|
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 - mrleonard
Pages: [1]
1
« on: December 06, 2006, 00:58 »
eendicott,
Combining multiple images in PS is photography...except when done with design elements...text or lines etc. I mostly do fine art photography...I just slum it in stock to get a few bucks for otherwise unusable images.I often combine multiple images in my work...but in no way ever concern myself with 'design', as the end is always for fine art...not commercial.
Using the a and b light channels in Lab are simply the red and green ( I may be wrong....but sure it is just 2 colors), where the color noise is most evident...it does not 'blur' the image/edges etc...simply the noise color.I personally selectively use Noise Ninja where I profile the image,remove noise, and then paint in the areas I want/neednoise removalwith the history brush.
If you dont believe me..or want other opinions...I am sure most all of the digital imaging top -notch pros will tell you Noise Removel first...Sharpen last.
Right and wrong are of course always 'subjective'...duh...but that is a not a very constructive or useful attitude to have I believe (sigh...subjectively). Simply put there are FACTS and SCIENCE with digital photography ( I wasn't talking about the creative or ART blah blah).
2
« on: November 30, 2006, 02:47 »
Sorry..but you DEFINATELY have it all wrong guys...
For best quality, you remove (selectively) and noise first. I auto profile (mostly) with Noise Ninja in PS...but you can also just change your image to Lab color in PS and apply some gaussian blur to the a and b channels...this gets rid of a lot of digital color noise. Any adjustments you are doing doesn't add 'noise', though it can accentuate any noise that is there (especially sharpening). By doing noise removal last, you are seriously degrading the accutance of the image and removing detail.
You may say it is just your 'preference', but there is stilla right way and a wrong way to do things (especially that photography at it's core is 'technical' in nature and therefore bound by certain 'technical' laws).
Definatley save in PSD...noway PS is going anywhere....A PSD is basically just a TIFF anyway, but is best when you have to work with others, and also to save all the layers and PS data as well.
Basic 101 workflow rules : (seelctive) noise removal, adjustments (ALWAYS use layer adjustments for Levels etc., as they do not change the actual image,but save the adjustments in a new layer), then save as PSD.
You should also create a new layer with the sharpened version of an image...but it always depends on what size you are outputting to.
After PSD save I crop, interploate to desired size (exporting to Photozoom 2) then save as tiff.
THEN open tiff and sharpen, save as tiff...then save as JPEG.
I have different folders (for print) for the different sizes....they all need to be sharpened individually for their size (after interpolating).
I have 1 MASTER PSD folder as well.
Hope that helps!
3
« on: November 03, 2006, 10:12 »
Was just made aware of this site. Great for online archival storage, and has sales integrated using fotoquote. Does anyone have any experience or info on this site?Seems a great way to sell and market your inages...not microstock for sure, but may be a useful tool to all of you. www.photoshelter.com
4
« on: November 01, 2006, 10:23 »
Yes...of course you could always just start your own stock site.....Start with the 'technical' costs...servers etc, then realise the administration alone would mean you'd have to hire employees. To compete at all you'd have to market your site, both to clients and submitters. Ok, so now you have at least ten employees,office rent,computer and server costs...
You see where this is going? You could always of course just have a small site...But then the income would be...hmmm...about as much as you'd make from the existant micros.
The BEST model for any photog,once they have sufficient catalog, is to simply have their own site, for their own work, and directly market themselves to design firms et al. Of course this would take a lot of your time and effort,and you won't be spending as much time shooting.
5
« on: October 15, 2006, 22:06 »
As I am going through my ENTIRE catalog of images...scans,low-res and newer raws....and databasing/archiving them with Iview Media Pro,I wondered if there is a list somewhere of useful keywords. Also...what in my exif data is retained when I upload to the micros? For example, there is 'categories' on my list...should I expect this to have any meaning for the Micros database, or is it JUST keywords? I have not yet even uploaded any images,as I have only been doing fine art and only now putting together a system/catalog for my years of images. Would like to get it all sorted so that I can upload on a regular basis as I catch up to my newer images. Any info would be most helpful!
thx!
6
« on: October 15, 2006, 17:43 »
Well...Photozoom Pro 1 had the problem in that it stripped all exif data...something they fixed in version 2. I believe I can edit whatever exif data I want in Iview media pro...so I could always just take out that info if I wanted too. When you mean a 'collaged' image from 3 to 6...do you mean interpolating?
7
« on: October 14, 2006, 18:55 »
I know I went on about upresing files...not ideal, but I am hoping to add some new life to a slew of old 3 megapixel cybershot pics from years ago. I currently shoot with a Canon 30d,so no problem with those,but wondering....which micro's I might be able to get a few bucks for the old low res catalog?
8
« on: October 14, 2006, 18:00 »
I wrote my master's thesis on use of fractals in image rasterization.
Well guess you might be a bit biased towards fractals then...hehe. In any event...there is to my eye anyway, having used both Genuine Fractals and Photozoom,not much discernable difference between the two at all. I do like the interface of PhotoZoom Pro 2 however, and I DO definately see an improvement using it over interpolating in PS.
9
« on: October 14, 2006, 17:08 »
Thats a matter of opinion...Ive seen other comparisons where s-spline was better. In that article only two of the images he feels are better in Genuine Fractals....and that is probably with the default settings. Also, in Photozoom Pro version 2 they've made the s-spline algorithm even better ..s-splinxe xl it is called now. I guess it's just what program you are used to...I DID just use AlienSkin's blowup....unfortunately it does not seem to have any advanced setting other than sharpen and grain.
10
« on: October 14, 2006, 13:46 »
I guess all I meant is changing the size.....changing the dpi but leaving the dimensions the same...Of course photoshop can do this but it would then be using it's interpolation...and the interpolation engine in Photozoom (s-spline) is much better than PS's bicubic. On another note I see that AlienSkin just anounced a similiar product....blow-up...it sounds promising.Would be nice as it offers blowing up a layered PSD while Photozoom only works on tiffs. http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/prodtech/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003252981
11
« on: October 13, 2006, 18:26 »
The neat thing I like about Photozoom is it's elegantly simple interface. You drop an image on it and it shows you the interpolation process as you move about the image....(hard to explain) you should check out the demo. Yes of course it adds artificial detail...but when it comes to digital information there are quite sophisticated algorithms that are quite good at figuring out what those missing pixels are most likely to be (in color and level). A lot of publishers have used it when printing from lower res images...for ex. a lot of photo journalists had to (until recently with higher meg) shoot on quite low rez point and shoots when a SLR or larger camera were not appropriate to use.
12
« on: October 13, 2006, 13:29 »
Well in Photozoom it does...you are changing the dpi but NOT the image dimensions. Would that not therefore increase its size?I think you are talking about in PS where when you change the dpi it chnges the image size accordingly.
13
« on: October 13, 2006, 12:52 »
14
« on: October 13, 2006, 12:51 »
This came up on another posting...if the microsites can 'tell' if you uprezed/interpolated an image.
My thoughts are that when you interpolate/uprez a pic, it doesn't 'add' any detail, it only gets rid of the jaggies. If you started with a low rez image and scaled it way up, what you would see is not so much added 'artifact' but rather that an image at the larger scale should have a certain amount of detail...if it's not there, it wouldn't make much sense that the image was taked at that (higher) resolution. IE the output from a c-sized dslr will always have more detail than un uprezzed 3 megapixel point and shoot. I suppose the only way they can 'tell' is thus just viewing the image closely, for even with a lousy lens,an image at ,say, 30 meg file should have a certain amount of detail.
Having said that,there is no discernable difference if used selectively.
For example, I interpolate my Canon 30d images from it's native 240 dpi up to 300 dpi with Photozoom Pro 2. This program offers a very high quality interpolation engine.I usually do the interpolation last and THEN sharpen the image accordingly (with Focalblade).
Would be great to hear your thoughts ,knowledge and experience on this as I am only really taking a guess here...
15
« on: October 13, 2006, 11:38 »
Well Photozoom pro 2 has great interpolation...and in the case of smaller images (ones I shot with an older point and shoot) if the images are of decent quality,how can they tell that I used interpolation? I shooot with a canon 30d,and even those files will have to be interpolated for Alamy (info that i've gathered).
16
« on: October 13, 2006, 09:53 »
Can I have them as they are in adobe rgb 1998 or do they need to be changed?
17
« on: October 13, 2006, 09:52 »
In Iview media pro ( one of the better ones i've heard) I can do all the keywording etc. There is an annotation for 'title' will this suffice? Also....after I uprez the lower rez files with photozoom 2 will all the metadata be updated? Which annotations remain as part of the exif....all of it?
18
« on: October 13, 2006, 09:24 »
Hello,
I have been sorting my entire catalog and archiving using Iview media pro. All my images have a letter and number for the image name ( I batch renamed them all). Do I have to name them according to their subject matter before I upload them of is there an option to name them that doesnt change the naming system I have in place. I am about to hit all the microstocks but wondered about this,as if I have to rename them...it will create some problems with my naming/archiving system.
19
« on: October 06, 2006, 10:54 »
As Istock accepts vectors...and they sell well,does anyone know a good way/tool to transform photos to vectors? I have done it in Flash before...but wondered if there was a better way...one that you could export the paths etc....Also, is it in .eps format they want generally?
20
« on: October 05, 2006, 22:34 »
Howdy!
I've been anamateur and semi-pro photographer for many years now and thinking of diving into the stock arena. My question is.....with the many agencies available...can I / should I send my pics (the same ones) to all of them? I am interested in Alamy for ex.....should I also be sending those to the other micros? Does it make sense to just have them on different sites with different pricing? Will the agencies have a problem with this?
I just don't want the situation where,say, I am holding out for Alamy to accept some images...and then submitting the rejects to the micros...Seems like a bit of bother and waiting ,when I would rather just get them all out there...
Your feedback would be greatly appreciated!
Pages: [1]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
