I can't do it right now, I need the PS on my home base computer to do it, so I'll take a stab at it in a few hours when I get home.  It definitely looks better this way.  Though I'll probably pull a little here and push a little there to make it fit nice.

I always wonder how the MS sites treat stretching and warping.  I know most say that you can't upsize a file, but stretching in PS uses bicubic resampling to smooth, which is no different than upsizing.  Then again, no matter what size I look at a picture, I cannot find traces of bicubic resampling unless it is an extreme effect (100% upsize etc..), at the small #'s they are talking about, ~5%, I have no idea how it could be spotted at anything less than 4-500% viewing, even then it would take some very tough inspection to spot.  I don't know if I could even do architecture the way I do without stretching, it is needed to correct the perspective distortions inherent in every architecture shot (I guess I could get a super expensive tilt/shift).

I'd love to see the final product.  After pondering how things would line up and the effects that it should create, it would be interesting to see what it actually looks like.

Isn't the 350D and 30D sensor and processing chip exactly the same?  I thought that the advantages the 30D had over the 350D were build and size, a general friendlier arrangement, faster burst, and superior AF/metering.

Quote from: Pixart on February 25, 2008, 11:13

Quote from: Waldo4 on February 25, 2008, 10:53

Prestige -> 70-200 (It has the white paint and red stripe, generally a pro, but the 70-200 is more obvious and attractive to a theif).

Here's a factoid for ya - if what I read on the Internet last week is true.  The big Canon lenses are white because the typical user will sit in the sun for extended lengths of time shooting sports or wildlife.  The white reflects light = cooler lens.  Apparently things can get pretty hot inside all the black equipment and cause damage to circuits, etc.  You can buy still black Canon lenses, but they are usually specialty order and more $$$.

The justification for having a cooler tele lens is because the Tele L's use fluorite glass lenses.  Those are softer than standard glass, and deform more due to heat variations. 

But it sure is a great marketing campaign, as you can always tell L's at a sporting event.

It makes a lot of sense, I have heard that before.  The coefficient of thermal expansion for metal is greater than it is for glass, metal expands and contracts more than glass.  The glass in all large buildings is seated on foam or rubber backer instead of directly in the metal frames, otherwise on a hot day all the windows would break.  Lens glass, in addition to being very expensive, is also fairly flimsy (as glass goes, it isn't 2" laminated plate glass).  With a plastic lens body however, the coefficient of thermal expansion can be controlled (probably a big factor in the formulation of Canon's exact lens plastic) to be equal to or less than that of glass, so the body, even hot, imparts no stresses on the lens glass to temporarily warp (when cool it snaps back to normal) or crack the glass.

I've only been at it since the beginning of the month, and have only been a member at DT and FT the whole time (just got accepted at IS no photos approved yet, all in the waiting que, denied at StockXpert (sux they give no reasons or a photo by photo breakdown, they just said no), haven't tried SS yet, probably in the next few days, BigStock has had an upload moratorium until today (not at home base right now), and darn 123RF won't send me my initial password, and I'm sure my email is working and that the address I entered is correct, it is on their end).  I've got 20 approved at FT and 30 at DT (some in the que too, probably will have 35 out of the same submissions I got 20 out of at FT).  I've had 5 sales, 1 at DT, just a measly sub, but 4 at FT, to 2 people, both bought the same picture twice, one got the XS and the S of a shot within minutes of each other, another got the S and came back the next day and got an extended, it was my 4th sale.

I just had one rejected the other day for that reason, not enough DOF, at f/40, with my Tele at about closest focusing range at max zoom.  I'm not sure if it is possible to get more DOF at that magnification, the shot is essentially an impossible capture for what they are looking for for DOF (dice falling out of a dice cup straight toward the viewer (slight offset) at table level, the front dice being in perfect focus, the cup having DOF effects though (about 2 inches behind the front dice)).

What micro agencies might accept a flower pic?  I'm not a huge flower shooter, but do have some stunning shots, especially good is a rare form of a Calla Lilly (red rimmed yellow flower), and Callas seem to be insanely popular compared to other flowers.  I do have some really good, fairly rare Orchids too.

Your point above about Ctl-Alt-Delete, I don't have to worry about that, I'm on a mac.     I'm sure though that being on a Mac will make programming way harder, but thems the breaks!

Getting stuck in infinite loops or infinite waits tends to be a major programming hassle, especially if you miss a # here or period there.  On a Windows PC, Ctl-Atl-Del is the out (usually, though I've seen the blue screen of death more times that I can count and have had to pull the plug and/or pull the battery to get out a few times).  Linux is the programmers friend, you just close the window, you cannot crash a Linux system (that I am aware of, I've never done it, though I don't have a ton on Linux experience).  After being used to Windows and their various products through the years, the 100% stability and complete uncrashablility of Linux is a dream.  It was quite a contrast that I had ME on the home PC at the same time I was learning C++ on Linux at school, after tons of problems with ME I finally reached a higher up in Microsoft support, who told me ME is the worst OS they ever released.  XP is actually fairly stable, though it is crashable.  I think they finally decided to close the backdoor on it (to the best of my knowledge it hasn't been found yet), all previous MS OS's had a backdoor for MS to access your computer at any time (also a reason they got slower as they aged), it is a long process to close it, but it can be done.  My computer got several times faster after I closed the backdoor to 2000, though it is a very long and tedious process, about 20 pages of steps.

Not sure exactly about the programming for this, but the database linkup is probably object oriented programming along the lines of C++, VB, SQL, JAVA, etc..., (API provides the data, the database language uses it to do something), which can have quite a steep learning curve at first, they are not user friendly like HTML, at all, and do not "think" the same way, though all object orientated languages "think" similar (an if-then-else is an if-then-else, a for-do is a for-do, with minor syntax differences).  Just determining how things are organized and linking apps together can be a quite a task.  The site API, just to get the info, is not even half the battle.  Sans a Linux based computer, Ctl-Alt-Del becomes your enemy and savior on many occasions.  I'm not trying to scare you away, by all means go for it, it is a great learning experience, and a very useful and marketable skill, but expect massive amounts of frustration at first.  If I had to time to work on it I'd probably create some apps (probably will at some point once the collection becomes big enough to warrant automation) for my spreadsheet, but I know it would be a lot of work.  I have a few years in school of object orientated programming experience (PASCAL, C++, JAVA, VB) and am fluent in VB, needing it for both school years ago and now for my professional career (not as needed, but I can do things coworkers can't because I can program).  Best way to learn VB programming (non-compiled code that is used in most Microsoft products and compatible with a good % of others (can access the ODBC)) and get your feet wet is to start small with some basic macros in Excel to automate some spreadsheet functions, the errors aren't as big, the help files are OK.  I wouldn't start by jumping into linking a spreadsheet into API interfaces.

I keep a 2 page primary database (not including any graphs or charts)

The first is a month by month site tracker.  The key numbers are the acceptance rate, average photo/day (start #, and end# aren't as useful), and the monthly earnings, the two together can give the $/photo for the month for each site.  Plus I track an overall portfolio performance assuming all sales across all sites on one ideal site, and all submitted photos are accepted at the ideal site. 

Page two is an individual photo breakdown, where I list every photo and keep a running total of the total sales for it at each site, and an overall total.  I don't think that tracking sales monthly per photo is a useful thing to do.  It is (will be) nice to sort the list by totals and see just how much my biggest earners have made, and eventually spot content trends across the different sites.

Ahh, so they've got this stupid contest going where people throw tons of trash and see what sticks.  No wonder they decline every picture of mine, for "type of photograph reasons."  Never got a different type of rejection yet, but they take less than 25% of my shots.  DT takes more than 70% of them.  The few that they do take are typically the ones where I think "well, not my best, but technically sound", whereas when I think, "man, what a great shot" DT takes it, Fotolia declines it for type of shot.  Fotolia really doesn't want any pictures other than isolated objects, background textures, and fake smiling models, do they?  Someone musta forgot that a contest like this will bring in a lot of pictures, hence the need for server storage, thus they just reject everything.  Since shots are generally found on a keyword basis, if server space isn't an issue and people aren't keyword spamming, why is there a point in ever rejecting a photo for type of shot or overabundance.  It doesn't make the dababase better, it just makes it smaller, being harsher technically makes it better, type has little to do with quality.

I've always wondered if the LCD on the few DSLR's that actually have live view if even useful for anything other than framing and possibly exposure (hard to tell how accurately it shows the exposure).  I cannot see how the resolution would be good enough to determine focus, I remember pointlessly trying to manually focus my PnS, even with the magnified area it was basically useless, the autofocus could always outperform it.  Though it is amazing how easy it is to see focus in the little viewfinder on a DSLR.

Actually it seems when people get DSLR's just to have the best, but really have the skills of an auto PnS shooter (and don't develop them), their pictures get worse.  Shooting in .jpeg hurts some of the gains in range that a DSLR has, and DOF is hard for beginers to grasp, it really doesn't exist in PnS cameras except in extreme cases, but it often shows up, the wrong way, with a DSLR.  I've had my camera at a few parties, everybody that picks it up and puts it in auto thinks that things are going good, but they don't realize I have it set to only look at the centerpoint for focusing (most pictures thus are out of focus), and auto likes to pick the fastest aperture of the lens, generally f/1.8 at parties.  Anything other than a portrait at that speed likely has some problems because of the DOF, especially if multiple people are involved.

I second that 50mm f/1.4.  Could be that my f/1.8 copy is crap, but my 70-300mm definitely takes sharper pictures, quite noticeably better.  The f/1.8 is cheap, very cheap.  Every thing it does the f/1.4 does better.  It is built better, it is faster, has better bokeh, and naturally it is a quarter to half a stop bright (making it even faster, usably), it focuses better and quieter, it is more flare resistant (the flare looks better too), and is every bit as sharp, if not moreso (I would expect QC to be better as well).  I plan on replacing my cheepie with the better model in not too long.  $300 is still pretty cheap for a good versatile lens, a little more of a dent than the $80 for the cheepie, but 5 years from now that f/1.4 will still have a prominent place in the bag unless good IQ sub f/2.0 zooms are on the horizon (doubt it).