|
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 - null
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 63
526
« on: March 25, 2009, 16:52 »
My question is about shooting with tripod, I am goind for 4 or 5 countries in europe starting by france and I heard that using tripod in france is not allowed ! It depends for what. If you hit old ladies with a 5kg Manfrotto, you could be beheaded and wind up in the bouillabaisse.  Paris isn't NYC, so read this. Or use Google.
527
« on: March 25, 2009, 16:39 »
You can change your DPI in PS if you like but you are as earlier stated just interpolating or letting the computer guess at what extra pixels to add by analyzing the already existing pixels if you want the image to remain the same size. If you stay away from the actual resolution of the image, it's not important what DPI you put in Photoshop. You are talking about changing resolution. The DPI is only important for the buyer that has to calculate what resolution he needs to fill a given physical space (screen, newspaper or glossy paper). If in Photoshop you change the DPI but keep the pixel size (resolution) the same, obviously you will see the size of the document in printed inches go down. Practically, that means that a printer of a glossy magazine will have to buy a larger "size" (=resolution) than a printer of newspapers.
528
« on: March 25, 2009, 16:26 »
Shhh, don't let the secret out. Panther is a class site and sells for favorable prices. It's not MicroStock. You have to read those guys like politicians: the grin said enough. It's YES I would like to try Panthermedia but since Zymmetrical is a distributor of them and I'm on Zymmetrical, I think it's unethical to upload to both. A customer might be confused seeing a shot from 'Lynx' on Zymm, next to the same shot on Zymm itself, at a different price. We don't need to educate a customer that much
529
« on: March 25, 2009, 16:18 »
Just read that the 500D will be 870 body only in the UK. Canon must be joking, the 50D is cheaper than that. Looks like I am now a Nikon man  Well you told once you're a JPGer... that wasn't such a bad idea since the processors in new cams do a better job than the RAW software since they handle the sensor idiosyncrasies better. A new cam will always be better software-wise than an older cam, so there is a point in the 500D being more expensive than the 50D. The big difference between the D80 and the D90 is the software, fringe and vignette removal.
530
« on: March 25, 2009, 15:06 »
I thin we are buying our photos to clients will use them for priniting usually!! I am confused ! DPI is an instruction for the printer. Read this article carefully. The issue is important in deciding/calculating what resolution you need to buy at a site (S,M,L,XL) to print a given shot at a particular physical space (like 2x2 inches on paper).
531
« on: March 25, 2009, 14:59 »
I had acceptance rate above 80%, but last month I get lots of rejections. Yes, of the obnoxious "we don't need this image" type. It drags down your overall acceptance for nothing. I think the reviewers are a bit nervous by the upload problems and they will be flooded once the problems are over and be too picky. I'll just give DT a break for 4 weeks and hamster my batches. When the Atillas are gone, I just open the floodgates again The beast doesn't need to be fed regularly like SS.
532
« on: March 25, 2009, 14:53 »
You're not changing the resolution. You're changing how those pixels are interpreted. .... on a printer. On a screen they just look the same: 1DPI or 1600DPI.
533
« on: March 25, 2009, 14:48 »
Do you mean I can change the DPI from 72 To 300 on photoshop without loosing quality ??! Affirmative, but watch out since changing the DPI in PS will automatically change the resolution too. Just fill in 300 first, the go to size, change to percent (not pixels) and fill in 100. You will see it's done immediately, no lag like for really up- or downsizing.
534
« on: March 25, 2009, 14:45 »
I'm assuming you would want to be able to have the same image in multiple groups. Not necessary for a shoot. An image can't belong to two shoots. Actually I love playing with lookstat. I've always been too lazy to keep earning spreadsheets. I found out that the "top shoot" in my mind/perception wasn't really my top shoot, since that one is industrial/editorial in a niche I'm virtually alone. Strange how you can deceive yourself... I think the keywords are overkill, but if it's easy to do, why not?
535
« on: March 25, 2009, 14:40 »
Please I want to know is microstock sites actually accept only 300 DPI or they can accept 72 DPI ? It doesn't matter since DPI is just a number in the metadata that has nothing to do with resolution. Yes Zymmetrical is picky about it. The other sites just change the DPI. You can do it yourself easily in Irfanview in batches, and of course it's lossless.
536
« on: March 25, 2009, 14:35 »
Earnings by shoot, return by shoot definitely makes a ton of sense. There should be an option on Lookstat to manually group individual pictures that belong to the same shoot, and present the statistics of this collection the same way as now for individual pictures. I agree with the OP, for yield calculation, you don't need individual images but all the images from one shoot.
537
« on: March 25, 2009, 11:59 »
I wish SS and other sites would follow iStock's lead and institute upload limits. I know everyone complains about them, but upload limits would force people to become much more selective about what they upload, and the overall quality of the collections would improve. What kind of upload limits you had in mind? I think 10 per day won't help, people would just spread it out more. The QC of SS is getting pretty high now and you are forced to upload your bests, as we all do spontaneously, no?. This ain't 2006 any more. I don't know about others but I can't postproduce 10 images per day on a sustained base. I'm happy to have 40 salable images per month. So actually, unless you have to upload an existing port to a new site, the upload limit of IS of 60/month is more than enough for most. Uploading similars is a bad strategy since you come into competition with yourself.
538
« on: March 25, 2009, 11:51 »
Jan was good, Feb was my BME and now March beats it! It is my BME on SS. Same here. I got my EL today already before 2pm CET so it's a European customer. Mostly sales start to roll in when the Californians had their lunch, and wednesday seems to be the top day at SS. Add the frequent ODs to this and I start to wonder who the real subscription site is now...
539
« on: March 25, 2009, 11:32 »
I am convinced now that this is just a myth, they are trying to capitalize on their brand name, but don't offer anything of the value to their contributors in return. Well good luck to them, I am out of there. Waste of time. That sounds more like a scam.
540
« on: March 25, 2009, 11:31 »
I have 21 images with Getty under the pay for placement. What type of images are those? Commercial RF type that does well at micro (girl w headset etc), glamor/fashion or editorial?
541
« on: March 25, 2009, 11:24 »
I imagine he will be speaking of his plans in the near future but maybe not about Istock. They have done well left alone. I would add, if it isn't broken do not fix it. There is not only iStock... there is Stockxpert too. Getty won't probably change its winning team on iStock, but everybody should be wondering what its plans are with JupiterImages.
542
« on: March 25, 2009, 11:18 »
Looks good, I was thinking of upgrading from the 5D to 5DmkII but now I will probably get one of these. The 5D is great but I like smaller cameras. Yes it's quite heavy especially outdoors. You get used to it. I'm used to a 1kg cam with my D200 and it has also the advantage of being less prone to motion blur when shooting manually in the field. But in the mean time I got an email that the 5D-II kit is in stock in Aachen/Germany, so the issue is settled. Sorry Nikon, you just dragged your feet too long with the mythical D400. If I need new glass (Canon) I can as well start with FF. The 30fps HD is convincing too, I saw the videos of Miklav. 20fps won't do. It would save me an extra HV30 videocam of almost 900 euro. Thanks to Lisafx, Leaf, and many others that convinced me of the quality of the D5-II and being fit for stock. Especially a warm thanks to Miklav who pointed me to the shop and who was very helpfull with his PMs.
543
« on: March 25, 2009, 10:01 »
This could be a major problem for all who upload to DT with abbreviations or numbers in the file titles. I haven't heard back from DT support about this new wrinkle. Something is odd going on in their keyword software. I found out they totally dump keywords with-a-hyphen or 1-2 letter words that aren't in a common dictionary, like Fu (Kung Fu). They also convert upper to lower case which might trigger spell-checkers.
544
« on: March 25, 2009, 09:56 »
Nikon have to react now...  Nikon almost lost me. The gap between the D700 and the D3x is too wide. They are far too commercial and one day it might explode in their face. The D5-MKII is clearly a winner. I almost had it in the kit version, but at the moment they're out of stock in Europe, and I need it in 10 days.
545
« on: March 25, 2009, 09:50 »
You can notice quite a loss in quality when going from 30fps down to 20fps. If you check out the gizmodo link you can see the difference in their test videos. Yes, but I noticed on the video forums that many people ask how to convert the D5-II 30fps to 25 or 26fps. So I thought that was the standard. Me thinks it's a commercial move of Canon to offer the 30fps only on the lores video. If not, the 500D would come to close to the D5-II in terms of performance and they risk to cannibalize part of their own market.
546
« on: March 25, 2009, 08:06 »
The large oval white spot on the top left has the typical gray look you get with the PS burn tool. It probably was totally blown out. Don't burn it but fill it up with a generated gradient or blurred texture: looks much more natural.
The DOF is also too shallow on the cup, and the cup itself as the main subject is cropped away too much.
547
« on: March 25, 2009, 07:54 »
Is HD video at 20fps only good enough for stock video?
548
« on: March 24, 2009, 22:12 »
why don't you guys start a new thread? talk about off topic. Since it came up here. That's how forums go, right? I didn't even hear of Bruce Who before since I don't visit the istock forums. My only communication with that 0.19c/image site is thru PayPal. I just discovered he's a heck of a fantastic photographer. Now you can have your thread back. Enjoy it. I'm out.
549
« on: March 24, 2009, 17:47 »
I was told that I was not allowed to upload pictures I did not take myself. That's the theory, but what about Nicemonkey and Iofoto? They are a group and there is only one account.
550
« on: March 24, 2009, 17:11 »
I could spot a Polish girl in a cheap looking outfit a mile off, so although they may be able to mass produce the images cheaper than the Western world a lot of them will look cheap which is not what sells. Do you know Golbachov? Find the cheap Polish girl  And I'm sure the Western market rejects Asians! 
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 63
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
