|
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 - travelstock
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... 40
676
« on: October 20, 2009, 11:48 »
Believe it or not I think its the Istock exclusives that do the most sharing of ideas etc. and generally those that participate in the various events that are set up benefit from it enormously.
I think its the open sharing of ideas that is what makes Istock quite competitive. Obviously they have a large exclusive base to draw from, but they seem to be keen to help those exclusives build their skills too.
On the occasions when I've met up with other microstockers I've learned an enormous amount, as I think have they. Its rare that learning is only a one way exchange.
677
« on: October 20, 2009, 11:27 »
^^^ Did he just write a 'news article' about himself?
Yeah, it's apparently another of his hobbies. 
http://www.newsguide.us/technology/multimedia/iStock-Photographer-Jim-DeLillo-Strikes-Gold/
But neglected to update his profile page at istock:
Jim DeLillo is a photographer that is an active, exclusive member of iStock.com, the fastest growing micro-stock company, owned by Getty images.
I like these quotes too: "New Jersey Photographer, Jim DeLillo joins an elite group of less than 1500 photographers worldwide reaching the milestone of 10,000 downloads at istockphoto.com." And "My photography is very ecclectic" both in the first person at the start of the article, and then in the third person further on.
678
« on: October 20, 2009, 09:29 »
^^^ Did he just write a 'news article' about himself?
Yep looks like it. Always odd when people talk about themselves in the third person - even when they're trying to sell themselves on an About page on their own website.
679
« on: October 20, 2009, 01:41 »
I've also now got a blog, but it started off as more as a learning exercise than as a way of trying to boost sales. I have indeed learned a lot in the process - including things that I find useful for my photography. Every time I go to write something... I think.. hey why didn't I take a photo of that... grrr! Basically my blog is aimed more at travelers, people who are interested in photography or people who are bored at work and just want to look at pretty pictures
680
« on: October 19, 2009, 08:42 »
681
« on: October 18, 2009, 19:17 »
Apparently microstock stills don't count as "creative".
No they don't. Bizarrely, to me at least, microstockers are still largely regarded as 'amateur photographers'.
When you look at what was considered to be 'high-end' professional stock photography just a few years ago it really puts it into perspective. Check out the wholly-owned content at JIU/PC for example. As one of their many acquisitions Jupiter bought Banana Stock just over 3 years ago. They paid $20M for a collection of about 15K images which works out at something like $1300 per image. You can check them out on the link below __ I wonder how much they'd be worth today?
http://www.jupiterimages.com/collections/BananaStock
Actually these are some of the best images ever. Looking at their conceptual images, I can see that nothing says "eco friendly" like a $399 photo of an Empty fridge on the street. http://www.jupiterimages.com/Image/royaltyFree/78155832 or maybe an Empty fridge with other appliances out of focus in the background? http://www.jupiterimages.com/Image/royaltyFree/78155823Clearly you guys have been going wrong by isolating things on white - that's so "microstock". If you want to sell a premium stock you really should just shove some random product out on the sidewalk and shoot it out there. That's edgy.
682
« on: October 17, 2009, 20:28 »
Supply and demand isn't just about volume, and its not just how often a file will sell that should determine its price.
That's actually good point, Maybe price should go up if certain numbers is sold in give period of time. If image is not sold for specific period of time price should start falling down automatically until it reaches minimum or start selling again.
My point was that if I have a file which is in demand to a certain market due to its scarcity (but would never be in demand in volume), I sell it on Alamy RM for $300 (for example) not 0.25c on microstock. The problem we have in microstock isn't that prices are too low, but rather the opposite. The sites that are doing well are the ones that are looking at ways of increasing their prices, rather than discounting. Reducing the price of specialised content isn't going to increase the volume its demanded in, and conversely increasing the price isn't really going to decrease the demand either. Its only going to make people less likely to want to supply it. If someone needs an image of a particular location that isn't on any of the microstocks, then paying slightly more for it isn't going to be a deal-breaker either.
683
« on: October 17, 2009, 15:50 »
Very nice pic Holgs - very clean, even zoomed there's barely any noise. I use E-510 and E-30 too, but I don't think I've ever tried at 800 ISO, at least, not for stock!
It is an ideally lit subject though - noise is worst in dark areas, and there aren't many dark bits there.
Did you apply any noise reduction or sharpening?
I like the Olys though. I just wish they would do a full frame model...
haha thanks! I guess the thing about noise is that it pops up when the light is bad - personally I try to time most of my shots when the light is good anyway. Generally if you make sure you expose to the right, rather than underexpose which is what the camera will want to do in lower light, you should get pretty acceptable results. The shot is from about 2 years ago, but I think my post processing workflow then was basically to convert in lightroom with sharpening pretty low or off and apply a second layer for selective noise reduction in post processing - on that photo it would have been applied to the leaves in the background. Basically the image looks pretty sharp because its taken with the 35mm macro, which is about as sharp a less you'll find - even wide open at f3.5. Also I'm pretty sure DT applies some level of sharpening to their previews which in my view makes them look a little bit oversharpened. I've found with the E30 if you start your processing with sharpening and the Noise Filter turned off and expose properly, you'll get pretty clean results. The sky and areas with no contrast will have some level of grainyness that is easy enough to apply a small NR layer to, but its not enough to get rejections for excessive noise even if you don't. I shoot at ISO 100 about 90% of the time, so high ISO performance isn't really that much of an issue for me - if it was I'd probably be looking at FF - but as it is I can generally still get around any low light problems.
684
« on: October 17, 2009, 14:12 »
Many does. Even sometimes without downsizing and this at Istock. I had a couple of downsized 800iso pics of butterflies in my portfolio. Just downsize make a path and put the downsized butterflies together on white, that make a XL 
ISO 800 on an E-510 - not downsized, and accepted on all the sites... the Dreamstime version zooms if you have any doubts about it being "Unusable". Yes there is some grain, but nothing that would really show up in print. The E30 isn't as noisy as the E510 - as long as you expose properly - no different to other cameras really.  http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photos-tarsier-tarsius-syrichta-image3285108
685
« on: October 17, 2009, 11:50 »
@holgs Did you try to get sponsored by Olympus for your venture, might be worth a try?
Yeah I wish... I think I'm in a very small minority (maybe a minority of 1??) who only uses Olympus cameras and who does this full time. In some ways the output from Olympus is much better suited to people who want a JPG that is going to look good if printed straight out of the camera. That said, I think when you get used to a post processing workflow with the Olympus cameras that's geared to stock you can get some pretty good results. EDIT: @ the comparometer - I must say that's about my least favourite camera review website - if you look at the parameters they use and the scope there is for error, the results there are pretty meaningless. Change 1 setting on each camera and the results will be completely different. I personally rely more on the DPReview tests - even though they have their shortcomings.
686
« on: October 17, 2009, 10:38 »
I am using E-510 whole the time...
But E-3 or E-30 is my next step ...
Here is some compare with Nikon D-300...
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Olympus_E-3/outdoor_results.shtml
Take a look down on images...
Message for Nikon: "resistance is futile..." 
Hardly a fair test - comparing a Nikon lens that's almost twice the price, covers half the zoom range and isn't splash-proof. What they really should have compared it to is the 14-35mm f2 Lets not mention that by f/8 most Oly lenses start to loose a little sharpness... Actually on that link it looks like the Nikon is out of focus... or are the photos from this lens usually that bad??
687
« on: October 17, 2009, 00:49 »
I was just thinking about new pricing shema for agencies. Let's say they are accepting all images that are technically acceptable. Then image is listed on a site for minimal price, e.g 5 cents. With every download price will be bumped by 1 cent. This way the best pictures will be more valuable than bad ones. Users can search not only for specific keywords but also price ranges. There will be no need for subscriptions cause you can always get cheap ones on demand if you want.
Well often the photos that will only sell once or twice on RF will also sell once or twice on Alamy - with starting prices well above 5c. Supply and demand isn't just about volume, and its not just how often a file will sell that should determine its price.
688
« on: October 16, 2009, 20:50 »
Mine is http://twitter.com/nicemonkey and it is 90% about microstock
Nicemonkey... I just noticed your speed dials... what is going on there?? Does IS just hate you or is there some other story there?
690
« on: October 16, 2009, 19:05 »
A friend of mine wants to get into microstock and is looking at an olympus E-410 or E-510 to start. He has a collection of old olympus compatible lenses from his film days when he used an OM-2 and an OM-10. He asked if I knew if they were compatible with these Olympus digital cameras, I told him I didn't know and have a feeling they are not. Being unemployed at the moment he wants to not spend too much money and feels he cannot really afford a Nikon or Canon plus all new lenses. Anyone know if these old lenses would be compatible with Olympus digital cameras?
Presumably if he's looking to buy one of these cameras he'll get a kit lens with it? The standard 2 lens Olympus kit comes with a 14-42 and a 40-150 lens both lenses are good enough for doing stock work - and significantly better than some of the other kit lenses going round. Its actually one of the reasons why the Oly kit would be suited to stock. I wouldn't suggest getting an Oly body only though. You can get an adapter that will allow him to use the old OM lenses, but this means that they become manual focus only. Sharpness isn't always ideal, but some lenses perform pretty well, especially some of the longer ones that benefit from the 2x crop. A good source of info for him is the Oly forum on dpreview: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1022 There's also a little bit of info on my website, but nothing dealing with the OM lenses.
691
« on: October 13, 2009, 16:56 »
I see a lot of noise and artefacting in the 100% image.
I'm also new to the world of microstock and researched a great deal into quality requirements and camera/lens capabilities. Others may disagree but the general consensus is you will limit your success with anything less than a 10MP DSLR and a quality lens or two. There are images on stock sites taken with non-DSLR cameras but the quality control is now extremely tight for new photographers trying to get into the top sites. It's a cost but you have to invest in the very best you can afford in my experience.
"Poor optical performance due to low lens quality, such as lens fringing, chromatic aberrations, uneven sharpness in focus area." has nothing to do with sensor quality. I own Canon 30D and it is 8MP. But I use 2.8 L lenses. Just stay at 100 ISO and you will do fine all over microstock world.
Sorry Dook, but how does using a 30D with L lenses compare to using a point and shoot exactly? Just because the rejection reason given states "poor optical quality" doesn't mean the other things aren't sound criticisms as well. Reviewers have a range of rejection reason choices - just because they hit one rather than another doesn't mean they won't pick noise or artifacts next time.
692
« on: October 13, 2009, 12:04 »
Most of what I have in microstock was taken with a A620. It has limitations, butit is a decent camera, and I expect the A650 to be the same. One limitation is noise (present in sky even at ISO50), which is perhaps worse if the A650 produces larger images - A620 is 7Mpix and sometimes I downsize for micros because of their picky standards (I have upsized for Alamy with no problems). Another limitation is chromatic aberration, especially at larger apertures.
I don't understand holgs calculation about aperture. A620's minimum aperture is f/8 and it doesn't mean infinite DOF... At f/5.6 I get a limited DOF, depending on the distance. I use f/2.8 to f/4 in many of my shallow DOF images.
Well I'm confused as to why the Flickr infor page says "Canon PowerShot A590 IS" - the aperture calculations were based on that model's sensor size giving it an effective focal length multiplier of 6 - a 1/1.7 sensor will give you something like a 5 times multiplier when comparing to full frame - so an effective aperture of something like f/13 to f20 in the aerture ranges you quote. This isn't infinite aperture, so if you want to limit depth of field, its still possible, but probably more likely on macro and close-up subjects where you have a high level of magnification than when doing portraits. The camera that's being quoted now looks to have a 6* zoom range with 12MP sensor. That's a lot of compromises in a small camera, and I think even with re-sizing and post processing you'd be pushing it to get these files accepted.
693
« on: October 13, 2009, 08:04 »
We'd need to see something at full resolution. Whatever problem they've identified is likely visible at 100% but not when you reduce to 1024x768. I might also suggest that you'll have trouble getting a lot of images accepted if you use a point & shoot camera. Limitations of small sensors can mean a lot of noise. Finally, a large lens opening (F/5.5 according to the EXIF data) will show the limitations of your lens more than a small one will.
Its a Powershot A590 IS - I agre with your comments, except not sure what you mean about the large lens opening - on a compact camera with a 1/2.5 sensor that has a "crop factor" of about 6 - f5.5 will be equivalent of about f33 on a a 35mm... you can't really stop it down!
694
« on: October 12, 2009, 09:26 »
Yep have to agree that you really need model releases covering specific shoots - signing a release isn't a blanket document giving you a right to use someone's image for different photo sessions. Sounds like a pain to administer, but that's all part of running a business. If you want to be an everyday person shooting everyday photos, don't try to earn money from them - someday the paperwork will catch up with you!
695
« on: October 12, 2009, 01:38 »
I find it amusing that people are worried about people sourcing their content for counterfitting from Microstock.
Why would you pay $10 for a flat scan of a $1 note.
under the licence conditions would you need an extended licence ?
surely if your going to make fake money you could get hold of a real $100
maybe counterfitters don't have scanners.
I was thinking exactly the same thing... funny stuff!
696
« on: October 10, 2009, 18:40 »
Nice shot ptlee - looks very clean. Care to share your thoughts about the camera so far?
Thinking about switching to canon (I'm guessing for video if you are)? I got the 5D mark II and the video stuff is fun hopefully it will translate to sales but I think I need a better tripod.
I'm looking at switching in general, so weighing up the options. It will probably be to a 5DII if I do though. Its a bit academic while I'm in Argentina, because decent camera equipment just isn't on sale here, and would be outrageously expensive anyway. While I'm still happy with the Oly IQ overall, one of my lenses needs repair (for a second time) and just I'm not happy with the service I'm getting from them at the moment.
697
« on: October 10, 2009, 08:48 »
Nice shot ptlee - looks very clean. Care to share your thoughts about the camera so far?
698
« on: October 09, 2009, 10:06 »
There is some discussion of Shutterpoint in this thread: http://www.microstockgroup.com/alamy-com/what-works-in-alamy/basically to cut and past my comments there: Shutterpoint was one of the first sites that I sold photos on - I pulled out after they changed to a microstock type license - the main reason for doing so though was that I had another look at their licenses. The breadth of their licensing goes further than most extended licenses on the microstock sites: Full commercial use on there (ie. anything that isn't their microstock type sales) allows purchasers:
Print Usage (Resale and Unlimited Run)
* Book jacket or interior page
* Greeting card design
* Poster for resale
* Calendar for resale
* Mug or T-shirt design
* Software packaging, CD/DVD/video or audio tape label
* Trade show display, billboard, exhibit
* Any print project covered under Standard Commercial License
* Any print project covered under Editorial Full License
* Any item/product for resale
Electronic Usage (Resale and Unlimited Run)
* Electronic greeting card
* Web application template
* Presentation software template
* Screensaver
* E-mail template
* Any electronic project covered under Commercial Standard License
* Any electronic project covered under Editorial Full License
I don't know about how others feel, but for me I'm not happy with receiving $17 (85% of $20 which is what prices start at there) for full commercial use on a one off basis and then having the purchaser be entitled to sell prints of my work forever after.I just had another quick read over their terms - one thing that may also be relevant is the use of the image in situations where it my not be flattering to a model their terms state: Images may not be used in any defamatory, libelous or otherwise unlawful manner whether directly or in context or juxtaposition with specific subject matter. Most of the other agencies are far more restrictive.
699
« on: October 09, 2009, 09:11 »
I'm impressed to see the ratio of photographers in the top two categories.
It would be worth pointing out that to be in the top two categories takes a lot of hard work, skill and long hours, otherwise anybody seeing this poll is just going to be suckered into the 'make money from shots sitting on your hard drive' nonsense, add to that fact that the competition is growing and the majority of agencies are doing their level best to pay out as little as possible from the license fees.
I also think that some might confuse the poll for how much their dollar sales total is rather than how much they actually make - big difference!
Very true - and its probably also worth pointing out that a lot of contributors on this forum have been in the game for several years building up portfolios, and are the ones after all this time still doing it. Microstock has a very long tail of contributors who don't make anywhere near these figures.
700
« on: October 09, 2009, 00:45 »
http://ayrton.com/360/fs/rio2016_votacao.html
Is this type of image taken in just one shot? I can't see any flaws we would expect when stitching images from several sequential shots.
Very cool... I think its probably done with a few images from an ultra-wide angle lens... but I don't know for sure - also curious!
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... 40
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
