Some programmer got one word wrong when writing the program and we are left with this.  A simple change of that word and the one or two places it shows up in the code, then a recompile of it and reimplementation is honestly 15 minutes worth of work and it wouldn't mess with their databases at all.  I cannot see why they are not fixing this, it is so simple.  I upload each file to all sites using the web form one by one as I complete the processing of each image, I have to remember to fix each title for FT.  Why such long descriptions? I keep running into the minimum size, they are always short and to the point and describe the photo.

Man, 1 rejected today for "overabundant type", after I got an idea, went through checked what they had, and preplanned my lighting and angles to be different but not too artistic.  They only have 3 remotely close to it (2 by the same person) and all 3 have sold a few times.  It is one thing to have a shot taken when out and about that turned out well rejected, but a shot that I spent a few hours preplanning, checking through what they had and how it was selling, is quite annoying.  Oh well, I'm sure DT will take it, and once I get to joining other agencies I'm sure that they will too.

I used to use a system very similar to yours, but once I was nearing and passed the 10,000 photo barrier I knew I needed something different, it was getting unwieldy and I was taking shots at a rate that would double that number in only a few months tops, I couldn't imagine trying to organize a 100,000+ photo directory using my old system, it was just far too cumbersome, and the amount of time spent classifying and hunting for shots was significant.  It really ran into problems with cross referencing, I either had to put a shot multiple places or try to remember what is where, by 10,00 photos the memory of what is where was fading fast.  I haven't fully gone through and reclassified and keyworded my old file tree, I can spend a long time hunting for a particular file in that system.

My photo drive's tree structure is completely date related (except for a stock folder), which works well with the camera software as it creates a new folder for each date, which then gets filed under month and year.  I use Bridge to add a few keywords to describe what the photo is (shot class, location, model, etc..), and use the search by keyword function to find files.  Instead of trying to fit each file into a folder, I just let the keywords do that.  If I want to find Atlanta Architecture, I just put those into the search in bridge and every shot that I took at any time comes up in the search.  My stock folder is at the highest level of the structure and is exempted from the searches, since the keywording system is different for those, though I keep a normally keyworded version in the regular file tree.

The 430 is a nice start, it is what I have now, but soon I'm going to upgrade to the 580 as well.  With a hotshoe cord (I modified the Canon one to add 25 ft) and a bunch of add on goodies (cardboard snoot, plastic diffuser, old tripod to set it on, bungee cords and duct tape to attach it anywhere, all less than $10) you can do quite a bit with it.  With a 580 I'll be able to trigger the 430 via IR (with the 580 corded off camera) to get good cross lighting (or under lighting, or behind lighting, etc...).  The 430 is still quite a powerful flash, I couldn't image needing more power indoors, rarely do I ever have it on tight spread and full power, even with my camera set at sync speed with an aperture in the mid-teens.  I would just get another 430, but triggering becomes a problem then, the 580's ability to remotely trigger via IR is quite nice.  I rarely ever use the ETTL, I almost always have my flash in full manual, and manually set all camera settings and focus with the camera on the tripod. 

I am wondering if anybody thinks that this shot could ever have a possibility of being accepted anywhere.  Blur goes with the territory with motion, though I think I did a great job with his face.  It is just such a unique photo, I have never seen anything close to it, anywhere.   Motion shots, yes, but not like this.  Though this one does have a special place in my heart (it is the first shot that I took that I am truly proud of).  The face gets sharper as the viewed file gets bigger (this one does not take to sharpening at all, and every preview size, either on a MS site or on Flickr, that is smaller than the original, has sharpening applied.  I have several images where this is very obvious).



http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo4/700659413/in/set-72157602934433556/

By my waiting I hope to buy a level up above the low end DSLRs.

Just keep in mind, something that I think everybody will agree with me on, is that:

Cheap body+good glass > Expensive body+bad glass, and the built in flash on a DSLR is essentially useless.  Aside from a thrifty 50, all good glass is generally expensive glass, especially if you one day are going to get a FF body and only buy FF lenses in anticipation of that.  Noise performance generally gets worse as the MP's go up, unless you jump to FF, an XTi is generally considered a noisier body than an XT, the resolution gains of more MP's comes at the expense of noise.

Quote from: Waldo4 on February 07, 2008, 15:15

Quote from: ale1969 on February 07, 2008, 15:09

Actually I did travel the inverse path. I started with stock and in the late month I discovered the fun of Flickr. I usually use Flickr when I want to have some fun again with my camera and PS and "wash" my head from the stock requirements.

Watch out, Flickr can be a lot like heroin. 

what is so fun about Flickr??

(yes that is a serious question from somone who had just looked briefly at flickr a few times)

A lot of different things.  Most have to do with the groups that you belong to, except for the explore chase.  The explore chase has eaten many Flickr folk, each day the 500 most interesting photos (according to their interestingness formula) are posted to explore (a place to scan random good photos), the hunt to become one of the 500 can be all consuming.  Then there are the rate me groups, where you post a photo and rate others, the best place to learn.  Then there are the award groups, collect icons to move up to the next level, collect enough icons there to make it to the immortal chat threads where you photo lasts forever, among the best that has been through the group.  Then there are the low invite only groups, where somebody has to invite your photo to post it, that chase can be fun.  There are groups for photos that have been faved x number of times, a collection of elite photos.  There are elitist invite only groups, requiring an invite and moderator approval for each photo, these groups are stunning.  Challenge groups are fun, compete with 3 or 5 photos to earn an invite into the group pool.  Plus the social aspect, chatting through mail or comments with your contacts if fun.  Flickr has a lot of facets.

It's actually probably the opposite on post processing, fancy post processing gets you noticed on Flickr, most of Flickr's best would need to learn to tone down the post processing for stock, except for noise (the one thing Flickr folk don't care about).  Though the Flickr majority is different from the best, there are hundreds of thousands of members (possibly millions), most aren't very good, but the top 1% are, and that still is a lot of people.  Most of that 1% are people that got a DSLR, joined Flickr and were part of the majority, got really addicted to it, bought PS and learned it well, learned to improve their work from the constant comments of others, and are blissfully unaware that microstock even exists.  There are even whispers going around that Flickr itself is going to turn into a microstock site in some capacity.  I get at least get a request a week to use my photos there, no telling how many times they simply have been stolen (I know of at least one instance). 

The requirements of microstock are definitely an adjustment, as there is no need for noise or fine CA control there, but your images have to have pop and sizzle to get noticed, something that carries over well, toned down.  Subject matter is the biggest difference, ridiculous smiling models and isolated things have no place in Flickr, same as abstract architecture, birds, and wild Orton landscapes have no place in stock, though I bet there are a decent number of normal landscapes that could  pass the tests, especially with a light ninja pass over the blue parts of the sky.

Here is one that specifically talks about the new filter and not the sensor that Kodak is pairing with it for themselves.  With the Bayer filter being industry standard, it isn't too hard to imagine that this will be the industry standard shortly.

http://www.apertureprofessional.com/showthread.php?t=4172

Though I'm yet a beginner, I've run into Atilla from the start.  I still have a 100% acceptance rate at DT going, but only 40% at FT, incidentally every picture but 1 that contains a sky has been rejected (there is no noise however, the one that was accepted it quite unique and has decent application for travel agencies), but every picture that has no sky has been accepted, usually very rapidly (I had one accepted in 30 minutes the other day).  Until the reports of Atilla subside somewhat I'll probably hold off on uploading any shots of any type that contain a sky to FT, might as well wait until the acceptance chance goes up instead of having them be rejected right away.  All have been for the "type of photograph, does not fit customers needs" reason, though some definitely have a use.  Power plants seem to have an application (especially the clean coal power niche that is barely represented) for some customers, another was a shot of the GA state capitol that was definitely better than what they have, seems that there could be a use for that in an election year, another was a shot of an Olympic torch, which they have almost none of, and it is an Olympics year.  Hmmph, oh well, they want isolated objects, they get isolated objects.

Mark - just want to join the chorus that the money spend on a better PnS to hold you over to a DSLR is not a wise investment.  Many bring up how cheaply you can get a DSLR and nifty fifty, unlike a PnS though that isn't nearly enough for most things.  Memory, spare batteries (Canon batteries can run $50 each), filters (need UV and circular polarizers), tripods, flashes, remote shutter releases, pc or hotshoe cables (or pocket wizards  ), bags, sensor cleaning kits, add up to a lot of money, and no other decent lens comes close to a 50 in affordability, the next closest will cost more than the body.  Though a 50 can do a lot, there is a lot that it cannot do.  I'm sure that for most here, aside from the few that have 5D's and greater and small collections of everything else, for the equipment that they use regularly, their body is less than 1/5th the cost of their equipment.  It is 1/5th of mine, and I have serious gaps in my lens coverage and could use a second flash, which would probably bring it closer to 1/8th or less of the cost of my collection, and my setup is still fairly rudimentary, though still pretty capable.  A decent setup with a XT body that has all the shooting capabilities of a 10X PnS will run in the neighborhood of $2000-3000, though it will outperform it in every respect by a mile...but you'll need a flash (250+), a macro lens (300+), a WA lens (400+), a standard lens (80+), a tele lens (600+) and all the other little crap that goes with it, in addition to the body, might as well start building the collection with any money you have now, instead of getting something that pretty much will have no use once you upgrade.

I'm just getting started as well (a bit behind you), and have only joined two sites, but more are going to be coming.  At least at first I am planning on uploading all images, that I am happy with the quality of and expect to get accepted, to all sites, though I will only waste time uploading in down time between shooting and PP.  To keep track of what is what, I created a main stock directory on my photo HD separate from my general filing system, once I have a final copy of an image I save it not only to the general directory, but the stock directory.  Inside of this directory I have a folder for each site that I have joined or are planning to join, and I copy the file to each of those directories, making it easy to keep track of what I have or haven't uploaded.  Once it is in each subdirectory I delete it from the main stock directory, once it has been uploaded I delete it from the applicable subdirectory.  In essence each subdirectory is a upload cue for each site.  Not sure if anybody else does something similar to this, but I find it an easy way to keep track of what files have been uploaded where, and what needs to be uploaded where.