|
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 - Blinin7
Pages: [1]
1
« on: July 19, 2012, 18:54 »
Ok i fixed it anyway, i removed the previous link and resized it smaller. You got me worried there 
2
« on: July 19, 2012, 18:40 »
I didnt think i needed to considering I put a big DO NOT COPY on it. Should I remove it??? I just save it as a Jpeg from PS and place it in Dropbox.
3
« on: July 19, 2012, 17:04 »
Ok, il take that advice for the isolation shots, buy some cheap reflectors, tent etc although i think i need to work on the lighting. In the meantime i have been playing with long exposures and have been travelling. would a shot like this make it into stock? Its not really stock-relevant but iv seen some images like it on istock. EDIT: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/Long%20exposure%20rocks%202check3.jpg
4
« on: July 10, 2012, 03:18 »
I am listening. I chose more commercially viable subjects which I had seen on istock. Such as the pills, I have seen lots of pictures similair to it, but like you said mine has a shadow. I can't fix that, iv tried using reflectors and whatnot. I only really have one light of decent quality - thus there is a shadow. Unless I get some good lighting coupled with a light tent I can't perfect it. Perhaps I should scrap the whole isolation stuff until I get a light tent at least. To me, isolation photography seems easier to do, I don't really get the whole still life thing, and in England it is constantly raining, there is not much light. When I look at the photos in istock they seem in my opinion to have some type of staged envirommet, they have lighting around them. I also see some photos on istock which to me don't look commercially viable yet still scavenge some downloads. But I suppose it's better to have quality not quantity. I'm not trying to punish myself, I am just showcasing some images which I think might be cut out for stock, and want a reply on what I am doing wrong. Looking back, I think the pills are the only image which might get accepted, but if you look in the shadow there are tiny bits of dirt. Like you said isolation shots have to be perfect. Can you give me any ideas of non-isolation shots?
5
« on: July 09, 2012, 19:44 »
For isolating images i use some white-ish mount paper (postboard), i then change the levels in PS, this takes 30 seconds but my lighting isnt perfect so it leaves shadows. Il try and work on other shots which are not isolation but isolation seems quite easy to perfect, and still life seems more difficult in my opinion. Im not really planning to fund photography using income from stock, its more of an added bonus, which in time i would like to expand as i have lots of free time at the moment. I havent invested into any expensive equipment yet but do plan to for non-stock related reasons. I attempted to shoot some other isolation shots. Again i cant seem to get the composition quite right, but i think these images are more relevant to stock. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/Pillscheck.jpg- I think this is my best stock image yet  but the shadow and the light reflection are not doing it any favours https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/Coffee%2Bstrawberriescheck.jpg- First non-isolation attempt, i dont think it looks like a stock image, not really relevant to anything. Who has strawberries and coffee? I thought it might of worked but im not quite sure. Lighting did not work, probably because i did the image at night using artificial lights when i should of done it during day, natural light. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/6eggscheck.jpg - I like the detail on the eggs, i dont really like the compostion https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/cup%2Bteacheck.jpg- I thought it was a good idea, but i didnt execute it well, didnt know how to make it more vibrant in photoshop. Also the cup and the white background were hard to get right, thus the non pure white background. It also looks a bit blue. I think the only image which perhaps is not really associated to anything in stock is the coffee and strawberries, i think all the other images can be used in one way or another. So am i getting any closer to the promised land? 
6
« on: July 09, 2012, 09:06 »
Yeah, it was a nightmare to get a little bit of dust off. This little toy boat only measures in about 3x5 cm in size and is about 10 years old so i am scared to do any drastic to it as it is very delicate. Maybe i should photograph another subject as there are lots of little imperfections with this boat, such as wood Chipping's if you look closely.
Yeah, you dont notice these imperfections until you take a close up shot!
7
« on: July 09, 2012, 08:40 »
ok, il hold off the glass...for now at least . I've been playing around with the camera settings (ISO, exposure etc) and settings in photoshop (the levels). I also found some decent lighting in my house although it was still tungsten so it needed editing afterwards, I also set up a DIY photo studio, got a remote control so my camera didnt shake when taking a picture and made my tripod more stable. I redid the toy boat shot. I personally think its a good improvement from my original one but still do not really think it is Istock standard. I think i should make my compositions more creative. Can you tell me what you think? https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/Boat%2C%20white%20backcheck.jpg - I think the top of the wooden pole things are a bit OOF and the boat is a bit dark. But i dont think its a big deal, oh and i should of cleared more dust although i found it difficult to remove. I havent applied to be a contributor yet. Thanks
8
« on: July 06, 2012, 15:57 »
What are you two on about? But anyway thanks for the advice guys. I know what was causing the noise and the lighting. The noise was probably due to a high ISO and the lighting would be because i was trying to use paper to isolate the image. Also i don't really have any lamps and was relying on my house lights. The out of focus was probably due to the aperture. I also didn't expect such a high standard in the stock photos. The other pictures (2,4,5,6,7,8) were photos i had taken, but originally not intended for stock photos - holiday snaps. Having little knowledge on stock i thought they might pass but this is obviously not the case. I have read the camera manual, i know terms such as aperture, shutter speed, exposure etc and i have been doing photography as a hobby for a year now. Now i know you said i shouldn't blow my money on gear just yet and should probably improve, but would it be wise to invest in studio lighting/tent/glass so it can help improve my photos. The lens wouldn't just be used for stock photos, but if your saying that i wont see a difference in IQ then maybe it wont be worth $$$. I think i have the right idea about stock images, isolating the subject and thinking about what my photos would be used for but i don't know much else, so yeah, advice and ideas are always welcome  . - Oh and i do have a tripod albeit a plastic 15 ($25) one!
9
« on: July 02, 2012, 12:37 »
Thanks for your quick comments guys, they've shown me the errors i did not quite see i.e adjusting white balance on camera. I am working to address these issues and will be sure to watch tutorials and learn more about stock photography. Would it be of any help if i get a better lens? Such as a Canon 17-40mm L lens or maybe to start off with, a 50mm 1.8 as at the moment i have a kit lens with a canon T2i.
11
« on: July 01, 2012, 13:03 »
Thanks
Pages: [1]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
