Quote from: klsbear on April 08, 2011, 17:48

On the contrary, it's made my workflow faster, not more difficult.  The grey card was in the back of Scott Kelby's Lightroom book, so no cost other than what I paid for the book.  One minute (literally one minute, maybe less) spent throwing the card on the table, take a shot, set the WB and every shot is spot on - I don't have to spend any time playing with white balance in post processing.  I'm not seeing any of the rejection problems a lot of others are complaining about so I must be doing something right.

Great. You've sold fewer than 50 images in over a year at IS. That would be a poor day as far as any half-serious contributor was concerned. You carry on messing about with WB, or whatever it is you do with your time, and I'll carry on collecting the cash for the licensing of images.

I was watching how it would go and finally get to its momentum! I am starting to enjoy you (not joking)

I have a portfolio set up with Smugmug and sell directly from there. You have to earn $500 before they pay out. I like the way you can create your own watermark. I don't get much traffic. I wish google would lead image requests there, but I guess everyone is trying to figure out how to get traffic to their website.

I have the same portfolio set up on pBase and do get occasional image searches directed there. I provide a link back to my Smugmug site.

beautiful work, wonderfully done! I guess I have seen your portfolio before but haven�t looked so closely, 25 years and massive skills all around, congratulations

Quote from: bunhill on April 08, 2011, 07:53

If the past couple of weeks turns into a trend I will be going down a level ! In which case plan b and then, probably, plan c.

Exciting times.

Not fun. No matter how much I upload, it seems as if my earnings have hit a plateau. They haven't gone up much in the last 2 years.  I'm stuck in the 500-1000 doldrums with occasional dips down into the 100-500 range. 

What are plan B and C for you?

non-exclusive?

I use a lot the "blinks/blinking" camera setting (actually it is always on), have you tried it? that shows you the highlights, I tend to go very close to the highlights, it depends also on the subject, if I am looking for an isolation but even when outdoor I pull it up a bit, at least I know I am exposuring the scene quite well.. And has you said in camera raw we can use recovery.. Overall whatever you are shooting it mustn�t be 255 255 255 (once that is pure white as you know already) the objects/subjects/whatever might have a little (pure white) but pay attention because that may result in a lighting rejection (some or a lot will be approved, actually there are "top" photographers pulling it quite high, not saying I don�t like, sometimes it works pretty good, take a look around portfolios, you will see what I am talking about, regarding these highlights)

Regarding fill setting I used it a little too but not that often (if you aren�t going hard there shouldnt bring noise), I guess I go more on the exposure, contrast and recovery, try a few but don�t tweak to much (WB too lol)

 

on my relative low sales I can say that FT/SS/123RF are the only ones holding sales pretty well

A lunatic is a commonly used term for a person who is mentally ill, dangerous, foolish, unpredictable; a condition once called lunacy.

does this guy have any of those??

yes this new plan working? for me guess not, have less than half I used to have and for a 0.38$ RPD use to be close to 1$

thanks Fred, the 17-55 is a great lens for sure but more than 1k euros.. need to think on this matter before buying my next lens

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 06, 2011, 17:12

you have sold it with the 18-200? I guess regarding FF I would say wait for the new D700 perhaps.. Overall I want a lens that goes from 18 or 24 (DX body) to a few zoom maybe, to make it more versatile instead of only studio..

i sold them separately, but can you believe, the price of the 18-200 actually went up in price a year later.  

by the way, amazon.com has great user reviews on all these lenses.

there are reviews of everything, from great to pretty bad, quite confusing, mainly pros look like avoid it, better two lenses, the F2.8

what have you bought instead?

i think if you're going to upgrade to a ff camera soon, then it's better to invest in an fx lens like the 24-70 now. any dx lens you have will be wasted on a future ff camera for your photo will be cropped to only about 5mp.

as for the 18-200, it's very versatile and light for the purpose. however, i felt it was soft at the 200mm end. if you ever get the 70-200mm you'll be shocked how much better it is. so, i think the decision is not about the lens, but what kind of camera you want in the future.

nevertheless, i was able to offload my d90 and 18-200 mm lens for a handy price.  (they're extremely popular second hand)

you have sold it with the 18-200? I guess regarding FF I would say wait for the new D700 perhaps.. Overall I want a lens that goes from 18 or 24 (DX body) to a few zoom maybe, to make it more versatile instead of only studio..

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 06, 2011, 15:01

Quote from: WarrenPrice on April 06, 2011, 14:59

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 06, 2011, 14:52

now I am looking at the big zoom until 200, it doesn�t look as bad as reviews.. anyone got the 18-200 nikkor?

Yep.  Just got it.  and LOVE it.  Less expensive that newer 70-200 but doesn't have VR.  I shoot a lot of fast action.  Don't really miss the VR.

Hmmm I have a lot of my port done on a Sigma, so worst cannot be, Ken likes it too, a lot actually

The 18-200 isn't a bad lens...it's just not ideal for low light with out a flash.

yeah of course but as we know 2.8 are expensive lens, I would buy the 24-70 or the 120 but it is a FF lens, so instead of the 24 would be 38, not that wide, regarding studio I need around 24 regarding my studio dimensions..

 

now I am looking at the big zoom until 200, it doesn�t look as bad as reviews.. anyone got the 18-200 nikkor?