MicrostockGroup

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.

Topics - Catastrophe

Pages: [1]

General Stock Discussion / tattoos and releases

« on: October 21, 2011, 17:49 »

I did a search, but couldn't find a very good answer to this - if my model has tattoos that are in focus, do I need a property release from the tattoo artist in addition to a model release? What if the tattoo is a flash design - would I need a release from whoever the tattoo parlor bought the design from?

TIA.

Alamy.com / just started uploading to Alamy - questions:

« on: July 18, 2011, 23:30 »

Hi all. I know this is a lot to ask, but can someone please explain to me how the RM license at Alamy works regarding copyrighted materials? What I mean is that I see a ton of RM images that have copyright protected content - iphones, logos, even a DVD cover, etc. How is this stuff sold as stock photography? Is it somehow being sold as editorial only? It seems that images like this could not be used without a release except for in very specific journalistic instances. What's the deal?

TIA.
-C

General Photography Discussion / camera ? for the tech gurus

« on: March 25, 2011, 14:58 »

I'm weighing options in a new camera. I've been using a Canon 400D (Xti) for years, but there have been so many advances that I think it's worth upgrading. A 550D (T3i) runs around $700. The 5D MkII is around $2500. I wouldn't pay the extra $ for a 70D compared to a 550D - there aren't any functions that I need on a 70D that aren't available on the 550D (I shoot almost exclusively in manual mode, occasionally in Av). If I go with a small sensor camera, I would just go with that 550.

The ?'s I have are about the IQ difference between the 5D mkII and the 550D - 21mp on a 1x1.5" sensor vs. 18mp on a 22.3x14.9mm size sensor. I'm unsatisfied with the noise levels on my 400D. Most of my stock photography is done with strobe lights, but even with good exposures and ISO 100, there is a bit of noise in the shadows. I would also enjoy a larger file size and the ability to shoot outdoors with a higher ISO. I don't feel like I can shoot any stock on a higher ISO than 100 with my current camera.

Opinions on the IQ on the 5D vs. 550D (or cameras with same sensors) as related to microstock? Would the 550D be able to produce good quality files on any ISO's higher than 100 without having to use noise-reducing editing software? More editing means more time, which means less money

/ What is the highest ISO you've been able to use without getting problematic noise (without post processing or using multiple exposure techniques) on cameras with these two sized sensors?

Either camera will be a significant improvement over my current 400D, according to tests I've seen on review sites. But I wanted to get your views based on real-world experiences shooting stock.

So my main questions are how much quality improvement will I see with a 5D over a 550D, and how much faster of an ISO can I shoot with on the two cameras? Of course I would have to change a few lenses if I move up to the larger sensor size, but that isn't a real big concern for me.

If I'm lucky, a 5D mkIII will show up before I make a purchase - I'll probably be making a purchase in 2-4 months.

thanks in advance for your advice!!!

_Craig

iStockPhoto.com / every single post on the istock forum:

« on: May 21, 2009, 17:10 »

RelativelyNewSubmitter: I went to upload some images on Istock, and this is what happened - the categories would not work, the disambiguation was illogical, and I had to do 10x as much work as any other stock site to upload because of arbitrary limits and unneccessary hoops to jump through. Then my image of a grizzly bear was rejected because the keywords "furry" and "animal" are apparently not acceptable. My image of a rock was rejected for "copyrighted material" and my image shot on ISO 100 with strobes and a perfect exposure was rejected for "noise". I searched for the images that were accepted, and they were found on page 1032 of 1050 results, with lots of images that did not have anything to do with my search term on pages 1, 2, and 3. Any ideas on how I can improve my results?

BrownNoser: Why are you so upset?!!! I find it a privilege to be rejected by iStock's wonderful, talented, genius, and good looking image reviewers! They are sooooo nice to me when they reject my images for illogical reasons, once they even gave me the suggestion that I should make my photos "better" - where else on earth can you get that loving kind of thoughtful feedback? Istock is #1 at everything!!!!!

CluelessNoob: The picture I took with my cellphone in a dark bar where I cut off my friend's head and used the wrong color balance was rejected too! Apparently the keywords "rocketship" and "atom bomb" are not acceptable for a picture of a guy drinking beer! This sucks! I'm quitting!

SJLocke: 200% of my pictures are accepted and featured on page 1 of best match. You are non-exclusive and therefore do not exist.

SoccerMom: I LOVE ISTOCK!!! ISTOCK #1!!!!

I<3Nikon: You people complain so much. I remember back in 1932 when Istock just started. We had to pay THEM to use our images! And they flogged us with barbed wire, and we loved it! Why don't you just bask in the glory of being in the best stock site EVAR! Who cares if your income takes a giant hit because istock refuses to fix simple problems. They are doing you a giant favor by hosting your files! All they get out of it is millions of dollars from other people's work. You should thank them for even taking the time to acknowledge you - all you do is supply their product. They are the supreme beings. You think that just because you do most of the work, that you deserve credit, or fair treatment? BAH!

RandomSubmitter: I don't post here much, but I have had the same problems. Does anyone have anything of value to offer?

IStockDiamond: you are not exclusive, so why should anyone care about your problems. If you want to be treated fairly, then all you have to do is sell your soul to Istock. It's easy. I did it, and the only problems I have are silly things like my income dropping by 80% on occasion when they randomly change everything.

IStockBronze: I just went exclusive, and I can tell you, it's the best thing that ever happened to me in my whole life! My sales went from $1.50/month to over $2.00 a month! I am so happy and fulfilled now! I'm going to save up for that (whatever the most expensive Canon is) camera now!

IStockSilver: Lisa Gagne's photos have lots of blue in them. So obviously you should have more blue in your photos. And goldfish. At least half of your photos should have goldfish, because Lisa's do. Everything anyone who has 1000+ images on Istock does is to be idolized. I love IStock!

IStockGold: You only have 200 images in your portfolio. Why do you bother asking for your images to be considered in a fair manner, when the real answer is to work harder, shoot more, and post on this forum at least 100 times a day? If 75% of your submissions are rejected for stupid and illogical reasons, all you have to do is shoot and submit 4x as many images. The answer is not to seek fair treatment, or a system that works well - the answer is to shoot more! why are you reading this, when you could be shooting right now?

SomeIdiot: ebbbbb......

AnotherIdiot: OMG. Not another thread about this. We've had four threads in the last 12 months about this very topic. Have you not read and memorized every single post on this board? What, do you actually visit sites other than Istock, or actually turn the computer off sometimes?! What is wrong with you?

FirstAdminToSeePost: thread locked.

Pages: [1]