That's exactly the attitude I'm talking about. Remember these are real people you are asking to take time out to help you.
You can't just come in, squeeze people for info. then get out. We are not here to serve you, a point you don't seem to be able to grasp at all.
I think that's called being a sociopath no?

No Cobolt is in fact very right! apart from the Image-Bank, where 35 mil was in fact the only criteria, MF was the industry standard film and was a must for almost all agencies. Dont forget that in the days of film, the majority of buyers were creative-buyers and the end product was almost always a print.
Today the majrity of buyers are just webb people, demands almost nothing.

It was horrible job trying to drumscan a small format tranny for a lousy 50 meg but so much easier with MF and LF format.

The inspection of pictures was also of lightyears differance, it was done by professional editors, etc, today, I mean lets face it but any serious inspection of files, is a joke really, as long as an image pass technical inspection its accepted. Reason for this is ofcourse that the overwhelming majority of buyers dont need quality nor composition.

Quote from: sjlocke on June 25, 2011, 14:47

Lol ...  I suggest using Gala apples when you start shooting fruit on white.  They're much rounder then red delicious.

Btw, if you answered my question, you might actually have gotten better answers.  You don't have a camera, so you're not one of these 'I just want money for a new lens for my hobby' people.  So, presumably you see this a some easy way to make money. It sounds like you have no experience with any kind of photo workflow.  So, I'm curious as to why you think you want to do this.

Sean is certainly 'crusty' around the edges, but if you put on some thick skin, most of what he says is spot on and well worth your time listening to... and if not, it is at the least least worth considering. 

Sure, Sean or others could be 'faking' it or pretending to be someone they're not, but lots of the people on this forum know each other personally or have met each other in person, Sean being one of them.  If I were you, I'd take the advice from the guy who is edging in on 1,000,000 sales... even if it does come packed in a cactus

Nikon vs Canon, Ford vs Chevy.

I can tell you that the Canons are in the shop more than the Nikons. I have more Nikon because I can't afford the downtime. A few of the cameras suffer a lot of abuse.

All Nikon models allow the capability to mount the old legacy manual focus lenses, basically any AI lens made after 1978 I think. Although I think metering will only work with higher end models like D200 and up. Doesn't matter as I only shoot manual anyway and use all of my circa 1980 lenses on them.

With Canon, there can limitations if you want to explore lenses and build a system eventually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount

There is no "better" these days. Each brand has its own features, limitations, quirks. I hated that the old Canon 40d constantly gave me a lens mount error. I hate that the Nikon D90 takes an SD card. That means I have to carry 2 card types when I take that camera.

To make a truly informed decision, you really need to define your goals and then go after the lens and feature set you want. And again, feature sets are usually a lot of crap anyway and I never use things like scene mode, exposure compensation etc. And if you have no lenses to start with, the brand does not matter for the lower tier models - they're all capable. The brand factors in heavily when and if you expand into a pro system. In that case, Nikon wins for me. We really only bought Canon for video, but we use Nikon glass. The entry models at the sub $1000 price point is sort of like buying a point & shoot. They'll all do pretty much about the same thing, some with more pizazz.

As the megapixel race is pretty much stable for the moment, all the manufacturers are doing with the new entry models anyway is cramming in new features like "Selective Color" and "Color Sketch" which no one needs (D5100), but it is a way to keep the product line fresh and entice the masses. One nice thing is that the the D5100 does use the same sensor as the highly rated D7000.

In the days of film the commercial stock photographer was using medium or large format cameras....besides film has been the Dodo for at least 6 years commercially.  A century on the internet.

A Canon Digital Rebel will easily do the trick. Even a simple Canon G12 will work for stock. But will it work for your stock??

Sean is right, this will be fun.

My workflow: From Raw to Tiff, process in Photoshop CS5, inspect at 200%, save only as jpg at highest quality. No upsizing. No sharpening of any kind. Also turn of all sharpening in the camera.

Please show us your portfolio when you get online.

Being a camera fanboy gets you nowhere.

So let's pose another question? What does your vision offer besides multiple versions of the isolated tomato? Because as mentioned above, what you decide to shoot dictates what type of camera you need, not camera brand.

It's a valid question, and probably the most important one to answer.

You have come here with the same old same old noob questions which could have been easily answered using a search function here or on the web at large. So, the only interesting question that remains is the "why?". What are your goals, and what is your motivation here? That one of your original concerns is the ability to remove telephone poles tells me that your views of photography are bit skewed. There are no instant solutions, and no standard answers to your questions. Are you looking to be a photographer or a retoucher?

The Rebel is good. The Nikons are good. Either will satisfy amateur needs. All you need is a good lens and the ability to dump the files. Expose properly, compose properly, learn to work with light - you will get good pictures.

Quote from: abracadabradesigns on June 25, 2011, 14:02

Quote from: stormchaser on June 25, 2011, 13:12

Quote from: sjlocke on June 25, 2011, 12:01

Quote from: abracadabradesigns on June 25, 2011, 11:40

I am just getting started into stock photography and I got a lot of questions.  Can anyone help?

1. I am thinking of getting a DSLR.

Why do you think "stock photography" is something you want to do?

Ah, the old "answer a question with a question", and its a good one. Let's see if you get an answer ;-)

Always nice to see trolls on a forum!

Well, coming new to a forum asking for advice and already calling people trolls isn't too bright. Calling Sean, one of the most successful stock shooters in the world, a troll is even less bright.

I don't think you're going to be getting too much more advice around here.

Of course the better the camera, the easier will life be for you, but I would say the lens is more important. Canons are great cameras, just pick good lenses. But, above all, do you know how to use manual camera settings? This is also an investment you need to consider.

I am ashamed to say that I still don't use raw, and I can not answer about Lightroom. I agree PS is too expensive and that PSP will completely satisfy your needs for a fraction of PS' price. I still use version X2, but latest PSP version is even more powerful (not necessarily a better software).

I use TIFF all the time, except in some rare elaborate edition that I use PSP's format to retain all edition layers.