676
General Stock Discussion / Re: How much saturation?
« on: April 01, 2007, 17:10 »
Well, then I guess this thread comes to an end then. I mean, ok your gonna saturate your images from now on.
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. 676
General Stock Discussion / Re: How much saturation?« on: April 01, 2007, 17:10 »
Well, then I guess this thread comes to an end then. I mean, ok your gonna saturate your images from now on.
677
Alamy.com / Re: Question on upsizing in Photoshop« on: March 31, 2007, 10:02 »
Yes, 10% at a time, and make sure you use "Bicubic Smoother" in the drop down menus at the bottom.
I recommend Genuine Fractals, but making an action to increase the size 10% at a time, using "Bicubic Smoother" might be just the ticket as long as you don't upsize it too much ...maybe 2 times or 3. 678
General Stock Discussion / Re: How much saturation?« on: March 31, 2007, 02:01 »
"...but when I view them at work they look like someone colored the images with makeup."
"By the way, the monitor I work on is also a Sony. It looks over saturated to me also but that was on purpose." 1. Monitor calibration 2. Embedded color profiles 3. ICC profiles Without getting into a lengthy discussion, how come I see no mention of the above in this thread? You can not achieve the "What you see is what you print" without any regard to discussing the three above. Miss just one, and you are DEAD OFF on your printing, and/or the way the image may look on another monitor. It appears the two statements I quoted from the gentlemen above are moot, unless we first establish these three required steps at the begining. We all need to be on the first page as it were. 679
LuckyOliver.com / Re: What I said to Lucky Oliver today« on: March 27, 2007, 10:05 »
"What is good about LO is they are trying to do things differently."
A concern of mine is what? What THINGS are they doing differently? Second question I would like to attempt is: ...and is it working? I only ask that second question because you stated the are "trying" as opposed to doing. I mean I'm very curious. After all I do have an investment with them. You're right....I'll have to go through the blog now to catch up. Thanks for the suggestion. 680
General Stock Discussion / Re: to be a reviewer« on: March 27, 2007, 08:02 »
Gee, before I retired after 25 years doing the same thing day after day, I think I had days like that too.
If I were to take that lengthy post by the reviewer to heart, then I would have to say that person was looking for some excitement in their job. Perhaps if the job were a little more challenging they would not be so cynical? Yeah like: How about reviewing images while sky jumping in a parachute at the same time? Jumping out of a plane would surely get the blood flowing. It sounds to me as if the reviewer has seen every single type of image there is to photograph 100 times or more. Truth be known we all get bored with our jobs. So what?! It's a fact of life. Move on. 681
LuckyOliver.com / Re: What I said to Lucky Oliver today« on: March 27, 2007, 07:46 »
Well I said my peace already regarding the $100 payout.
Permit me now to comment on the attitude I have towards LO with regards to that which I have for other sites I contribute to. LO is a well organized site. It's ascetically pleasing to look at. The reviewers are cheerful and kind. They express a human approach in their comments to contributors. Volume is low. They rank very low in search engines. I subscribe to several trade magazines, and NEVER see them advertise. They have no forums. Users have no way of communicating. We have to do it on 3rd party forums such as here. Communications between management and contributors is done "Off Site" like bryan_luckyoliver is doing in this thread. There lack in a sense of "cummunity". I feel as though I'm the only one in the whole world uploading to LO. Where is everyone? Motivation! What is motivating users to upload more images? I want LO to succeed. I think it has potential. 682
LuckyOliver.com / Re: What I said to Lucky Oliver today« on: March 27, 2007, 04:08 »
My concerns are this.
I'm a really selfish guy. I admit it. However I did after all pay a lot of money for my camera equipment ($15,000). And money, seems to pre-occupy my mind when it comes to selling stock photos. My point is "I wanna see a return on my investment" The facts are these: 1. LO is an new and emerging site. They don't have the presence other sites have. 2. I have 157 images on site, and only 12 DL's with a total of $19.40 im my account, of which $11.00 is for referrals. 3. I have been with them since August of 2006. My concerns are: If I have to wait till I have $100 in my account, I will never, get a pay out. LO will sometime in the future fold up, and along with it goes all the money I've earned so far. Can someone put me at ease, and tell me everything is gonna be alright, and that my concerns are un warranted? It seems to me a $50 payout appears more "Reachable" at this point in time. AT least I might see something for my efforts. 683
Off Topic / Re: If God paid you a visit and said.....« on: March 25, 2007, 17:18 »
"There's no correct answer."
Your correct, there is no right or wrong answer. However I never intended it to play out that way. For my own edification, and curiosity, I wanted to find out where other's preferences lie. For me, I know I can get away with a tripod with compromising features and still take some great pics. However, in my own opinion, the head of the tripod has to feel comfortable to me, be precise, and of well manufactured quality to perform well. So although you think it was pointless (and it may have well been) I had a reason to ask, just to see if my way of thinking is on track. So according to you it''s a wash? They are equal in importance....ok? Thats the great thing about this hobby. We can all agree to disagree. 684
Off Topic / Re: income tax deductions« on: March 25, 2007, 01:34 »
I made a little over $4000.00 last year selling images on stock sites.
I've managed to write off all my equipment, and get a refund in my taxes in excess of $2,300.00 this year. This year I am taking a trip to Utah for about 2 weeks. All my expenses: meals, gas, hotels, and misc. expenses will be a write off too. (for next year) Why? Cause I'm going out there to take pics to sell on the internet stock sites! Whether any of them sell is not the issue. Getting the write off and having fun at uncle Sams expense is! YIPPIE! 685
Off Topic / Re: If God paid you a visit and said.....« on: March 25, 2007, 01:27 »
"ball heads tend to be really heavy; may be because of their magnesium ball?"
One of the distinct advantages of magnesium over steel is it's weight advantage...magnesium is LIGHTER! 686
Off Topic / Re: If God paid you a visit and said.....« on: March 24, 2007, 16:28 »
My thoughts exactly.
So now my question changes to: Why is it so many photographers (as it appears to me) place so much emphasis on the tripod and not where where it counts....in the head. I often hear people inquiring as to "whats the best tripod? " And for those who like to add more to this thread which do you prefer? Ball, or pan and tilt? Me personally I like the ball. 687
Off Topic / If God paid you a visit and said.....« on: March 24, 2007, 11:29 »
If God paid you a visit and said.....
"Hey you! Mr. Stock photographer - You can have only one. Choose:" The best tripod on this Earth..... ....or the best head to put on a tripod. Which one would you choose. 688
Photo Critique / Re: Is this saleable???« on: March 24, 2007, 10:07 »
Fantastic shot! It's the same one you used on my forum! Love it.
Now lets see....If I were a designer what could I use your handsome face for? ![]() 689
Off Topic / Operating a camera drunk!« on: March 23, 2007, 03:37 »
This may be a sensitive issue with some. Being a reformed and
recovered alcoholic, I just want to make the public aware of the dangers of Operating a camera drunk! I think in the USA in some states it's against the law to "Drink and shoot". I don't know how many peoples portraits have have ruined by irresponsible photographers who have no regard for way people look. Getting behind the lens drunk is the #1 cause of rejections on all major stock sites. It has ruined countless images, that would have otherwise had a chance to be downloaded. I believe in some Arab countries the penalty for drinking and shooting is chopping off the forefinger, so you can never click a shutter again. I shutter to think of all the family photos I ruined of my kids because of my drinking in the past. I would wake up the next day look at the photos and say "never again". Now I have to live with these photos everyday of my life. For me the answer was giving up the drink, but if you must drink, say at a party or a wedding, give the camera to a friend, get a designated photographer. Drink responsibly. 690
Photoshop Discussion / Re: Correcting for under exposure« on: March 20, 2007, 09:10 »if you had exposed for the building which is what you kept - then the building would not be overexposed. But the sky, the ice, and the Sun would have been. Once blown out, information is lost, and can NEVER be recovered....(total white). Under exposed information is still there, and CAN be processed. Grizzlybear's suggestion is what I usually would do if I had a tripod. I always USE HDR. However steps: 4. Select "color range"-"highlights", check "invert" box,click "ok" 5. Add layer mask 6. Filter>Blur>Gaussian Blur 250 pixels radius 7. Flatten and save are NOT necessary 691
Photoshop Discussion / Re: Correcting for under exposure« on: March 20, 2007, 01:26 »
Although the sky was replaced, the luminance remains the same for the entire picture. Meaning
had I not exposed for the Sun, the building would had been so over exposed, that the entire shot would have had to have been trashed. Here is another example where the sky was NOT modified Notice there is not one blown highlight in the entire image? ![]() ![]() 692
Photoshop Discussion / Correcting for under exposure« on: March 19, 2007, 04:02 »
Recently someone asked be how to prevent blown out highlights. Especially if your shooting INTO Sunlight. I really don't have a right or wrong answer, but I told him what I do: I expose for the Sun.
The reason being I don't want blown highlights. Once the highlights are blown out, all information is lost and CAN NOT be recovered. I can however, recover information in an image that is UNDER EXPOSED. So here is a RAW image taken with my camera. The image below that is processed in photoshop to recover the underexposed information in the lighthouse. I will not go into details, but my method involves the extensive use of masking, and blending. Now, I realize that I have just about added an entirely new sky, however I also have a third version with the original sky that is not blown out because I exposed for the sky, rather than the building. In this age of digital imaging, some of the film techniques for handling this situation, are unnecessary when you use photoshop. Any questions? ![]() ![]() 693
Dreamstime.com / Re: Anyone receive a subscription sale (@ 0.25) yet?« on: March 01, 2007, 23:42 »
I also got one today, and of course....the biggest size DT offers. Why of course, who can refuse a free lunch?
"I'm not feeling too good about selling a RAW file for 60 cents." ooooooooo, that's gotta hurt! RAW!? Your selling your RAW!? Oh dear Lord....Please save this man from the Devil 695
New Sites - General / Re: PureNatureStock.com - Nature Lovers RF Stock Site.« on: February 27, 2007, 03:46 »
I joined
696
General Stock Discussion / Re: No clear focal point« on: February 25, 2007, 04:34 »
Thanks Ken.
So according to you, I am correct in assuming "There is a lacking central focus point for the viewers eye." 697
General Stock Discussion / No clear focal point« on: February 25, 2007, 04:07 »
I always thought and imagined that "No clear center focal point" meant that the subject lacked at reference for the eyes of the viewer to focus on.
That it had nothing to do with the focus of the camera. As a new photographer, working out what exactly stock sites wanted, I took pics of EVERYTHING in the beginning. And, like all new beginners, I tried to learn from my rejects. One of the "canned" reject I sometimes received "No clear center focal point", baffled me, as the images was clearly (to me) in focus! "How could the reviewer say this image was out of focus!?" "It's was clearly sharp as a tack!" So in my own mind, I resolved this by interpreting the reviewers comments to mean: There is a lacking central focus point for the viewers eye. I could be wrong, and if so I would like to hear your comments. 698
Site Related / Re: New interview with Melking« on: July 17, 2006, 10:45 »
I'm not a photograper yet. YOU'RE a photographer.
When I grow up, I want to be able to compose shots like yours. I still don't have the knack. I'm trying. |
|