MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - Waldo4

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
201
I do it with luminosity masks (PS), sometimes multiple ones are needed, sometimes one is good enough, but generally the results are perfect.  Duplicate your background layer.  Switch to the channels palette.  If overall brightness provides good separation, the overall image can be used as a mask, otherwise look for a color channel that has good separation overall or in one area.  If RGB doesn't have a good one, switch to CMYK to have a looksee, you might get lucky.  Drag this channel into the open circle to select the pixels based on the brightness, there is a greyscale of the image as the selection.  White allows the layer through, black eliminates the effect, grey is proportional to the brightness (these are great for a number of things, they are 100% self feathering, kiss the shadows/highlight tool goodbye as a crude tool).  With your new layer selected click on the open circle to add the selection as a layer mask.  Now alt-click on the mask to activate it.  Adjust the contrast and brightness of the mask to perfectly outline borders in black and white (areas other than the borders can be painted black or white  easily).  Click on image icon on the layer now to activate the image.  Paint white along the border to separate from the background, if it isn't perfect, go back to the mask and make adjustments.  If all areas weren't covered, flatten the image, and redo the entire process using a different channel or different rendering of the mask.  There should always be adequate separation on at least one color channel for everywhere in an image for this to work, it seems meticulous, but once you get used to it, it goes quick, I've not needed more than 2 ever, but I could see applications where it has to be done over and over.  If you own PS and do not know how to use luminosity masks, google it, it is a somewhat hidden feature of the program but probably the most powerful thing that it can do.  The use of these masks is not possible with elements, the full PS (any version really) is needed.

202
A high percentage of $500 DSLR toting newbies give up from being rejected too many times or no sales. Or they continue submitting to sites where there aren't any buyers. Either way, the euphoria wears off.


The thing is a lot of the "newbies" toting $500 DLSR's are in fact not newbies.  Newbies to stock, yes, but not to photography.  Sure there will be the ones that get a new camera and go straight to stock, but I think a lot of them are people that have spent an enormous amount of time at Flickr, that have an understanding of what a good picture is and how to take one, not just sharpness, but color theory, composition, and interesting content, and thumbnail photography (must look good as a thumb to be noticed), understanding proper exposure and DOF, maxing out the cameras ability (exposing to the right, etc..), many with pro level PS skills or beyond, and have already made the jump to fine art photography somewhat but are looking for another easy revenue stream to do nothing more than upgrade their equipment to let their expensive hobby pay for itself.  The big adaptation for these people is noise and different content type.  The big problem is these folks are used to basically giving away their pictures for free, used to rejection (little interest in a picture on Flickr), and have no need to make any sort of living from it, so for them quality will be higher than quantity.

This was my vector to stock, and though I have very little in the way of a stock portfolio yet (almost all of my good ones have little stock use, fine art yes, but not stock), I can easily look at a picture and tell if the composition is a joke, the WB is dead on, the color saturation is good, the photo is interesting, etc...  I have literally viewed and commented on 10's of thousands of pictures (commenting on others work and seeing the comments of others is often the best way to train your eye), from good to bad, and taken 10's of thousands of pictures myself to learn the craft, in the last year alone.  Learning to take noise free images is a new challenge, but not difficult at all compared to the other hurdles of learning photography.  A $500 SLR paired with a good couple of lenses (not necessarily $$ either, like a Canon 50) and an external flash can take a darn good picture, whether for stock or not, when the user knows how to use it right, and many stock "newbies" are quite skilled in this respect. 

Flickr has created an enormous group of very skilled amateur photographers used to giving away pictures, and is causing the skill level of the average amateur to jump sky high, as they find their way to stock, the sheer numbers of these people have the ability to easily dilute the earnings of those already there.

203
General Stock Discussion / Re: HDR Image
« on: February 01, 2008, 09:47 »
Though it is a Flickr shot and not a MS shot (that I am aware of), here is one of the most natural HDR's that I have ever seen, converted with CS3.  It is not my work, but a favorite of mine, but it shows just how good it can be while maintaining a perfectly natural look to the shot.

http://flickr.com/photos/braid44/2183037765/

204
General Stock Discussion / Re: Megapixels going UP.......
« on: February 01, 2008, 09:34 »
I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned, but last year Kodak announced a replacement for the bayer filters (developed by Kodak) used on virtually every imaging sensor from camera phones to high end DSLR's and beyond (the Sigma sensor being one big exception).  The new filter pattern dramatically reduces noise by using light more efficiently (clear is used for luminosity data, not green, there is less interpolation of the color channels used to recreate the image), side by side comparisons with basically the same sensor but different filters (the examples that I have seen have been PnS sensors) showed 800 ISO pictures with the new filter having equal to or less noise than 200 ISO shots with the old filter.  The results are so stunning that it leads me to believe that the new filter pattern will be the biggest single step forward in sensor design, possibly in decades, while replacing one of the cheapest parts (firmware will need adjustment, but adaptation of the technology is relatively easy).  Since the old filter is universal it leads me to believe that the new filter will be adopted by all the major players relatively quickly (if not they will be left in the dust), the first models are expected out later this year.  I expect to see the noise in all imaging sensors, no matter what the size, to be dramatically slashed within two years.  Kodak is going to make a fortune licensing the technology (same as the bayer filter).  Unless my current body gives out, I'm going to hold off on a new one until the new filter is out, the cost difference will be minor compared to old bodies, yet the improvement will be dramatic, any body bought this year will be obsolete in the noise department within a year or two.

Camera manufacturers already acknowledge (privately to themselves or other industry insiders, the public is still blissfully unaware for the most part) that they have passed the useful MP point on a decent % of cameras, the sensor resolution being beyond lens resolution for all but the highest quality glass, PnS cameras passed that point a while ago, even the best PnS glass can't resolve 8mp, and the highest resolution consumer DSLRs are beyond what cheap lenses can resolve, the push for MPs is degrading IQ for the most part because of the signal to noise ratio getting worse with more MPs, creating noise and shrinking dynamic range, but they sell more if there is a bigger # on the sticker, until the public stops buying based on the MP rating alone, camera manufacturers are stuck, unlike computer chips where solid benchmarking can prove the speed of a computer, image quality is much more subjective, changing the attitudes of the public will be difficult, 95% of the public have no idea how to interpret IQ tests performed on cameras, and imaging test shots for the most part are woefully pitiful, only taking shots that trained eyes can understand instead of side by sides of pretty things that the pubic can understand.

205
General Stock Discussion / Re: HDR Image
« on: January 31, 2008, 09:48 »
Hello everybody, this is my first post, and I am very new to MS, having not been accepted to any sites, yet (still assembling a small portfolio of noise free, stock style photos), most of my Flickr stuff is great for collecting icons and faves, but not really stock material, but I have learned a thing or two about HDR over there after literally looking at 10's of thousands of HDR shots there and taking a bunch myself.

I've always used the axiom that HDR is like shapening, if you can see it, it is overdone.  That said, the wild slider on photomatix just doesn't cut it, artifacts are high and light halos get bad quick.  Though not as favored by the wild HDR crowd, if you want natural HDR, PS CS2 or CS3 is the way to go, artifacts and noise are much more controlled and halos are relatively easy to eliminate.  I find CS2 HDR to be lower noise than a non HDR image when minimal tonemapping and range compression is required.  I rarely tell anybody if my images are HDR or not, it is not necessary info and there is a anti HDR bias among many people.  The only way to tell for the most part is all of my non HDR images have exif data, my HDR ones do not. 

There must be a market for HDR images though, a well done one looks outstanding on a computer monitor, and many stock images are purchased for web use, if the end user is only displaying it on a computer monitor, good HDR looks stunning, whether totally natural or having a high resolution 3d rendering look.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9]

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors