|
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 - Bateleur
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 35
651
« on: February 22, 2007, 17:43 »
Nor me.
What would one use it for?
Okay ... so your family and friends and sometimes complete strangers can see your photos online. But does anyone sell through Flickr, or gain a reputation from having photos on there?
652
« on: February 22, 2007, 17:30 »
... If your exposure is "spot-on",and your white balance matches the degees Kelvin, at the time of the shoot,why would you need to play with massive files that take so long to download ...
What are you talking about? RAW files aren't particularly 'massive' and don't take 'so long' to download. At least, not on my computer they don't. A fraction of a second a file I'd guess. Never had time to measure it  And, as for your statement "If your exposure is "spot-on"" ... my whole point was that if you should make a mistake and forget to change the WB you can save the situation much more effectively in RAW than you can in JPEG. But maybe you never make that mistake.
653
« on: February 22, 2007, 01:16 »
I always shoot raw plus jpegand use the jpegs just for quick preview
Same here. I don't enjoy post-processing, but with RAW you've always got the original image that can be tweaked. Has saved my skin on a number of occasions, like when I've forgotten to switch white balance. Now, hand's up who's done that? (Looks around ... What? Is it only me?  )
654
« on: February 21, 2007, 01:49 »
CJPhoto: Ya gotta be jokin!
... the best sailor ( I already got that one) ...
Sorry. You ain't. I got THAT one
655
« on: February 21, 2007, 01:46 »
I can say that my BEST shots, the stuff I'm REALLY proud of... aren't on ANY microstock site.
... They are the images that bring clients to your other, less than stunning images, because they click on your name, which take them to the rest of your portfolio ...
I wonder. Does that ever happen? Someone, in a recent post elsewhere in this forum, said that designers/purchasers on microstock need a specific image and they search for that. They don't give a rat's ass who took it. Any designers/purchasers on here care to comment?
656
« on: February 21, 2007, 01:25 »
If you don't supply a model/property release you may severely create loss of sales in certain country's."
Ouch! Apart from anything else, they need a decent editor for the text on their site. There are loads and loads of grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors scattered all over it. Makes me think that maybe English is not their first language . Send me a mail, Rich, if you want to find an editor
657
« on: February 20, 2007, 17:03 »
Well done! It's a great image - excellent lighting, great composition and lots of movement.
A clear winner, no matter how many people entered. Congrats!
658
« on: February 20, 2007, 16:58 »
probably because they want to make it as dummy friendly as possible ...
Yeah, I know. I was just sounding off because it's frustrating. That camera has a reasonably-sized sensor and at 10Mp and that price sounds an interesting addition. Looks like the sort of thing you could carry in a pocket for all occasions. Too bad 
659
« on: February 20, 2007, 16:01 »
I'm seriously considering a high-quality P&S that will slip in a pocket for such trips (I'll never give up my Nikon) but give high enough quality for stock, both macro and micro. Anyone know of one?
Nikon launched a new, advanced p&s today, the P5000 ...
Looks really great! Thanks. I'd be seriously thinking about it, except ... ... it only does JPEG! Why on earth do they include silly things like a 'Time Zone Function' (whatever that is) but not RAW files?
660
« on: February 20, 2007, 03:43 »
Ah ... yes, you were.
The best way to see these in my experience is to blow the image up to 200-300% or even more, and look at edges.
Shoot in RAW if you can (or, failing that, TIF) and do as much work as you can in 16 bits. Then save a worked version of any image as a TIF which is a lossless format. Only change to JPEG as a very last step.
The trouble is, because it compresses images, every time you re-save a JPEG file you lose quality. It's a bit like photocopying a photocopy of a photocopy ...
661
« on: February 20, 2007, 03:34 »
662
« on: February 20, 2007, 03:32 »
Hi!
I obviously don't have the eye to spot these artefacts yet. Can you help me seeing them? Only if you have the time of course...but I'd really like to learn.
One way I've found of spotting pesky artefacts, particularly dust spots on light coloured backgrounds like white, or blue skies is to do the following: a) Create a new layer in PS and select the 'Overlay' mode (bottom box on the 'Create New Layer' options window). b) Fill the new layer with pure black. It'll look weird, but dust spots really jump out at you. c) But make sure you switch to the background layer as the active one if you're doing any cloning repairs, otherwise nothing will happen. d) When you've cleaned it all up, erase the black layer and the image will go back to normal, but sans artefacts. Hey presto!
663
« on: February 20, 2007, 03:18 »
Another pro for DSLR's - depending on the lens, they also have a much shallower DoF that P&S
Is that an advantage? Surely, it all depends on what you want to photograph. If I'm doing macro I want all the DOF I can get.
664
« on: February 20, 2007, 03:14 »
... Most people only got back to P&S from DSLR for size/weight reasons, not quality ...
Yeah. I have Nikon bodies, both 35mm film and digital, together with a number of lenses. And I try to have a camera with me at all times. You never know when a photo opportunity may present itself. But lugging even one body and lens around on, say, a day's skiing is a real pain ... in every sense of the word. I'm seriously considering a high-quality P&S that will slip in a pocket for such trips (I'll never give up my Nikon) but give high enough quality for stock, both macro and micro. Anyone know of one?
666
« on: February 18, 2007, 05:45 »
I think there is a clear big 4
dreamstime
fotolia
shutterstock
istock
but in fifth place, it is tough. Bigstock maybe??
I agree. But maybe that question should be put to the customers, rather than contributors, to get a more accurate ranking. Amongst my circle of acquaintances (some in design, some not) iStock is far and away the most well-known of the microstocks. Even teachers and business people know of iStock (and sometimes pinch images from them, I've found).
668
« on: February 12, 2007, 08:20 »
I wonder if IS have some new 'improvement' up their sleeve, and this is why there's a lag. Yikes!
669
« on: February 12, 2007, 04:32 »
... not sure what was going on at iStock ...
I've had a wodge of images approved at IS these past few days. They show up on my file management page but not in my portfolio. Nor do they appear when I search on their keywords. (And we're well outside the 24hr they allow for the database to be updated.) I don't know if this affects the numbers, but if this is happening to everybody then thousands of images must be 'missing'
670
« on: February 11, 2007, 05:07 »
i have upload some picture there. but there are since a lot day under review... there is no moving i thing
I've just checked their website and it seems to be dead.
671
« on: February 11, 2007, 05:04 »
Sorry for being dense, but I don't quite follow ... what are SP and KI? ShutterPoint and KeenImages, respectively.
Interesting ... I have just googled both those agencies to find their web sites, tried to check out their conditions, and got error messages for both of them. I wonder what's going on ...
672
« on: February 11, 2007, 05:00 »
Sorry for being dense, but I don't quite follow ... what are SP and KI? ShutterPoint and KeenImages, respectively.
Okay ... thanks. Two more agencies I didn't know about.
673
« on: February 10, 2007, 17:08 »
... In SP and KI, for instance ...
Sorry for being dense, but I don't quite follow ... what are SP and KI?
674
« on: February 10, 2007, 13:39 »
yes all royalty free i can put my pictures everywhere
Yes, legally you can do it. But do you need to be a bit careful? Some of the sites you mention sell RF for $50, $100 or more, depending on size and usage. It may not do your reputation a lot of good if a buyer takes one of your RF images for $50, and then finds they could have got exactly the same image from a microstock at $5. It may also drive customers away from the higher-priced sites (which are also better-paying for us photographers).
675
« on: February 09, 2007, 01:48 »
Merci bien Xenia! Chapeau! Sorry ... I don't speak German. Will French do? There's some really useful information in your post, it's a great source for broadening our horizons. Thanks again. (Side note ... this forum is the greatest. Open discussion and helpful members. Thanks to all, and especially Tyler.)
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
