduced redunancy' plan, $100 per month. The 'reduced rendundancy' service is for data that you could reproduce if necessary, i.e. you could survive its loss at Amazon. If you can reproduce the data, why would you pay 100$ for an (insecure) backup?
yes seems weird to me. US$100 would buy me a 1tb drive and US$150 a 2TB, I could buy a new drive every month (and keep them at my mums, in laws, brother, etc etc if I was really keen)
503
« on: May 23, 2010, 15:47 »
504
« on: May 23, 2010, 07:33 »
Hmmm.... I'm about to switch from Nikon to Canon and Tyler has been giving me some great advice and food for thought on lenses. What an awesome way to find out what everyone else things, and fast! Thanks for posting this thread Tyler.
Tyler has been trying to talk me out of starting with the 85mm 1.2L prime as my first Canon lens, and it wasn't difficult for him to convince me that this lens alone would be quite limiting. Both he and Andres cite the 70-200 2.8 as their favorite lens for shooting stock (that's right, right Tyler?) so I had added that to my mental shopping cart, but now Tyler is suggesting the 24-70 2.8 would provide more flexibility than not having anything under 70. I'd pretty much resolved to follow that advice, and now I get everyone speaking highly about the 24-105 4L. Decisions, decisions...
As someone who's new to this photography thing, I'm trying to understand why the 24-105 is cheaper than the 24-70. For reference, B&H have them at $1059 and $1309 respectively. Does the wider 2.8 only make a difference if you're shooting low light or want a razor thin DOF? Does a wider aperture generally indicate higher lens quality?
I dont shoot canon so do know the lenses in question, but generally constant f2.8 zooms are the best quality and sharpest so cost more (but a friend changed his 70-200 f2.8 for the f4 version and says its lighter and sharper - again canon so I dont know). F2.8 is generally a bigger lens with more glass so also more expensive to make. As well as the low light capacity and DOF it lets more light in for your autofocus system so focus is faster (how noticeable this is would depend on system, available light at time of shooting etc etc though).
505
« on: May 23, 2010, 02:02 »
I delete about half. I dont see the need to keep the garbage or 6 copies of very similar stuff (I'd cut it 3)
At 35mb per compressed raw image and then a jpg version of a lot of the remainder adds up in size very quickly.
We have 'dirty' power and even with surge guards I've lost 1 entire PC, 2 printers (+ reinstalling firmware twice), 2 hard drives, 1 modem, 1 router and 2 aa battery chargers??? over the past 2-3 years.
506
« on: May 23, 2010, 01:55 »
I use syncback se (freeware version) for my backups, extremely good and powerful, copies faster than windows too
in the process of upgrading my main drive (putting in one the 2tb WD Blacks (5 year warranty) as my main drive.
this will backup nightly to my 1.5tb 2nd drive in my machine
and 1.5tb drive in the network server (server is an old PC and about to be replaced with NAS)
+ 2 x 1tb external drives which I keep in my drawer at work (offsite) and bring home do a backup and take back to work.
(+ all microstock images are on mostphotos where I can download them for free and there is no rejections so they have the lot.)
507
« on: May 23, 2010, 01:45 »
my most used lens is the CZ24-70, my perfect lens would be a around 40 or 50-135 on fullframe (I know there is one for apsc) cover the people portrait range in one lens, wider and not as big or heavy as a 70-200
508
« on: May 20, 2010, 23:25 »
I can confirm this. I deleted all my images off there, but I can still sign in under my user name and password. I figures once all the images were gone it would be closed, but apparently not.
thanks
509
« on: May 20, 2010, 18:07 »
apparently you can ask for your images to be removed without actually closing your account. Hopefully someone will confirm this  I stopped uploading early last year but kept the images there. The last three payouts came in one lot, about 6 months after requesting the first payout. Next week I hit payout again, and that will be the third outstanding again and I intend to ask for images to be deleted then.
510
« on: May 19, 2010, 22:39 »
I'd do a screen shot but it's a blank page.  I'm going to try to load from something other than my Favorites and see what happens.
Yup that's what it was. Old page linked to a php front page, the new one is just http://www.mostphotos.com/
I had a good time looking at images with the little blue I's showing that I could get the same images from Dreamstime for much less, if I was a buyer.
But as usual the creative images there are entertaining beyond the usual MicroStock regiment. Some really nice artistic shots.
I like the site for the variety. The licence is more generous than standard micro licence, so it is good value in comparison (of course better licence doesnt mean much if you dont use the extra and just put it on a blog or something
511
« on: May 19, 2010, 04:09 »
4760 images, 1 sale in nov, 2 in jan - I gave up
512
« on: May 17, 2010, 00:45 »
Jonathon you also have a typo on your photographers page "Anderson Ross Photopraphy"
513
« on: May 16, 2010, 20:30 »
Does Alamy accept universal model release?
Thanks!
yes, until a few weeks back it was a tick box of yes I have a release which you didnt have to upload, they just trusted your honesty. Now it is a tick box, upload and assign to images if you wish but if you want to just tick yes and not upload you can. I still dont think it is checked for any particular wording etc, it is assumed you have well worded releases with the info needed.
514
« on: May 16, 2010, 20:23 »
without knowing the dynamics of where you live, my temptation would be to charge the magazine as you said at their 'normal rates' - I'd want to be paid but not over the top so that hopefully they may come back to you if their is other work in the area. for the farmer if it was me and here I'd print one or two 8x10's / 10x12's (whatever my photo shop was doing a special on but basically large enough for him to frame and give them to him (I'd chat about a property release). If it is like here it is a small town and most of the properties are owned by half a dozen families - 'the old money' - here at least they are influential with the local businesses and organisations. I wouldnt be expecting a lot of come of it but take the view of building groundwork.
515
« on: May 15, 2010, 00:13 »
istock, 123 and BigStock are down for me so far this month
the others are up
516
« on: May 12, 2010, 19:36 »
when they have another 121,383 images (decreasing number bottom right hand corner of their page)
517
« on: May 11, 2010, 15:50 »
193 @ $1 and 22 @$5 for me
518
« on: May 06, 2010, 17:59 »
roflamo, this is one of the best threads on the site yes I agree the daily limit is a pain
519
« on: May 06, 2010, 17:58 »
there are a number of libraries such as alamy, age, photolibrary.com, photoshot.com (no experience with last 3 I just know they do not require exclusivity) that do not require exclusivity for RM or RF images. I havent looked in a while but Alamy at least used to expect to be notified of RM sale elsewhere if they had the same image so that they can answer questions / know restrictions etc already on the image. Dont think I've ever heard of someone getting a sale through myloupe they were going to be the US alamy, just never pulled it of. They send a request for images every now and again, mostly for stuff for US Backpacker magazine. Definetly not worth the effort. I think you may be stuck with going through the sites of interest individually looking at what their requirements are
520
« on: May 05, 2010, 23:58 »
funny I've always found it easier to find what I'm looking for alamy than most sites. I hate Istocks search with its disambiguition select the wrong choice and then its close your browser and reload the site
521
« on: May 05, 2010, 23:53 »
Hi, many macro sites are listed here http://www.stockphoto.net/with descriptions of specialities etc, I dont think there are many (any?) others like alamy that just take all subjects. Which ones are worthwhile is the real question unfortunately finding out that info is very hard. I've been collecting up my wildlife pics and my travel pics for the past year or so with the view of submitting them to macro agencies just deciding which ones
522
« on: May 05, 2010, 04:13 »
I could never get filezilla to connect to them when I used a proxy server. A few months ago I stopped with the proxy and since then I hit connect, it fails with a critical error message, I connect again and it fails again, then when I connect a third time it works Dont know why, and no other site has a problem.
523
« on: May 05, 2010, 01:36 »
just went through this on the forum too. I usually keyword in adobe bridge cs4 it wont even let me put keywords into my .eps files. I'm at the point of just saying BigStock doesnt get my vectors
524
« on: May 04, 2010, 16:13 »
they just pushed through had a couple of hundred that were pending very quickly nice program, pity there is an weekly upload limit
525
« on: May 03, 2010, 19:15 »
imo anything that you think will get less 1 sale a month on the micros
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 67
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
