Quote from: wordplanet on May 06, 2014, 17:58
Great shots Muskoska! Though clearly post-processed, the Nikon 1 looks like a great choice, though it would be nice to see some minimally processed shots as well. Can't beat that price.

Thank you for the compliment.  The Grasshopper and Bald Faced Hornet have only basic processing.  The near infrared shots, by their nature,  require significant post processing to get anything usable as a result of the conversion.  The others, indeed, have varying amounts of post processing work.

Here's one from Algonquin Park with only processing done in ACR:

http://www.betterphoto.com/Premium/Gallery.aspx?id=454017&cat=0&photoID=14472947&iPage=1&mp=V3

Here's a casual family snap of my son on St Patrick's day with only ACR processing.  The WB isn't great, lighting was tricky with 3 different types of light sources in the room.   

http://www.betterphoto.com/Premium/Gallery.aspx?id=454017&cat=0&photoID=14472946&iPage=1&mp=V3

Both of these were shot with the  Nikon 1 18.5mm F1.8 lens (set to f2.5 top, and f1.8 bottom).  Note the deep DOF even at these wide apertures. 

I can usually rely on the V1 to provide output that I can work with as a long as I keep my expectations reasonable, and when I play to its strengths, the results can be excellent.  Whether I do little or lots of post processing on a given image is largely a creative choice and not born out of necessity (in fact my experience is that  with out extreme care, excessive post processing tends to be destructive to the overall IQ).  The G15 quality was far more spotty, and cost more than the V1 and my first two lenses combined -  which is perhaps the V1's greatest strength of all.   

Quote from: disorderly on May 06, 2014, 21:21
Thanks for your comments, Muskoka.  I've been thinking about the AW1, Nikon's waterproof version.  I was on a cruise in February and envied a fellow traveler who was shooting stingrays swimming among us.  I had to settle for pictures from the boat.  Wasn't about to risk my D800 in chest high water.

I don't blame you.  The AW1 would be a blast!  When it eventually goes on clearout I'll consider getting one if it's cheap enough, but I just don't have enough of a need for a waterproof camera to justify the current price tag.

Quote from: stockastic on May 06, 2014, 21:35
I saw the AW1 in a store today - it's cool but not for me. Rather heavy for its size, and no viewfinder.  I don't need the waterproofing.  They didn't have any other Nikon 1 models, and (not surprisingly) told me they never sold very well, but they have hopes for the V3 which is coming soon.

While I was there, the sales guy showed me the new Sony A6000.  Wow.

The launch price of the V3 is too expensive for what you get in my opinion.  I love the 1 system, but not for that kind of money.   My personal strike point for this line has been about $375 or less.  The V2 with kit lens has already dropped below $500 in Canada (down from $899), and has the EVF and grip built in, both of  which you have to pay extra for on the V3.   

The A6000 really does look awesome!   I thought long and hard at the Sony mirrorless offerings several times before the V1's went on firesale, but always grounded to a halt when it came to the e-mount format.  Knowing me, I'd end up wanting to buy and carry duplicate copies of equivalent e-mount lenses that I already owned in F-mount.  The fact that the format offers little to no cross compatibility for my existing F-mount lenses is a real hang up for me.

Quote from: Muskoka Imagery on May 06, 2014, 05:26
I posted some sample images in the above post but they looked horribly compressed embed here so seemed pointless to leave them there.  I will see if I can put them somewhere and link to them.

The first 8 images in this gallery were shot with a V1.  There is some compression used at this site too, but not as bad: 

http://www.betterphoto.com/Premium/default.aspx?id=454017&mp=V3

I posted some sample images in the above post but they looked horribly compressed embed here so seemed pointless to leave them there.  I will see if I can put them somewhere and link to them.

If you are open to buying refurbished, I consider this Nikon 1 V1 kit a steal of a deal at this price point:

http://www.adorama.com/INK1V1BKR.html

I own two of them.   I picked up my first one when they went on firesale a year or so ago, to replace the very highly regarded Canon G15 P&S, which, was the best P&S I've ever owned, but the V1 is hands down better.  The second body I bought to convert to full-time IR (a very easy 15min DIY job).   

As for image quality including ISO performance, I would place the V1 firmly above a Nikon D70s and just behind a Nikon D80 DSLR (if you are familiar with an those bodies).   I'm not sure if that meets your requirements or not.  The V1 images are commercially viable for Microstock, I've not had much issues getting them accepted and never had a purchase refunded yet.  That said, I do typically sample V1 images down to 6MP though, just to play it safe. 

The V1 camera does have some real merits that outclass even my D800E and D7100 in other areas; most notably the 135 point autofocus system is faster and more accurate, with faster continuous shooting as well at 60fps (electronic shutter), not that I'll ever need that much.  The inherent characteristics of  the 1" sensor also offer some flexibility not found in larger sensors.  More than just the 2.7x crop factor, the almost 3 full stops (2.9) of added Depth of Field has been fantastic for extreme Macro work without the need for DOF stacking nor tiny apertures that result in diffraction.  This DOF characteristic also great for extreme telephoto work and landscapes, but is often a detractor for portraits or other work when shallow depth of field is desired.   Nikon does make a 18.5mm F1.8 lens for the Nikon 1 System that is some help in this regard and of course there is the FT-1 adapter.

The Nikon 1 lenses are great in themselves, but the addition of the FT-1 adaptor brings the 1 system into a whole new realm.  It allows you to mount your FX and DX glass on the Nikon 1 body .  Any AF-S lenses will retain the ability to autofocus on the 1 system (single point). I often use a 85mm prime with this adapter - gaining an effective field of view of a ~230mm lens, with the light gathering capabilities of f1.8, 3 stops increased DOF, and only uses the sweet spot of the lens.  Add a Rayox DCR-250 2.5x adapter, and the 85mm is also great high powered macro lens.   The same lens effectively becomes a completely different tool when mounted on this system affording shooting options I just wouldn't have if my sensors where all the same size.             

So for me, not only has the Nikon 1 system displaced the G15 P&S as my take everywhere camera as I intended, it also quite unexpectedly led to the displacement of a D7000 IR converted body (listed on ebay right now if anyone is interested), and largely replaced a D7100 (which will likely be listed shortly).  Sure, these current model APS-C sensor camera have significantly better overall image quality, but in the end the V1 was still "good enough" in this regard, plus its advantages that I just found myself no longer reaching for the DX bodies.  I was either grabbing a FF body or a V1.  Even when going on a serious shoot with a FF body, I'd still bring along a V1 (or both) - they are so light and convenient, there was is reason not to.   In reality, if I go anywhere with a camera, it's a V1, the question is whether I bring anything else along with it. 

My only major complaint (and it's a big one) is the proprietary accessory port (incl. hot shoe).  Its incompatible with the wider Nikon Lighting System used for DSLRs.  No commander mode either.  There are some McGyver tricks you can use to get around it, but it's an annoyance to be sure, and not a complete substitute.  Nikon really missed the boat on that part. 

Attached are a few samples shot with the V1 bodies.


Good luck with whatever you decide!

Sounds like a great opportunity, well worth the 2 hour drive.  I'm in!

If you are looking to shoot the Milky Way with a crop sensor you'll want to go as fast & wide as possible.  The wider the lens, the longer the exposure can be without generating star trails. The longer exposure in conjunction the fast 2.8 goes a long way in keeping ISO levels down.  Dave Morrow's Blog has some excellent information on this including a handy reference chart:

http://500px.com/blog/738/tutorial-photograph-the-night-sky

Based on what you've said above, I'd recommend the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 as a lens worthy of serious consideration for pairing with your T3i. My experience with the Tokina is this:

Strengths:
Clarity and sharpness are excellent.
Chromatic Aberration - Never had any significant issues
Produces gorgeous sunstars.
Excellent build quality
Less expensive than name brand alternatives
Can be use on a FF camera at 16mm with very respectable results.

Weaknesses:
Generates harsh and ugly lens flare when the sun or other extremely bright light is in the frame (a pity, since the sunstars are so nice)
Creates horrid hot spots when used for near infrared photography, even at widest apertures.

I replaced my Tokina 11-16mm with the Nikon 10-24mm F4 because the hot spots were a deal breaker for me, as I shoot infrared extensively.  Other than that and the flare (which is always worse in infrared), the Tokina is a better lens in every other aspect.  It's significantly less expensive too.  I realize you shoot Canon, I mention this comparison only to highlight that the Tokina holds up (and in many ways outclasses) more expensive name brand glass. 

If you are looking to shoot astral bodies, I'd recommend investing in good telescope and tracker with a Canon camera adapter mount instead of a lens.   

Quote from: PhotoBomb on April 04, 2014, 17:08
Weak concept - poor execution  - time to move on.

Thanks.  With the valuable feedback above, that is my conclusion as well.  I consider the shoot worthwhile overall, just from what I've learned here.  Far more valuable than if it were accepted, I'm sure. 


Edit:  I've +1 hearted everyone's comments here.  Thanks for the feedback!

Quote from: tickstock on April 04, 2014, 16:29

Quote from: Muskoka Imagery on April 04, 2014, 16:26

Quote from: Ron on April 04, 2014, 16:23
I agree with the reviewer there. I have had rejections too, composition on isolations. If the object itself is not composed correctly or in a weird angle, it gets a composition rejection.

What do you suggest I change about the composition?

Each element should be it's own image.  It doesn't make sense to me to put them all together, but the lighting looks like the biggest problem.

I appreciate the feedback.   What about the lighting do you find displeasing? - Knowing this would be helpful if I'm to improve.  Thanks in advance. 

 

QuoteThe massive chocolate rabbit doesnt make a lot of sense on the small plate. Even if this was a normal image, with that kind of table setting, would probably get a rejection.

The massive chocolate rabbit on the small plate is the whole point of the image.  I'd used miniature items to achieve that look.  That said, your point is well taken.  Evidently I failed to properly communicate the concept in the final image.  I do appreciate the feedback.   

Quote from: Ron on April 04, 2014, 16:23
I agree with the reviewer there. I have had rejections too, composition on isolations. If the object itself is not composed correctly or in a weird angle, it gets a composition rejection.

What do you suggest I change about the compositon? 

Image quality of the screen shot is horrible.  I'll try a saved version from the original file:

Edit:  Still not great, but better.  Must be some file compression going on. 

Thanks Michael, Sue, Rimglow, and Perry. 

For the most part, I'm thinking the tight crop too.  Rimglow's point about the pen-line makes a lot of sense in that regard, not something I've considered.   Thanks for that.  I'll pull the crop back a little and try again with a note.

Below an isolation that was rejected for composition but is a bit different than the others.   I'm not sure what to do with it now.  I really don't want to add more white space.  I struggle with this one because everything about it was deliberate and calculated.  It's an experiment in scale mixing miniature and normal size objects (without being too obvious) as a visual commentary on over indulgence on holiday sweets.  As you can see, aside from the intentional faint shadows the background is pure white, and there is a clear clipping path so designers can adjust move/remove, alter the perspective, change the scale, and extract any or all objects as they see fit quite easily (note the dark Gray area is the desktop BG and not part of the image).

I have another version that was done an a variegated pastel pink background that isn't isolated, but it was also rejected for composition - which to me hints at not enough copy space being the reason, but that doesn't make a lot of  sense to me on this one.  Being holiday related, I've already lost a lot of time, but am happy to take it as a learning experience instead, so I can help avoid similar rejections in the future.


EDIT:  I added the visible clipping path to the example, it of course was not on the submitted version.

This has happened with isolated images in my past two submissions.  I've been cropping them pretty tight with the understanding that customer don't want to pay for a lot of null space.  It's a simple thing to add some back and even compose them in accordance with the "Rule of Thirds", if that's what they really want, but it seems a bit silly to do that with images designed to be raw material cut outs for someone else.   Has anyone else been getting rejections like these lately?

You're welcome.  Let us know how it goes!

Quote from: EmberMike on April 02, 2014, 22:31

The tweeted image is gone, but the tweeter (is that a word?)

In her case I think it's pronouced "Twit"

I'm getting the same message also.

I informed the image owner and sent a site mail with a link to notify them.

If you are looking for a dollar figure, then I would ask for the full $3k EmberMike mentioned.  From the customer's perspective, it's not about what the image could earn on MS, or that its status as public domain, otherwise they'd have purchased the appropriate license for their purposes through conventional means or hire someone on the cheap to find the source material you got it from.   What this is really about is getting you to stop actively selling your copy elsewhere, and how much they are willing to pay for that service.  It would cost them a lot of money to build their brand around this image only to have some other company buy an EL from one of your agencies and use it as well thereby creating brand confusion.  Market price is whatever the customer is willing to pay to get  you to agree to the terms they've set out, you just need to figure out what that is.    I'd start the negotiations as high as you are comfortable going, and see where that leads.   

Don't undervalue the opportunity you have here.  It's not about the value of the image to you that matters, but the value of it to them. 

It'll likely be awhile before I'm ready to submit but want to start squirreling away my best work for inclusion in a Stocksy application.   I'd like to keep it succinct and powerful as possible, but also want to make sure I include enough images to give an accurate representation of my work.   

Can anyone in the co-op suggest an approximate number of images I should be targeting for?

Thanks in advance!

So, I decided to run a test and took four different photos from the same night sky shoot and processed them adding varying amounts of noise reduction and submitted each to 5 agencies to see which (if any) would be accepted.  Attached are the results for anyone else that may be interested. 

Quote from: Herg on February 20, 2014, 08:21
Slightly used D7000 ? Not sure what you mean. Surely a new one would be better unless you mean they are only second hand.

Funny enough the rating for the video side of the D7000 is better than the D7100 according to digital photography review website.

They still sell them new if you prefer.  I mentioned slightly used because the D7000 second hand market is saturated and you can grab them at great deals, saving a couple of hundred dollars over a new one. 

Both do HD video, but the D7100 has 1080p @ 60fps, where the D7000 tops out at 1080p 24fps.

Since HD video performance is a major consideration, the D7100 might be worth the extra money, although I consider a slightly used D7000 better value for the money overall, and a better match for your 18-70mm kit lens.

For what it is worth, I've owned  3 D7000's (still have one) and have a D7100 so am speaking first hand.   

Quote from: Herg on February 19, 2014, 07:03
You would think all Nikon lenses would be universal fitting all cameras. Think I will stick with the D200 and invest in a cheaper HD video camera then.

Lens backward compatibility is actually one of Nikon greatest strengths.   Your 18-70mm will work on a D610, but you will need to shoot in DX mode (10 megapixels) or you can shoot in FX mode (24 megapixels)  but your still images will likely suffer moderate to severe vignette in FX mode when shooting at the wider angles (18mm) and probably poor corner sharpness at all focal lengths.     

If you want to stick with your current lens and add video, you might want to consider a DX body such as a D7100 or perhaps better companion for this lens would be lightly used D7000.  These cameras have the same sensor format (DX) as the D200 for which your lens was designed around.   

Quote from: Mantis on February 18, 2014, 02:32

Quote from: SHSPhotography on February 18, 2014, 02:28
Forgive my ignorance - what does the acronym API stand for?

Application programming interface, a way for companies to communicate/work with each other.

Thank you.

Forgive my ignorance - what does the acronym API stand for?