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 - Striker77s

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8
1
General Stock Discussion / Re: New Image Format
« on: January 26, 2007, 16:25 »
I seem to remember some cases a couple of years ago, when MS suddenly found out that they wanted to charge all camera manufacturers for the use of FAT16 or 32. It's something everybody took for granted as a standard that just existed, but it belongs to MS, and the moment they saw the chance to make money on it, they grabbed it.
I agree that MS doesn't have the greatest track record and many companies and people are skeptical of MS true intentions. 

Quote
What will happen with the new picture format, is that programmers will have to pay license fees that will eventually be paid by the end users: us.
I don't think it will be that easy and MS has to yet to collect any fees associated with FAT16 that I'm aware of.  Lets take a look at the MS Office file formats, which are a closed file format.  MS has no desire to share their office file formats but there are dozens of programs that can read and write all of the office file formats.  MS has made no attempt to sue or gain money from them.  I'm no legal expert but my guess is they would have a hard time extracting any money even if they wanted to.  This format is at the current time an open standard.  So every one will access to it, even if MS changes the standard everything can continue to run off the old one and companies will figure out the new standard just like they do everytime MS changes the office file formats.  But in reality I just don't see them locking it down, because they won't benefit from it.  Unlike other software that they have developed (Office) which they offered initially heavily discounted and now charge an enormous amount of money for it, this isn't a program.  A file format is extremely hard to collect royalties on because companies can write their own algorithms. 

I must admit I'm still a little skeptical and I wish another company had created the standard but without MS creating a new standard is going to be hard.  And jpg needs to go.

Mark


2
General Stock Discussion / Re: New Image Format
« on: January 26, 2007, 13:54 »
I don't think that it will ever make much of a dent.

First, because it doesn't really offer much that JPG doesn't already have.

Did you not read the article.  It offers a lot more than jpg.  A wider color space, high bit depth, better compression algorithm, and the option of going to a lossless compression.  jpg was developed before Windows 3.11 in the early 90s.  Don't you think a few new ideas haven't surfaced that are better.  With MS new format I wouldn't mind shooting in HD because of the bit depth would mean you wouldn't loose any info in the shadows and highlights.  You could adjust the exposure as if it where RAW.  I spent a few hundred bucks updating all my software when I bought went from my 10D to my 30D because my software didn't take the new CR2 RAW image.  Shooting in HD means you would get the benefit of RAW and jpg all in one.  Sounds great to me.

Quote
But ultimately, because it isn't free.  MS wants licensing fees.  That won't fly with most other companies, no matter how small, since they can use JPG for free.

MS isn't asking for licensing fees and is begging people to use it.  In fact they are spending their own money to help Adobe develope a plug-in for it.  I doubt they will every ask for money.

Mark

3
General Stock Discussion / New Image Format
« on: January 26, 2007, 13:41 »
http://news.com.com/2100-1045_3-6153730.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subj=news

I really hope their new format succeeds.  That ability to save in 16, 32 bit and control the compression, from high to lossless in one file format is fantastic. 

Mark

4
Off Topic / Re: Unlimited backup for $5.00
« on: December 19, 2006, 12:12 »
I really can't imagine how they could survive offering unlimited at $5.  I have over 100GB in photos alone, most likely I have close to 300GB of data.  I use an external hard drive at the moment. 

There is one catch that I found in the FAQ.  They throttle your bandwidth to 2-4GB a day.  So backing up 300GB would take about 3.2 years.  So I guess they are out of the question for me.  I'm sticking with a media fireproof safe and an external 500GB hard drive.

Mark

5
The zip code you gave puts him in Lansing MI, which most likely doesn't have a photography shop large enough to carry a wide seletion of Canon L lens.  The nearest place would probably be Detroit.  But once again he would have to drive to Detroit (1.5 hours) and try and find a photo shop.  If your friend doesn't like the internet just have him call B&H (800.952.1815).  He won't have to touch a computer.  Just give him the item numbers or description.  I'm sure he could have the ordered completed within 5 minutes.  A whole lot easier than driving around trying to find a shop with the items you want.  Get overnight or two shipping and it will get there in plenty of time.

He must be one nice guy to be willing to buy thousands of dollars of equipment for someone he barely knows. 

Good luck,
Mark

6
General Stock Discussion / Re: Micro Stock Watcher
« on: November 08, 2006, 13:03 »
Having to update the software will probably be a common thing.  Everytime one of sites changes their log in system or layout the software will have to be updated.  Obviously they have little control over it.  My only suggestion would be to implement automatic updates in the program.  That way it makes it easier to keep on top of it.

Mark

7
General Stock Discussion / Re: Micro Stock Watcher
« on: November 08, 2006, 09:45 »
What version are you using?  I belive the latest is v1.5

Mark

8
General Stock Discussion / Re: Aaaaaaaagh!
« on: October 31, 2006, 09:48 »
I can't tell you how many times I have forgotten to change the ISO down after bumping it up.  Canon refuses to implement the ISO in the viewfinder in the 30D series like it is on the 1 series and 5D.  Many people want it because everyone makes that exact same mistake all the time.  It would be real easy to catch if the ISO was displayed in the viewfinder.

Mark

9
Cameras / Lenses / Re: Be careful out there.
« on: October 30, 2006, 18:20 »
A good place to get information on a site (e.g. is it a scam, is the service decent, etc) is:  http://www.resellerratings.com.  I check it every time I buy something online from a business I haven't dealt with before.


I can second the usefullness of resellerratings.com. I have used it for many years and it has saved me from many possible mistakes. If I can't find the company at resellerratings then I don't bother because it usually means they are brand new and have just set up a fake store front to scam people out of money. You also have to take the ratings with a grain of salt. Many times people will only rate companies if they have a bad experience and don't bother if things turn out well. So the ratings are disportionate towards negative ratings. But if a company's rating is overwhelmingly bad then stay away.

Mark

10
Alamy.com / Re: First Licensed Image sale at Alamy
« on: October 30, 2006, 18:14 »
Alamy is not a fast moving company.  They take things nice and slow.  I think they have lately been under the gun and that is why they have been attempting to implement an upload process and redefining their approval methods.  But once again they have been extremely slow to get it started.  It took about 6 weeks to get my first approval but I wouldn't be surprised if it takes even longer.  It varies a lot.

Mark

11
Alamy.com / Re: First Licensed Image sale at Alamy
« on: October 30, 2006, 14:15 »
Hey, Tyler. Congrats on the sale. I have a question for you: Does Alamy send email notifications of sales? I've passed QC and I'm starting to send more images. I couldn't figure out if they notified contributors, or if I had to check periodically.

No e-mail or notice is sent.  You have to check online to find out.

Mark

12
Alamy.com / Re: First Licensed Image sale at Alamy
« on: October 30, 2006, 14:14 »
Congrats, I've only sold one licensed image to.

Mark

13
Cameras / Lenses / Re: Sensor Cleaning with Copperhill
« on: October 25, 2006, 13:52 »
Pec Pads work very well and have been proven by thousands of people.  That absolute worst that could happen is it could leave some fibers behind.  I have never heard of a single complaint of that happening but that is the reason Sensor Swab is claiming they are better.  Pec Pads won't come close to actually damaging anything.

Mark

14
Microstock News / Re: Firefox 2 Released
« on: October 25, 2006, 10:42 »
IE seems too dumbed down.. it is impossible to find anything. I am afraid that is what windows vista is going to be like :S

Yes at first glance once again MS sided with the dumbed down interface.  It took me a moment to go through the options to get the menu back on there and to re-adjust the interface to my liking.  The layout is fine once you get use to it except for the icons.  The force the icons to the right side and won't let you move them.  It drives me nuts because I want them on the left side because it is quicker to get to them.  That is my only complaint so far.  A lot of people have both and use Firefox unless they run into problems and then switch to IE for that particular site. 

Mark

15
Microstock News / Re: Firefox 2 Released
« on: October 25, 2006, 09:39 »
I've been using IE7 for several days (since its release). I find it more stable and love the tabs. I like Firefox but a lot of websites don't work well with Firefox so I mostly use IE. I'm glad MS is getting more competition because it killed all browser improvements once it won the war with netscape. Firefox is finally putting some heat under MS. Of course the new IE7 is only a catch up to Firefox 1.5, it hardly offers anything new or exciting.

Mark

16
Off Topic / Re: Monitor Calibration
« on: October 24, 2006, 11:54 »
I too could really benefit by an expert spending a day with me. The biggest problem I find is the step in the calibration process when I'm to adjust the brightness of my monitor. The brightness of the monitor can make or break the photo!

The concept of color management is quite simple, the application of color management is a nightmare. I've read many many articles on color management and I still get confused on how to get great results. The problem with color management is the fact that it is only recently become a widespread concern and software and OSs have only recently began to address the issue. Most of the implementation of color profiling and etc has been a hack job and each software program is doing it differently. This wasn't a problem before because in the commercial industry where they have been worrying about it for a long time because they only used it a specialized setup and only one setup or process. Software was developed to output consistent colors for a single streamlined process.

Now with digital cameras and photo quality printers it is becoming a widespread issue, and it needs to work across many applications and devices. You might get your color management setup for photoshop and your printer only to find out that if you view the images in your web browser the colors are off. Or you update your printer drivers or change paper and your color profiles are screwed up. Each program handles the coloring profiling differently and keeping track of it all is a nightmare. This is true for both MACs and Windows, although MAC has done a slightly better job. MS is promoting their new color management system in their upcoming Windows Vista but I'm skeptical. Windows is becoming more and more dumbed down and I'm guessing their system is going to be better but over simplified for most serious photographers. Only time will tell. An effective color management system has to be a widespread standard that starts with the OS. Every program needs to handle it and interact with the OS color management system in the same way. Until that happens expect to get frustrated over color management. Just my 2 cents.

So far I decided that using a monitor calibration system is good enough for me and I only count on photoshop and a few other color aware programs to display correct colors.  Like Pixart mentioned brightness is probably the largest weakness of monitor profiling.  The software tells you to turn the brightness all the way up, but I think this is due to the many cheap monitors and older monitors that don't have high brightness.  The brightness for the most part doesn't change the colors but just the intensity.  So the Spyder/Eye-one device profiles the color correctly but the intensity tricks the brain into thinking the colors are different.  This is a real problem for light or dark shades and when you print an image the highlights and shadows are way off.  Like Pixart I have to adjust the monitor's brightness by trial and error to get it right and turned my Samsung 213T down to about 65/100 to get it right.

Mark


17
Off Topic / Re: Monitor Calibration
« on: October 23, 2006, 17:43 »
The cheapest way to get excellant calibration is by Colorvisions Spyder or GretagMacbeth Eye-One. They are both around $150-$200. Every other method that is software only isn't going to work well because they are dependent upon the human eye. Before you rant on how expensives those products are realize that they are actually ground breaking. Before they came around the only way to get good color calibration was to spend $10,000 or more on a system that tooks hours to calibrate.

I've used both and feel that the differences are so small that either system will work well.

Mark

18
Computer Hardware / Re: Backing up your photos
« on: October 17, 2006, 11:39 »
I am planning on buying a second external hard disk. The one I am looking at is a USB 2.0 320gb drive 7200rpm 8mb buffer.

Is there anything I should be looking for in particular or are they all pretty much the same?

When you are buying a drive that will run the OS or will be used as a cache during computation, performance is important.  7200rpm at 8mb buffer is the minimal specs you would want.  But as a backup drive your drive will be writing or reading in constant streams and most of the features don't matter.  So for backup any brand name hard drive will work fine.

Mark

19
General Stock Discussion / Re: Which color space?
« on: October 13, 2006, 10:57 »
Alamy prefers aRGB but accepts sRGB as well.

Mark

20
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStockphoto Upload Limit
« on: October 12, 2006, 16:39 »
There limits are extremely low and they are rejecting almost everything.  Very little is getting through.  I've stopped uploading altogether and have no intention of even bothering with IS until things improve if they ever do.

Mark

21
Adobe Stock / Re: Whoo-hoo!
« on: October 12, 2006, 09:51 »
Congrats.  Its always fun to get sales on a new site.

Mark

22
Alamy.com / Re: New search engine - Yay!
« on: October 11, 2006, 09:30 »
It was about 6 months ago.  I can't imagine you missing it because for one week solid everyone was talking about it.  My memory isn't good enough to give you an exact week.

Mark

23
Alamy.com / Re: New search engine - Yay!
« on: October 10, 2006, 18:44 »
The keywording quality can be horrible at Alamy.  Especially when it comes to Agencies.  At one point some agency had several thousand images that all had the exact same keywords for every image.  It was ridiculous.  With Alamy you don't keyword until after the image has been accepted or rejected. So the quality control people never see it after it has been keyworded.  So unless someone specifically complains about an image the photographer can do what ever he/she wants.  It just goes to show that even the macrostocks have their issues. 

Many people on the Alamy group did all sorts of things to their keywords to try and manipulate the search engine and get better placement.  It was a community effort to figure out about the whole tiered system.  Once it was figured out everything fell into place and it was obvious.  If you could move a tier up by having a large amount of images I didn't hear of it, but I wouldn't doubt it.  I was stuck in tier 3.  So my images were always at the bottom.

I tried to search for a few of my images and they are coming up at the top if I pick certain keywords.  Which didn't happen before so things must have changed.  Yeah!

Mark

24
Alamy.com / Re: New search engine - Yay!
« on: October 10, 2006, 14:25 »
I'm a part of the Alamy group on Yahoo and they discuss the search at great length.  So sign up to get the gory detail.  They have been supposidly been working on a new search engine for over two years.  I haven't been looking at the group lately to know if it has been finally implimented.  In the past each person was ranked into three tiers.  It was a mystery how they did it.  But essentially you were ranked on your first test images.  Once the ranking is set you are stuck no matter how good your future images are.  Also other agencies negotiated with Alamy to get a higher ranking so most people are put into the 2nd or 3rd tier.  When someone does a search it lists all of the images in the first tier before the other tiers.  So if someone's image is in the 1st tier and only has a few of the searched keywords it will list them before yours which has all of the keywords because you are on tier 3.  It annoyed me and a lot of other people to no end, but there wasn't anything you could do about it.  Your ranked tier made a huge difference on your sales so a lot of people are frustrator over it.  Alamy has been claiming to be developing a new search engine for over year to try and qwell the frustration.  They claim it will be more fair.  Hopefully it is.

Mark

25
New Sites - General / Password Keychain
« on: October 06, 2006, 16:54 »
I use a similar passwords for accounts that don't contain any financial data or anything that could harm me.  But for all the others I use difficult passwords managed by Password Keychain.  It will generate good passwords for you and keep track of them all.  I wouldn't manage passwords in Excel because it is to easy to break.  Excel is used by so many people that there are many hacking program for password protected Excel files.  Password Keychain is somewhat obsure and it uses heavy encryption techniques to protect your passwords.  It is quite easy to use.  The only problem I run into is if I am away from my home or work computer I can't access any of those accounts because I don't have the password memorized.  For me the increased protection is worth it.  The best part is that it is free. :)

http://www.download.com/Password-Keychain/3000-2381_4-8597943.html

http://www.nfxtech.com/products_passwordkeychain.htm

Mark

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle