|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
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 - hymowitzer
1
« on: February 23, 2007, 11:40 »
Gentlemen, I think this post has been "de-railed".
Please continue on with the "Spirit" of the intended topic, and not my choice of words please.
2
« on: February 23, 2007, 10:33 »
* wind is a local expression used where I grew up in Brooklyn NY.
It does not mean anything bad, nor is it derogatory in any manner.
It simply denotes that your trying to get somewhere, accomplish a task, but not getting a foothold on your goal. * wind)
In the future, I will curb my use of local expressions, so as not scare anyone (heh eheh ha)
And Leaf, yes it takes time. Everything takes time. to be a good photographer takes time and effort.
Those who have spent time, and have accomplished their goals they have set out to take on, should
stand back, take a deep breath, and be proud.
3
« on: February 23, 2007, 09:56 »
DPI is a very simple formula.
It's the total amount of sale, (images you had sold) divided by the number of images in you portfolio.
sales / images = DPI
You may have a DPI of 6.0 and have 10 images approved today, then today your DPI will drop to say 5.88
depending of course on your new total of images.
You guys perhaps interpreted my post to mean you were a poor photographer?
4
« on: February 23, 2007, 04:14 »
I have been there since July of 05 so I'm pretty well established. http://www.dreamstime.com/rjmiz_infoMy DPI (Downloads per Image)is 5.12 which is a good number to have. It appears the higher your DPI percentage, the better off you're doing. I frequently look at other photog's DPI and I judge myself by comparing their's to mine. In my opinion, if your DPI is below 3.5, then your * wind" and need to explore why it's so low.
5
« on: February 22, 2007, 03:53 »
That I wouldn't care about since I have the f1.4 50mm
It don't affect me.
6
« on: February 22, 2007, 03:27 »
RAW is the the Mother of all JPG's
7
« on: February 22, 2007, 03:20 »
I own a 1Ds Mark II.....please it's only 1 1/2 years old.
Please don't come out with with the Mark III until I can afford to buy it.
8
« on: February 22, 2007, 03:17 »
I have the previous version of this lens.
Gee, I have no complaints about it's performance.
However it erks me to know that I am now the proud owner of $1,400 failure.
The recipient of an inferior Canon lens....(sulking in the corner)
9
« on: February 19, 2007, 10:03 »
Good research, thanks for your time and trouble.
I wonder how many actual consumers noticed?
I'll take bets....none!
Just goes to show you...if your THAT budget minded......your not a big as you think.
10
« on: February 19, 2007, 08:24 »
I am sure the big advertisers have their own photographers, or use advertising agencies.
You will never see GM, microsoft, Best Buy, Sears, or any other big company using a stocksite.
Why? Because money is NOT an issue. If there is an issue with money, then they will use stock.
If they use stock, then their budget is low. If the budget is low, they want to save money.
Make sense?
11
« on: February 19, 2007, 03:20 »
RM and Macrostock are going the way of the dinosaur. They have to evolve in order to stay in business.
There is is too much competition from the under priced micro stock sites that are virtually selling the same
images for many $$$ less. Micro stock has become the Walmart of of imagery!
Why would a designer pay $200 for a RM image when he can get the same image in some cases for 1/3 the price?
12
« on: February 10, 2007, 14:19 »
Quite simply, I walked into a galleryand told them I was a local photograher and asked if they would be interested
in showing some of my work. I took the approach, I was doing them a favor rather than them doing me a favor.
Next I showed them my website. They liked what they saw and then asked for prints. I told them to pick out which
images they would like to see in prints. They did, I brought some 8x12's in, they like them, and said they would show them.
I had them printed in a professional photo lab 16x24 and now they're being framed and matted.
Thats it!
13
« on: February 10, 2007, 10:52 »
I'm not due for another DL for another 4 months.
I got one in December of last year. I think we're
only permitted one DL every six months on LO...right?
15
« on: February 07, 2007, 14:12 »
I have no personal experience with this, however a lifetime of living has shown me that originality is the only safe way
to market, display, and otherwise promote my art work. Tracing, or copying freehand, the work of other people in any way,
is inviting doom.
16
« on: February 06, 2007, 17:54 »
Gee, that's not good. So in fact you can't make an out of focus image in focus.
You can just reduce it's size and make it appear to be in focus, but at a loss of
reducing it's print size.
Right?
17
« on: February 06, 2007, 17:21 »
Ok so what do we do now when you want to print it, and it comes out
fuzzy because you reduced the size so much? (like 5 times smaller)
18
« on: February 06, 2007, 10:07 »
Perhaps one of you gentlemen could demonstrate this technique to me on the image below?
19
« on: February 06, 2007, 07:57 »
Take my word for it, as I have done alot of Photoshop work. AND I consider myself
a good manipulator of photographs.
One of the first mistakes a new Photoshop user makes it retouching images is: trying to focus
a soft, or slightly out of focus image. It CAN'T be done. Stop trying.
Sharpening an images only increases the contrast between opposing pixels. It will not
in any way even appear to closely focus your image. Stop trying.
My word of honor on this tip....I promise
20
« on: February 04, 2007, 02:22 »
* if there's one thing I can't stand is a grown adult crying.
This is an excerpt from a user on another forum:
"The other day I received a "please upload better quality images" in one upload. These wordings made me mad, as they are very rude,...."
We are creatures filled with numerous emotions.
Then there are needs we feel have to be met in order for us to "Feel Good".
One of those needs which is tied closely to our emotions is the need for acceptance.
Acceptance gives us a feeling of belonging, and to be "a part of". It's a critical point
in any social animals make up.
So what happens to us when we get rejected? How does that affect us emotionally?
Anger, disappointment, jealousy, and depression are critically tied into being rejected
by a group, individual, or organization (Stock Site).
How well we accept rejection is totally Dependant on our spiritual, and emotional maturity.
To dwell on rejections is just gonna screw your creative capabilities and just slow you down.
Listen I'm speaking from my own personal experience, and not just running off at the mouth.
If you can, just put the rejections behind you and move on with your life .
I just took a count, and found out there are still 345,867,920,034,245,021 pictures left to take in this world.
.....Go out and grab a few.
22
« on: January 11, 2007, 16:50 »
"Get your favorite iStock slogans....."
Reason for rejection: Boy your image really sucks
I'll buy 2!
23
« on: January 11, 2007, 06:06 »
What is "disambiguate"? and if you do it....can you undo it?
24
« on: January 10, 2007, 07:11 »
How long does it take to spread the DNS over the world?
It's wednesday here in South Africa and I can still not get in.
about 72 hours
25
« on: January 05, 2007, 12:59 »
No thanks...keep em.
I'm waiting for Microstockgroup's mouse pads.
PS My sources revealed to me today, that in fact your operators are NOT actually "Standing by" and that
they are in fact "Sitting in chairs"
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
