MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - willie

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 28
1
Alamy.com / Re: unsuitable camera?
« on: April 02, 2010, 22:16 »
Xalanx & RacePhoto: Guys, you obviously suffer "fullframe" disease - buy the most pricy Canon/Nikon or even better medium format and let us others happy with cheaper stuff. Image quality matters, not camera.

I will simply strip exif and thats it, editor can judge just the image quality and who cares about some camera lists?


True, image quality matters, but that's not the point of the list. The cameras on the list are not likely to produce suitable images, and in most cases, for most people, will not. Alamy has produced the list to help people understand that they shouldn't waste their time submitting images from unsuitable cameras. The list is in response to people who wanted something more specific than the guidelines suggested. Now there's a list and some people want to debate that their camera shouldn't be on it.  ???

Alamy QC doesn't want to waste time and money with batches and batches of failures. Same reason why, one fail all fail, is their policy. Same reason why Alamy came up with the vacation for repeated failures, upload ban if it continues.

I might point out that it's not a game to see what someone can sneak past the reviewers. The agency is asking for a certain quality for images and setting their required standards. The customers are also expecting the images to be up to the agency standards.

I wouldn't call a 20-D and 40-D Fullframe Disease.  :) 

What started this thread was the allegation that Alamy looked at EXIF data and refused the images based on that. On the Alamy forum a couple of people have hypothesized that computers reviewed their images, not humans.  :o  While either could be true, neither of these has been proven to be fact. Evidence is that some members have recently uploaded images made with cameras from the unsuitable camera list and they have passed. Like all other fine experiments, one person wrote to Alamy to point this out and the images were promptly removed with a warning, don't do it again.

I don't have the 10-D (not on either list for some reason?) or G6 anymore to do some tests with stitched images. But I did have an image from the G6 accepted last year! Well lets say 29 images, all stitched into one, cropped and downsized to 48.2MB. ;) If there was some EXIF flag, that one would have been waving in bright red.

Flagging QC to refuse for EXIF camera models may be something new?


well said Racephoto. (nice fly... by the way )...

another alternative would be to get this
http://www.pentax.jp/english/news/2010/201008.html
and you won't need to worry about upsizing,
instead you need to downsize from the 40MP.
imagine what the image will look like.

2
Lighting / Re: Which Alienbees Flashunit?
« on: April 02, 2010, 22:11 »

It's not worth getting AB's sent over from the States. They'll be the wrong voltage for the UK and so you'll need to buy a fairly hefty transformer too. They'll cost more than you think by the time you've added shipping, 6% import duty AND 17.5% VAT on top of the whole thing. AB tried selling them here for a while but for some reason it didn't work out for them and they pulled out.

Ignore cheap rubbish off eBay and get yourself an Elincrom kit when you can afford it. 'Cheap' but inadequate lighting kits are the most expensive thing you'll ever buy.

good point gostwyck, if you're living in the UK with the diff voltage HZ that may need be reconsidered.
perharps you can also try email AB 's  Paul C. Buff   at [email protected]
to inquire about UK units or whether they have a  UK distributor .

3
Hmmm!

In the UK we have Premier League football, and all photographers have to sign a licensing agreement agreeing to what it can be used for - basically editorial material. Anything else, posters, football cards, t-shirts etc, and you loose young license and feel the wrath of their hitmen. The license cost's a photographer / agency money, you need public libaility insurance, and have to be established before they'll give you one. In effect it's now a closed shop for any freelancer starting out.

I can keyworkd Premier League 09/10 season as much as I want, but woe betide I try and give the impression any image I create was taken at a premier league ground or invloves their logo if I sell for otherwise than editorial.

Simple was around this was to take pics of UK teams oversea's in European competition or friendly matches. Unless you signed anything before the game you were OK, and could do as you wanted with this pics.

I used to apply for World Cup passes for a large sports agency, again the problem is the restriction on how they could be sold. No problem with editorial use, but marketing merchanside etc is a hangable offence unless you are their "official" photographers.

With the amount of money in football, their rights are protected very well, hence the details posted earler that FIFA had filed back in 1999.

If you want to take a pic of a football on a South African flag, then I would caption away as "world cup 2010 soccer football". Stick the same image with the trophy on it, and it could be a problem.

Istock are correct and "world cup" is not copyrighted per se, but any photographs claiming to represent it or taken in the stadia are governed by licensing restiction.

Saying all this, every match I have ever attended (100's) has had unlicensed merchandise for sale outside the ground, all that's got to come from somewhere. Unless you need to stay on the right side of governing bodies so they will continue to grant photographer's passes, then I would not worry too much.

On a final note, I always thought football / soccer was the people's game! Fat chance when it becomes a money spinning business opportunity. Half of the World CUp Final match's ticket's go to sponsor and FIFA hangers on. The real fan get ripped off for their meagre allocation of seats. In England the former are all know as the "prawn sandwich brigade", i.e they don't attend matches for fun, just to fill their corpulent bodies with fine food and drink trendy wine.

Rant over for the Easter weekend

Oldhand

Yes, agreed .

The thing is that even if you're permitted to submit editorials, with an event like World Cup where they have their own syndication, no newspaper will pay for your work anyway when they can get it from the syndycates.
Same thing with rock concerts, etc..  Every top draw has their own distributor, and you're really wasting your time trying to sell editorials of something taken behind the crowd,etc. when their own officials are on stage, etc..
The press knows that, and will not waste their time looking through stock editorials, they go straight to the syndicates to get a copy of what they want.
My point isn't whether one is allowed to shoot or not, but more whether it's worth the trouble.

4
Wow, you people are so lucky ! I am jealous already :(

5
The best people to ask would be the merchant who sells them. If a product is recognizable by design, I would assume it can lead to IP situation.
Much like  Tom Waits or the golden arch,etc...
As for just upload and try. I am not even sure this is the best thing either. In IT infringement, the contributor is responsible. At least that's how I understand the Agreement we sign. 
Maybe someone with IP legalese will be able to help on this.

6
Alamy.com / Re: I got first sale on Alamy
« on: April 02, 2010, 15:08 »
Congratulations.
Alamy sales may be far and few, but it's nice to get a download. Another thing I also noticed, the views are far and few too.

7
Lighting / Re: Which Alienbees Flashunit?
« on: April 02, 2010, 14:03 »
I bought two 800s and a 400 for backlighting. I never use 100% of power on them for product or food photography...they are powerful enough at about 50%. But when I decided to shoot full body shot models, I found I did not have enough power to evenly light the whole length. I wished then I would have gotten the 1600s.

So it just depends on what you plan on shooting. If you are going to shoot models, you should get the 1600s right off. If you want to start off simpler for less money and shoot product for awhile, then I would get the 800s. You can always add 1600s later on, and you will still get plenty of use out of the 800s.

Just my two cents, worth about 1 cent.

wow, your studio must be gigantic.
With our coop studio, we used to shoot with the smallest 400 units, and even bouncing off the ceiling,
at ISO 100 we shoot at f 8.
If we wanted to blast the model with light , shooting wide open would totally white out the model to Zone VIII.

We still use the 400 at times, and many times, we still reduce it to 1/s, 1/4 power for modeling,
because this produces a more natural lighting .
Our coop studio is more like your average pad living room.

For still life, we never shoot more than 1/8 1/4 , so I am surprised you 're having lack of power with the 800s.

8
I expect there will be "counterfeit" of any world event whenever .
But with something like the World Cup, I am not even sure if this is a profitable thing.
Have you ever tried to sell counterfeit paraphenelia to a sport fan?
Most of these fanatics will never settle for the counterfeit. Even if you tried to forge it , they know a forgery by a mile.
It's like trying to sell a counterfeit comic to a collector. You won't succeed because they will pay for the real thing.
Just my thoughts on this.

Also, for those in S Africa for the event, trying to sell these unofficial wares will not even be allowed inside the perimeter. Much like most concerts when you go to a rock show. They have security checking your bags to ensure you don't even bring your own beer or pop, never mind try to smuggle in some counterfeits to sell on site.
The surest way to get the boot. (ah, bad pun)

9
Alamy.com / Re: unsuitable camera?
« on: April 02, 2010, 13:03 »
If I am not mistaken, the reason why certain DSLR are unsuitable is merely that in order to upsize to 48MB you need to start with a very good original in camera.
Sure, many good Photoshop experts are able to upsize from 7MP camera , some even claim from 4MP.
I am not sure if this is true. I don't know.
But I know that with a low MP camera you have to really work a lot to get the image suitable for Alamy.
It's not to discriminate from one camera to another. It's just being realistic.
I have work with Alamy approved with lower MP cameras but I really gave up and bought a top of the line pro DSLR. This sure reduce your post production time. Many times, you just upside a couple MPs
and there you have it.

10
Shutterstock.com / Re: Editorial Question
« on: April 02, 2010, 12:58 »
If I am not mistaken, RCMP images are distributed by their own press . It's like the Canadian Snow Birds, you cannot sell them as stock.  That's as far as I am told by my colleagues .
But to be more correctly informed, you can easily check directly with the RCMP Public Relations .

11
Lighting / Re: Which Alienbees Flashunit?
« on: April 02, 2010, 12:55 »
Hello,
If your studio is small,  you should do good enough using the smallest unit of the Alien Bee.
I used to have larger rental units and most times you have to reduce the light power.
The smallest bee is powerful enough.
The advantage too of AB is that you can set the lighting ratio very accurately,
and you can turn on or off the modeling lamp.

You cannot go wrong with A Bee. Comparatively pricing also found that A Bee is cheaper for more power and features because it eliminates the middle man. I hope this is helpful.

12
Not an expert in these situations. Don't get too many .. as I only shoot with primes.
But I notice that fringes are prominent in high contrast situations... ie. bright background, dark clothes, ... bright summer or noon day sun with framing ,etc..
you can more or less be conscious about this, and use a reflector to reduce the extreme contrast
or use  fill flash.
If not, you can use Replace Color and Layers to reduce saturation and "cheat" your way around this problem.
It might not always work , esp if you need 48MB for Alamy, or upload the larger sizes . But last alternative , you can downsize and submit. small enough that the fringe is not visible, except to the bionic IS and DT reviewer who has xray eyes that sees 100% images like 400% ,lol.
then, I would throw in the towel... lmao

13
Funny this!  back in the 80s,  with agencies like Tony-Stone and The-Image-Bank ( nowdays owned by Getty), there used to be a whole heap of photographers earning well over 100K per year. That was regarded as "pretty good"  because there were som top names that even clocking up earnings of betwwen 300-400K per year.  Not bad, hey?

This was in the Trad-agencies hey-day,  good old days.

ah yes, lagereek, but those were the good ole days.
in those days, I was a bloody green horn beginning, new to the business, yet I was earning far more than I am earning now as a retired.
I remember my first photo essay earning me $150 per page of 5 photos and a short essay. Today, the editors offer a tearsheet and credit...
not even a danish and coffee.
in those days, not everyone can afford a view camera, or  a Nikon F, and even if they did, not everyone knows how to use anything
other than the Instamatic.
Today, a chimp could take better images with any DSLR if you give them enough bananas to eat.  :D

14
Dreamstime.com / Re: Is Dreamstime dying?
« on: April 02, 2010, 08:41 »
could it also be that DT is outsourcing their reviewers?
i noticed during the holidays, (eg. now the Holy Week to Lent, Passover... or during Christmas,etc..)
there is an unusually increase in stupid rejections.  something I don't notice throughout the rest of the non-festive seasons.
Could this be due to DT,etc... hiring reincarnations of Atilla, lol?

Also, how are reviewers paid? if I mass reject , am I paid the same money as if I conscientiously approve/reject works?
Just curious.
Finally, I know that with IS, IS exclusives review non exclusives images. Most of the rejections (except for one reviewer) are reasonable .  Does DT also have exclusives reviewing non-exclusive contributors?
With IS I can see some prevention of COI  with Scout. But with DT you cannot do this.

15
back to topic, the dudes who is conducting clinics could always buy images from IS of yours, SJLocke,etc..
and use them in their slide presentation, and no one could be the wiser , though !

One of my bride images is on the cover of a digital wedding photography book.

One of my images was on the front cover of a 'how to improve your snaps in Photoshop' magazine as the "after correction image". The before image was a desaturated/contrast reduced version of the uploaded one (which did in fact look scarily like my out of the camera image!)

slightly OT,
Sean, Sue,..
would such a usage be considered Editorial?
eg. if you have a shot of a wedding or a bride , but you were not able to get a MR ...
because the bride is a foreign bride or whatever the reasons.

and say you give it to stock as Editorial. and someone used it on the cover of his book like this .
Is it possible?

My asking is, actually , are book covers also considered Editorials?
Do such images have sale potential ?

16
back to topic, the dudes who is conducting clinics could always buy images from IS of yours, SJLocke,etc..
and use them in their slide presentation, and no one could be the wiser , though !

One of my bride images is on the cover of a digital wedding photography book.

voila, I rest my case, Mr. Locke !
not everyone will turn to the back of the page to read the fine print who took the image. the general perception will be the author is the photographer of all the images . thus, same perception at a seminar of how to make $$$ selling stock photos.

17
Microstock News / Re: Getty Images to aquire 123RF!!
« on: April 01, 2010, 15:46 »
Good one.  But if it were true, would anyone really notice a difference if 123 just got shut down?  Most of us took a big revenue hit when StockXpert was acquired and killed.  But 123?  A better prank would have been: "Getty in talks to acquire Shutterstock," but maybe that would seem too outlandish and spotted  as an April Fool's joke right away.

ha!ha! good one cdw,
agree too PD,
but a much better April FOol's day prank would be that Getty and Corbis are really sleeping together.
That would be a hard one to blow off (no pun intended) ...

18
And some of the people selling expertise don't really have that great of a track record with selling stock images. Why would I buy their expertise? It's like hiring an investment advisor who's broke.

well, in fact, many of these investment advisors ARE broke. they lost all their investors money... and their own
in the last market corrections. I also remember one such establishment way back in the 80's 90's that was teaching Investment Strategy, and each of them were "Investment Experts". They started a mutual fund, and it got broke with the following crash.
I am sure these dudes are back somewhere being part of some brokerage firm handling our investment portfolios.

back to topic, the dudes who is conducting clinics could always buy images from IS of yours, SJLocke,etc..
and use them in their slide presentation, and no one could be the wiser , though !
;)
like those wedding photographers who ripped off wedding portraits while moonlighting as lab assistants in some custom labs. (this one is actually what someone in the stores tell me some years back).

19
@joingate
Could I just check what you mean by "that scenario pans out for us all" That you are all making 80,000 UK pounds per year or that from your experience you deduce that that is where your income is heading?

I also have to disagree that there are only three other people bar you researching the market and creating saleable images". The reason there are so many derivative images out there on the stock sites is that most micro vector artists spend a lot of time "researching" what sells then copying it (dont make me go through your folio pointing out the best selling IStock icon sets that most resemble your SS top sellers   ;))

sorry for interrupting Microbius and @joingate.

re: blocked letter.
when you say derivative, does that mean that it's "legal" to creat vectors from IS photographs and creating 3D from IS photographs,etc..
 and the reviewers do not reject you, or ask for verification as they do us when we do a silhouette photograph to ask us to prove we used our own copyright image to create that silhouette.

i am not good at these legalese stuff, but i too tend to agree that i see a lot of "derivatives" in the illustration, vector, 3d section
many of which i too as a lame brain old bugger could recognize the originals it "ripped off".

@joingate, this is not implying nothing that you do this.
that's strictly between you and Microbius.

Ta
 ;)

20
very realistic view  and well written article.
same goes for some of the comments made here , without naming them,
eg. the points made re:
- knowing where to promote your portfolio (quote: not facebook,twitter,etc.. as they're a waste of time)
- being objective to acknowledge that you may be a hotshot shooting weddings, commercial work, sell tons of art gallery ..(whisper: with fully framed images with noise rhe size of golf balls... not a comment, but my own observations from my visits to the locals for their exhibitions, lol)..
yet you may be a total dud to the extreme and perharps overly high standards of micro stock reviewers.
- be able  to separate your subjective photography school and artistic idea
as to what is an awesome work and what the micro buyers are looking for.
as the two do not necessarily coincide, and most times do not.

finally a question, in ref to "knowing where to promote your portfolio"..
Question:
Do COLLECTIONS and LIGHTBOXES , like those created by other contributors of IS and DT,etc.. really make a diff to increase sales?
or is this just another way for contributors to that ..."you scratch my back and i scratch yours. i rate and review you 5 times, when are you going to come back to give me a good review?"   ... syndrome.
i suppose the same applies to writing blogs eg. on DT, as they seem to be the same dudes being selected as :most informative blogs:  although that may not always seem :informative:.

appreciate a full blown objective insight from any of you .

21
I'm thinking that at this point  few subscription buyers really understand  the rights and restrictions on images they buy, and buyers are ceasing to care.  Eventually people say "screw it, I don't know if I'm even totally legal on these images I actually paid money for, so why not just use these thousands of freebies that are floating around, everyone else is doing it anyway."

It's all way too complicated, vague and contradictory; it doesn't make sense. 

aye stockastic,
and neither does getting pennies for XL on the same day, with another paying 1.50, 2, etc.. for a M.
i see more XL downloads with 20-30 cents commissions then S and M,etc paying 1.50.
it doesn't make business sense... to contributors,
but to the sites,  it does  ::)

22
Dreamstime.com / Re: Is Dreamstime dying?
« on: March 29, 2010, 17:47 »

I've found that while certain styles or subject matter sell slightly better on one site over another, by and large a good seller one one site will at worst be a decent seller on another.  (One thing I keep in mind is that many FT buyers tend to be European, so subject matter that is uniquely American may not be big sellers on FT.)   

However, overanalysis of this stuff CAN be counterproductive if it's hurting your productivity of new images.  Just generate what you feel are marketable images, upload them to all the sites, and accept that results may vary slightly from site to site.  I'm all for researching the market and against "feed the beast" mentality... but too much overthinking and too little actual creation of new pics won't help you meet your goals.

Well spoken PowerDroid.
Yes, I too noticed that images that DT reviewers (or at least a certain one) reject over "poor composition" or "no stock potential" (lol, like that reviewer actually foresees the latter...excuse while I laugh my a off..)
those same images sold well with FT and even IS.

Also, yes, FT is in fact more Euro, and certain images that are dead with DT sell well with FT, and vice versa.
Yet a third thing I noticed at DT is that the oldest and older images tend to be selling, while the newest seem to be not located ( the mind boggles),
whereas at FT, you get a dl almost instantly within days of the image being approved.

For that, I think FT is more "fair" about what images are being "found" by the search .
or at least, I am guessing this must explain why newest images sell fastest  on FT, while DT seems to take
weeks.. months.. whatever.

any speculations  from experts here why this may be so?

23
General Stock Discussion / Re: List of dead sites
« on: March 29, 2010, 17:37 »
TotalPhotos or TotalImages - don't even remember anymore :)

Stockphotomedia

it seems FeaturePics too

no, I don't think FeaturePics , as Elena was here recently to say she's reorganizing things.
at least I haven't heard from her of it closing.

24
General Stock Discussion / Re: List of dead sites
« on: March 29, 2010, 15:05 »
actually, Mantonino , you should copy paste every site on the right column
that has subscription. because by next few years they will all be dead after the buyers stockpile all they can get for pennies.
i know stockpiling is not allowed, but so is paying contributors pennies for their hard work, and not letting them opt out on subs !

but who really cares a rat's a..?

25
General Stock Discussion / Re: List of dead sites
« on: March 29, 2010, 15:02 »
Photo Shelter ?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 28

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors