ok, now someone teach them how to properly stich images together, please

I know what you mean and no one can blame you my friend.
Thank you for your words 

Quote from: rubyroo on September 28, 2011, 11:06
I'd love to Giuseppe.  I've long been a huge admirer of your work.  When I first saw this, I went straight in to vote, but unfortunately, I'm not on Facebook, and don't wish to be.  If there was another way to vote, I most definitely would.

I do hope you get enough votes to qualify though.  Your work is really wonderful.

wow busy people here...

I know I can count on a wonderful community of photographers who have always helped each others.
Thank you in advance for your time and your support.

Quote from: lagereek on May 26, 2011, 13:39
To be honest though, I upgraded from tthe HD3 to the HD4, for commissioned work only and yes thay are superb, if cumbersome but looking back there really isnt much these can do that you cant do with the D3X or the 5dMII,  I think they are slightly overrated.

God Bless You

Quote from: leaf on February 24, 2011, 12:22

Quote from: Giuseppe Parisi on February 24, 2011, 11:50
This is mine

http://www.youtube.com/user/MrGiuseppeParisi

nice photoshop comp vids.

Thanks for the visit Tyler

This is mine

http://www.youtube.com/user/MrGiuseppeParisi

Quote from: Megastock on November 24, 2010, 22:28
I was kind of hoping to get my few minutes of fame some other way

OMG it's the famous Brad replying!! 
Well you did have your minutes of glory my friend

yes the new page is real nice but... I would have preferred a raise on my earnings instead.

LOL
if they keyword pictures as they write emails, they'll find themselves paying customers back for refunds...
hahaha

I'm selling my works on 6 agencies.
5 microstock (Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Fotolia and iStock) and 1 macrostock (Alamy)

My best selling agency is Shutterstock.
I might consider joining other mid-earners only if they will pay to have my portfolio as Veer did. Otherwise it is not worth it.

Quote from: MicrostockExp on September 23, 2010, 17:29
new e-mail:

You received the letter because you marked "applied for" for the ITIN on your W-8 form. If you want to apply for the ITIN, you will need the letter below and this is the reason we sent it. If you are not applying for the ITIN, then please just disregard the letter.

alright, same email here too. He apologized afterall.
Why does every agency have to go through this "ITIN hysteria" everytime they discover we need to be taxed?
How frustrating  

Quote from: MicrostockExp on September 23, 2010, 15:10
Bad news.. I received the same letter again asking for ITIN but with my name this time....

Same thing here... they are just driving me crazy!
But, again, I submitted a W-8 not a W-7!!!
If they will charge me the 30% because of the ITIN issue I will consider taking off my portfolio from their servers.

This Brad Calkins is gonna be real famous! ahahah

Quote from: MicrostockExp on September 23, 2010, 13:48
I just got the exact same e-mail from Erin adressed to Brad Calkins also, probably a mistake....

Wheeew... that relieves me a lot, thanks!

here we go again...
I filled the W-8 at the beginning of the month (Sept '10) and a few minutes ago I receive an email from dreamstime (Erin Vandivier) saying that I need an ITIN because of my W-7 form submitted

WHAT???

I submitted a W-8, I am Italian living in Italy and... wait a minute.... they call me Brad Calkins
My name is GIUSEPPE PARISI!!

AHAHAHAH
OMG those guys are in such a MESS, you can tell... I just hope they will notice the huge mistake, anyway I wrote them back pointing that out.
LOL 

I can't believe they acted like that?! 
I hope someone will show up here to explain the situation, which is VERY embarrassing for Fotolia.

I'm quite happy with them so your story really leaves a bad taste in the mouth 
I'm so sorry for you.
FT staff needs to give a valid explanation and just pay you what they owe you.

Once I was asked the same thing by a DT admin. I refused without thinking twice: the RAW is the digital negative of we photographers and we should never give them away for a few bucks.

No dying, it is just stable for me... which is great.

thank everybody,  now my only problem is the filter size but I think that I can't let a filter size winning me over to choose a different lens, so if the 16-35mm II is 82mm fine... I've seen the difference between the version I and the II and it's evident, fringe problems are almost gone and it appears to be less soft at the edges too, although this is problem of every wideangle, especially in zoom lens... however we are still talking about two wonderful glasses.
I wonder if Lee has a 9stop or similar filter to mount on... gotta find out. Any Lee users here?

Quote from: cdwheatley on April 07, 2010, 21:00
Agree with sharply also. I have the 16-35 II and seldom use it. Bought to shoot landscape and underwater, but prefer the 24-70.  The copy I have is a little soft on the edges also, I basically use for underwater stuff now since the setup I have is built around it. I wouldn't bother trying to use a circular polarizer on that lens, it won't work right at the wide end. You end up with crazy side to side gradients in the sky, unless that's the effect you want. If I had to buy another, I would get a used 16-35 I ,or spring for the 14mm if you want a better lens.

Thank you for your suggestion

Quote from: gostwyck on April 07, 2010, 20:29
If your heart is set on the 16-35mm then I'd suggest you try and source a used Mk1 model from eBay __ there seems to be a few about. You'll save yourself some money and still be able to use your 77mm filters. It's less risk too as, if you get find much use for it, you can probably sell it on for about what you paid for it.

Great hint, althought the MkI has great fringe flaws... Thank you
Probably the solution to the 82mm size can be a lee filters system...

I'm not a fan of TS lenses at all and 24mm is not as wide as I want. I think that the choice will fall on the 16-35mm since I used to shoot and love the Sigma 10-20 on my old 350D...

Quote from: sharply_done on April 07, 2010, 18:39
I used to have the 16-35mm, but found that I didn't use it very often - I found the zoom range of the 16-35mm very limiting, and I routinely bumped against the 35mm end. My 24-70mm offers much more flexibility in that regard.

I bought the 16-35mm to shoot interiors, and it is a good lens for that purpose. I eventually decided I didn't like doing that sort of work very much (too finicky), and once I stopped seeking it out I had very little use for this lens. My gf found a nice home for it: shooting landscapes with her Rebel XT. My only wide angle lens these days is a 15mm fisheye.

I see what you mean but I started as a landscape photographer, so I use that range of focal length very much and that is my purpose, other than some reportage shooting here and there (not for stock) which the wide aperture of this lens will make even more effective.
Gosh your gf has some great glass for the good old 350!   (I own the Rebel too, my first DSLR)
Thanks Sharply

Hi guys!
Time has come to purchase a L lens and this time is a wideangle.

Let's get it straight, there are three possible choices for my 5dMkII I came up with:

Canon 17-40mm L f/4
Canon 16-35mm L II f/2.8
Canon 14mm L f2.8

Now I sadly have to exclude the 14mm because of a budget reason... golly it's 2.000 euros!!
The 17-40mm is much less expensive than the 16-35mm but it is designed - if I am not mistaken - not for full frame cameras, so the images it produces are very soft in the corner of a 35mm sensor.
All the roads seem to lead me to the 16.35mm II , which I know it is a great lens with a lot of flaws being fixed after the release of the second model.

What really bothers me it's the weird circumference of the lens that has changed in the II version: it went from 77mm to 82mm.
My filters - Hoya Moose's Cir Pol, Hoya ND400 - are 77mm. You will say "Fine, buy the 82mm version", alright but Hoya does not produce a 82mm version of the ND400, not even B&W.. hmm tricky situation.

Anyway I'd like to receive an opinion about which lens would you purchase is you were me.
Thanks in advance!