I've never shot skateboarding (now there's an idea) but I've done other sports ... skiing, cycling, triathlon and, just yesterday, Swiss wrestling.

I think the first thing you have to accept is that a far, far higher proportion of your shots are going to be duds. Much higher than, say, with landscape photography. If I get 1 out of 25 useable images in fast-moving sports shots I'm deliriously happy.

The second thing that I try to do is to identify the moment and precise spot when I want to capture the image. (I would guess, with skateboarding that could be at the top of a jump.)  I pre-focus, manually, on that spot.

I then follow the action through and press the shutter a fraction before my subject reaches that spot. It's impossible to say how to do this. It's an art. But I have improved a lot with practice.

Interestingly, once, with ski-jumping, I tried the continuous mode on my camera, holding the shutter down at the beginning of the action and whipping off shots. But I quickly gave up on that. Even though it was taking 3 shots a second, it usually missed the crucial point and I got a lot of skiers too small, half-skiers, or empty frames. There's nothing like the human eye for accuracy.

Just commented on and voted for it, and discovered that you can vote for more then one image (but not several times for the same one). Like I wrote "May the better win" SY

Are you sure? Rule 17 states:

Any one person may only cast a single, positive vote for each contest image.

This is a bit ambiguous.

If you can vote for more than one that would be great. I've been hesitating about which one to give my vote to. Most of the images I'm hesitating over are from people on here. But if you can vote for more than one ...

...way hey! You've all got my vote gals and guys.

Hey! Thanks Lizard, for your comment on my picture (it is the same Lizard, is it?). Much appreciated. Quite cheered me up.   

Waddya think?

Has this competition become a complete joke?

To me it looks like at least 3 out of the top 6, counting votes so far, are prime candidates for Crestock's 'Worst image of the Day'. And yet they've got 60+ votes.

At the same time, FreezingPicture's image has only got 3. And my image only 1    .... though I'm not saying mine's utterly brilliant. I agree there are two excellent ones in the top six.

But, for the others, it looks like there's a whole load of vote-rigging going on.

Or am I too old-fashioned with my photographic eye?

Nice one Lizard. The light's amazing, streaming in through that window.

Good luck with it!   

.... I think that is too specific for micros.

I would think so too. Micros make their money through volume sales. The "pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap" model.

Quote from: Bateleur on April 29, 2007, 04:46

Will IS need a model release for that? If so, and as it's 100% unidentifiable, what's to stop you getting your husband/brother/son/uncle, or even yourself to sign the model release?

How about morals and ethics? If that's not good enough for you how about criminal and civil liability? It's this type of fraud that makes me wonder why the stock agencies don't require photo id with the model releases (right now it is optional on iStock).

Er ... yes ... okay. I read you.

The point I was trying to make with that comment was, if it's 100% unidentifiable, what, exactly, is the point of a model release? Nobody can connect the signatory with the image, whether the correct person has signed or not.

Sorry if that was a bit too convoluted. I wasn't trying to suggest fraud.

When you click on his link, a cookie gets deposited on your computer.  If you aren't a Fotolia user, and you subsequently register, then you get assigned to his referral program because that cookie is on your computer ...

It's a bit deceptive to a person trying to give an objective opinion on a portfolio (and a bit sneaky if you ask me).

If that's what he's doing then I think it's more than sneaky. It's downright offensive.

One of the great things about this forum is the way in which people freely share their knowledge and advice, even though (technically) we are all in competition with each other. There is a spirit of openness and sharing.

And it's revealing that he's made no reply to the allegations.

One of the macro sites - Alamy - has developed a system (called Alamy Rank) to try and put a stop to this.

It's horrendously complicated. They've taken out a patent on it and it runs to dozens of pages. But the upshot is they rank the order in which photos appear in a search according to a score for each photographer.

And each photographer's score is calculated through a formula in which the number of times his/her photographs appear in searches is compared to the number of times his/her photographs are viewed or (better still) bought.

Get that?

In other words, if your photos appear in a lot of searches (through keyword spamming) but no one ever looks at them or buys them, you get a low score and sink to the bottom of the rankings. That means your photos appear on the last pages of any search.

On the other hand if your photos appear in fewer searches but you get viewed or bought lots of times (accurate keywording) you get a high score and your photos are shown at the beginning of any search.

Cool? Or what?

P.S. Thanks a million Sharply. I've written out your list and pinned it over my monitor. A great guide!

I think $500 is a fairly easy bar to clear. If you've been at SS a while and haven't made $500, this might be a good time to pause and figure out why.

Agreed. It's easily achievable, in a matter of months, by anyone who's serious.

Judging from my experience with referred photographers, there must be thousands upon thousands of contributors who are casual about it, with minute portfolios they never add to.

I have referred quite a number of people and, of the ones who have been accepted, not one has been serious about building a portfolio. Most put up 10-20 images, and then seem to lose interest. I have tried encouraging them (to boost my 3c bonus  ) but no luck.

Why should the casual submitters, or those who have lost interest, benefit from the raise?

Yikes! That's almost painful to the eyes     ... of a photographer, anyway.

But I agree with Professorgb.

The fact is, when you're trying to sell an image it's up against thousands of other photographs. And all that the buyer sees is the tiny thumbnail. The ones that jump out at her/him tend to be the ones that get bought.

And (I don't want to sound snooty about this) I think that a whole load of buyers aren't terribly 'visually literate'.

Every now and again people post on forums about the hassles they have experienced when photographing in public ... officious security guards, teens deliberately kicking your tripod, suspicious parents ....

But ever had anything good happen?

I've had a couple in the past few days.

I was at the Geneva Motor Show using a telephoto and tripod to photograph a model from a distance, with dark slightly out of focus silhouettes of spectators in the foreground holding up their cam phones to snap her. A guy from the neighbouring stand came up and wanted to know what I was doing. I thought he was going to hassle me, but when showed him and explained my objective and he invited me upstairs to their special lounge for a better viewpoint, and gave me a drink.

Then yesterday I was at an autoroute (freeway, motorway, autobahn) service station, photographing a bridge over the road, very graphic, girders receding to a vanishing point, etc. using myself as a model, walking into the distance ... man in the industrial landscape sort of thing. The manager came up and wanted to know what I was doing. When I explained he gave me several vouchers for the caf� downstairs.

Quite restored my faith in human nature, they did 

Aw ... shoot!

Got my first one today. A large size, too. And just 25c.