|
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 - GeoPappas
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 51
801
« on: February 24, 2007, 17:30 »
According to StockXpert admin, there has been a 30% increase in sales over the last few weeks.
Have any of you seen an increase in sales lately?
802
« on: February 24, 2007, 08:54 »
One thing to consider:
Using this as a "macro" lens probably means that you will need to use it at its minimum focusing distance of ~ .2m (or 8"). That is pretty close for a macro shot and might lead to some wide-angle distortion.
803
« on: February 23, 2007, 13:20 »
Interesting article. Thanks. But the author writes about flickr ...
Millions of photos. Some by professional, some by amateurish. Some terrible, some unforgettable. That description fits iStockPhoto ...
I disagree there. Strongly. Whatever you may think about IS, you've got to agree that the vast majority of their images are of a very high, professional standard.
Flickr, on the other hand, is stuffed to the gills with junk. There are good images there, but it's a tough job to find them.
So it won't just be a question of switching the whole collection to a stock agency. As the author recognises, they're going to have to create something separate, with inspectors and submissions procedures, etc., etc. and build up a workable collection of images. And IS ... and SS, and DT, and BS, et al ... have a major start on them there.
Bataleur: I totally agree with you. There is a major difference between Flickr and IS - the review process. Flickr has none. You can put whatever you want up there. While this is a flawed system at most sites (because of the "we don't believe that this is stock worthy", "we have too many of these", etc), it is a better system than none at all (which is what Flickr has). While Flickr does have some fantastic images, there are 100s or 1000s of snapshots to every 1 good image.
805
« on: February 22, 2007, 19:00 »
Flickr ranks images according to "interestingness" (= popularity). That, and the fact that there is a total absence of keyword spamming, makes it exceedingly easy to find quality images quickly. Also, most people post their images to relevant groups, which are analogous to categories.
I just did a simple search for two subjects on Flickr: an Admit One Ticket and an American Passport. The first search for an Admit One Ticket only resulted in 60 images. IMO, none of the images would be usable, and most of them didn't even contain a ticket in the image. On top of that, most of the tickets contained copyrighted material (such as logos or company names). The second search for an American Passport resulted in 161 images. Once again, only a handful of images even displayed an American Passport. The best image of the bunch (IMO) was only 375x500 pixels, for a grand total of 0.19 megapixels. So from my brief test, I wouldn't say that buyers would be thrilled about Flickr.
806
« on: February 22, 2007, 18:07 »
no full size sensor, no sense in an upgrade
Maybe not for you (or me), but I'm sure that plenty of people will be buying the camera. Canon is the largest camera manufacturer in the world for a reason (they know what people want).
807
« on: February 22, 2007, 18:06 »
Not me either. I use pBase.
808
« on: February 22, 2007, 18:00 »
I think the next big shakeup is going to come when Flickr enters the scene - it's not unusual for me to get emails from my Flickr contacts who've been contacted by someone who wants to buy their images. Now that Yahoo owns the joint, it's only a matter of time before Flickr enters the fray. The amount of photos they have is orders of magnitude greater than all stock agencies - micro, macro, Getty, Corbis, ... - combined.
Flickr, I think, will become home to the amateur microstocker, and home to the most variety of shots (in quantity, quality, and scope). IS and SS will be home to the professional, and will be where the quality images are. DT, FT and the rest will still be marginal players, perhaps finding a small niche market or two.
... at least that's what I think.
While Flickr might have more images, it would be extremely difficult for a buyer to find an image that they are looking for. A buyer would have to wade thru droves and droves of snapshots to find one good image. That would be very annoying and drive away business. It would be sort of like going to a garage sale to find a valuable painting (like a Picasso). While it happens, it is extremely rare. So, I don't see Flickr as a threat to the micros.
809
« on: February 22, 2007, 13:20 »
Now it's passed Feb 15th, but the pricing is still the same, a couple of images qualifies for Level 2 still got paid on Level 1, so are they cancelling the plan to increase price?
No, they have delayed it until next week. They supposedly ran into some implementation problems.
810
« on: February 22, 2007, 10:56 »
Of course, some of the licenses give ridiculously high limits, like one million. There isn't a magazine in the US with a circulation of one million.
I agree that a million copies is too high for an Extended License. It should be much lower. If they have that high of a circulation, then they can afford to buy multiple copies of an Extended License. But there are many magazines that have circulations over a million. Here are the top 10 (as reported by http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/directories/toptens/cons_mag.jsp): AARP Magazine: 22,200,000+ Reader's Digest: 10,200,000+ TV Guide: 9,000,000+ Better Homes & Gardens: 7,200,000+ National Geographic: 5,400,000+ Good Housekeeping: 4,600,000+ Family Circle: 4,300,000+ Ladies Home Journal: 4,100,000+ Woman's Day: 4,000,000+ There are also newspapers that have circulations over a million.
811
« on: February 22, 2007, 06:47 »
Are they saying that 10mp is enough? isn't the 5D 12mp? therefore aren't you trading off the 12mp of the 5D for the speed of the 1D. I thought they were going to bring out a 22mp one as well.
This looks to be a pure sports photography camera. It shoots 10 fps @ 10 MP! Wow! Pro sports photographers are probably drooling over this one.
812
« on: February 22, 2007, 06:33 »
That is the first Canon camera ever that has made me consider changing from Fuji/Nikon. Apart from ergonomics, where Nikon still excels, this seems to be the best all purpose DSLR ever.
And all that for ONLY $4,000!
813
« on: February 22, 2007, 06:19 »
Sorry, DT, but I beat you to it... 
817
« on: February 21, 2007, 18:42 »
This is how I understand it:
There are two types of sensors, full size and (1,6 times) smaller size. If I put the same lense first on a camera with full size sensor (camera[full]) and then on a camera with smaller size sensor (camera[small]) the following will happen:
Camera[full] has a larger sensor and therefore receives more of the image which is projected by the lens. Camera[small] on the other hand will only receive a smaller part of the image which is projected by the lens because of the smaller sensor. The image from the lens is "cropped" because of the smaller sensor, this is why it is called the "crop" factor.
Now let's assume that we are taking a photo of a bird through this lens. We also assume that the lens gives sufficient telezoom that the bird occupies about 2/3 of the photo with camera[full]. With camera[small] however, the image projected by the lens will be cropped and therefore the bird will occupy the whole photo on camera[small].
This cropping effect therefore creates the impression of magnification. This is what I imprecisly refered to as "magnification factor".
Are these assumptions correct?
Yes, that is one way to look at it. You can read more about it here: http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0703/tg0703-1.htmlFYI: There are more than two factors (1.0x and 1.6x) out there. Canon's DSLR lineup has three (1.0x, 1.3x, and 1.6x). For example, the Canon EOS 1D is a 1.3x. As far as I know, Nikon's DSLR lineup has only one (1.5x). The Olympus E1 has a 2.0x factor.
818
« on: February 21, 2007, 18:28 »
StockXpert recently changed the default sort order from Most Recent to Top Downloads.
Anyone know when this took effect?
819
« on: February 21, 2007, 18:17 »
It would be great if some of you could provide links to your (or your relative's) work so that we can see what sells on those sites.
820
« on: February 21, 2007, 15:08 »
1.) 100mm is 2x normal perspective on full frame sensor and 3.2x normal on XT if you consider 50mm as normal. "The 100 mmm corresponds to a 3x zoom..." that statement does not make sense.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. It is still "2x normal perspective". That is because a 50mm lens is actually 80mm on a 1.6x factor lens, and a 100mm lens is actually 160mm. Going from 80mm to 100mm is 2x.
821
« on: February 21, 2007, 15:06 »
1) The 100 mmm corresponds to a 3x zoom on a full size sensor or to a 4,8x zoom on a smaller sensor such as the one of the rebel. Is that about right? If yes, then this is already a kindof telephoto, so wider-angel photos of landscapes and so on will probably be limited, or?
Daneel: As I explained in another thread that you wrote, the focal length magnifier is a relation of the camera body to the lens. It will not change from lens to lens. If the factor is 1.6x, then it will be 1.6x for ALL lenses. So a 3x zoom will always be a 3x zoom on ANY camera. It is only the focal length that changes. For example, a 100-300mm telephoto will still be a 100-300mm telephoto on a full size sensor (with a 1.0x factor), but it will be 160-480mm on a sensor with a 1.6x factor. So if you notice, it is still a 3x zoom no matter what the camera or sensor is.
822
« on: February 21, 2007, 14:58 »
They might be buying them in a corporate raider capacity: buy the company, take any pieces that they can use (e.g., technology), and then kill the competition.
823
« on: February 21, 2007, 06:16 »
This is the final answer from SS:
"... As the same image appears on a number of other microstock agencies (e.g., stockxpert.com, fotolia.com) we are unable to conclude that the photo in question was
downloaded from Shutterstock. ... "
very sad because I had only 2 downloads of that photo. I have wrote this to SS in my first complaint:
"The photo was used on the newspaper to comment a article from another
major italian financial newspaper "il Sole 24 ore": it was a research
over quality of life in italian cities and Siena results the winner. Well this research was
published the 18 of December on "il Sole 24 ore": so the same day
someone bought my photo of Siena from ShutterStock and published it on
our newspaper the day after. For this reason I don't think the photo
was bought at StockXpert the 11 of December, because the research
wasn't published yet."
But they seem don't matter about this. very sad 
Why not just call the newspaper yourself and ask them where they got it.
824
« on: February 20, 2007, 17:01 »
Lenses don't have a focal length magnifier or "factor". The camera sensor does.
For a camera with a 1.6 factor, you would multiple the factor (1.6 in this example) times the focal length of the lens (hence the name focal length magnifier). So a 100mm becomes a 160mm, a 200mm becomes a 320mm, etc.
For a camera with a 1.0 factor (or full-size sensor), there is no magnification.
The focal length magnifier is great for telephoto lenses, since it makes them even longer. But it is not so good for wide-angle lenses.
825
« on: February 19, 2007, 07:19 »
Bryan:
I would also agree that downsizing a file at its largest size does not make much sense. If a file is 8 or 10 MP, it just doesn't seem right to downsize it to 5 MP. I believe that you are the only stock site that does this. I would recommend leaving the image at its maximum size. This would also save your servers from processing the image, and increase performance.
GeoPappas
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 51
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
