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 - olikli

Pages: [1]
1
Alamy.com / Re: Isn't upsizing nonsense?
« on: December 03, 2009, 02:57 »
Maybe I am wrong, but I thought working on the file and upsizing it while it was a tiff before saving as a jpg created a better photo. If the customer or anyone upsized after it was saved as a jpg, some quality was lost.

Upsizing will never increase the quality of the image, regardless of the file format. All it does is interpolating neighboring pixels. All added pixels are just calculated from the existing ones. You will never see more detail than in the original size, even with the most expensive software. Better software only produces less scaling artifacts. It can't magically add details that were not present in the image before.

2
Alamy.com / Re: Isn't upsizing nonsense?
« on: December 02, 2009, 18:14 »
Just buy Canon 5D Mark II and you will not be upsizing anymore.

I make 3D graphics, so picture resolution is more a problem of time than of hardware for me. So far my pictures are between 3000 and 4000 pixels wide. I could make new renders for all of my pictures, but this would take ages because some are quite complex. And it will keep me from new creative work as well.

I guess I will make new renders for my first approval batch and then switch to upscaling and see if they accept it.

3
Alamy.com / Isn't upsizing nonsense?
« on: December 02, 2009, 15:37 »
I just signed up to Alamy and wanted to give it a try. As you know they have a 48MB uncompressed file size minimum. Now I read here that some of you scale your pictures up to reach this minimum size.

I honestly don't understand the reasoning behind this. This does not go against you, but Alamy. Upsizing a picture adds no information whatsoever. Anyone who buys a smaller picture can do this him-/herself in a matter of seconds, so why should they pay more for it? Don't buyers expect higher quality when they buy the maximum file size? If I bought a picture at maximum size only to find out it has been scaled up, I would not be very happy.

Don't Alamy notice upsizing or don't they care?

4
Newbie Discussion / Re: Yet Another Newbie
« on: November 30, 2009, 04:58 »
really? you think 3d is easier than vectors?  I have played around with illustrator and thought it was very tough but if I spent time with it I thought i would get the hang of it.  I also tried a few 3D programs and still don't get them.   Which program are you using.

I guess it all depends on your personal disposition if you prefer vectors or 3D ;)

For my renders I use mainly Vue. what I love about Vue is that you can use it as a general renderer as well as for creating virtual landscapes and plants.

I am not a great modeler though, but there are lots of things you can do without being a pro in 3DS Max. In Vue you can do some basic modeling with primitive shapes and boolean operations which can get you pretty far. I made a few things with blender, but I don't like the interface at all. There are also objects you can buy, and there are loads of free objects you can use. You just have to make sure that you can use them for commercial renders.

5
Newbie Discussion / Re: Yet Another Newbie
« on: November 29, 2009, 03:39 »
I know its a lot more work to do the 3D-thing than illustrations (which is my business) and it took me more than 2 years to make a living out of it.

I played around with Inkscape for a while, but I noticed that it would take me too long to learn until I could produce decent vector illustrations, so I decided to stick to 3D for the time being. I also do some fractals, but the time involved in creating good fractal pictures is significantly higher than for 3D in my experience.

6
Newbie Discussion / Re: Yet Another Newbie
« on: November 29, 2009, 03:32 »
Just checked your portfolios and I see some real potential. But I hope youre not dissapointed if I say "there must be some more quantity, to quit the day-job" (the quality is absolutly OK)

Glad you like my pictures. I am well aware that for a making a living, a solid four-digit portfolio is required. It's a slow buildup, but I am not in a hurry.

7
Adobe Stock / Re: I am so sick of Fotolia rejects..
« on: November 18, 2009, 14:45 »
I can't complain about Fotolia rejections. But as I do mostly 3D stuff this is not really comparable to photography. But it seems to be a natural law for microstock sites that bestsellers at site A will be recjected at site B and vice versa. Just scratch your head and move on.

And this is the very reason why I reject exclusivity at one single site. They might review their review standards, and all of a sudden you will have most or your images rejected and can do nothing about it.

Regards,
Oliver

8
Crestock.com / Re: For those impatient with Crestock
« on: November 18, 2009, 14:26 »
Crestock must be in serious financial troubles. The site feels like a graveyard, the forum is full of complaints and "is Crestock dead?" and "I want my money" posts. Nobody from the staff has answered forum questions in ages.

A company where everything is in order would never act this way. They don't even try to appease their contributors.

Regards,
Oliver

9
Newbie Discussion / Re: Yet Another Newbie
« on: November 18, 2009, 14:04 »
If you are going to do 3d, you should avoid doing the same percentages, one off colored stick figures and puzzle pieces that everyone does.

Well, that's probably where most 3D people start ;). But I agree that there is is much more that can be done. I'm just starting to scratch the surface.

But isn't it much the same in microstock photography? Happy people and girls with headsets wherevever you look...

Regards,
Oliver

10
Newbie Discussion / Re: Yet Another Newbie
« on: November 18, 2009, 13:58 »
Welcome!  :D

Where do you come from? I am from near Salzburg. (Now living in Canada)
I admire people doing 3D work, it's amazing. :-)

Simone

I'm from near Munich. Oberschleissheim, to be more precise. Not too far from Salzburg.

11
I think many will agree that apart from the cash expenses, when you factor in the the time you spend on making the pictures and getting them ready for sale, the result is pretty deceiving. There are not very many people who can actually make a good living solely from microstock. But you always have to take into account the fun factor as well.

Reagrds,
Oliver

12
Newbie Discussion / Re: Introduction - New to Microstock
« on: November 17, 2009, 16:18 »
Shutterstock reviewers are quite tough with your first 10 application pictures. But once you are in, they are significantly less picky. They just want to make sure that you are able to provide good material.

iStock reviewers are always very picky. Combined with the tedious uploading process and the ridiculous quota of 15 per week, uploading to iStock is not much fun. But accepted images do sell quite well.

Regards,
Oliver

13
Newbie Discussion / Yet Another Newbie
« on: November 17, 2009, 15:20 »
Hi fellow microstockers,

just a few sentences to introduce myself: I live in Germany (near Munich) and I am what you might call a semi profesisonal. My main interest is 3D graphics, but I also do a little still photography (no people shots). I am currently trying to intensify my 3D efforts, maybe one day I might be able to quit my daytime job, but I'm not in a hurry ;-)

Regards,
Oliver

Pages: [1]

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors