|
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 - MikLav
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 28
501
« on: January 05, 2009, 11:06 »
You can also do it out of Photoshop. I can do it out of CS2 and Adobe Elements 6 just fine.
Take the last frame you shot, or shoot a frame if you dumped them all.
Go File info, hit Advanced in the left column when the window opens.
Go to the line that says http ns adobe.com.exif/1.0/aux and hit the little plus sign to expand the info
You will then see a line that says aux:ImageNumber:
That number is the tag for the shutter actuation.
If you have to shoot a frame to do this, hopefully it won't put you over the limit 
And just a note for anyone who wants to try it - it only works on cameras that supply Aux info, usually SLRs. Won't work with a point & shoot.
Yep this is the way to do it, no need to download any fancy software.
it doesn't work with 40D, neither it worked with 350D. I've read that Canon SLRs don't show it in EXIF unlike Nikon... perhaps it's different in 5D MkII
502
« on: January 05, 2009, 06:05 »
I didn't have any issues with acceptance of my files that were upscaled with standard "Bicubic", even when I had 8 MPix camera.
503
« on: January 05, 2009, 05:30 »
I have no problems reading my personal archives recorded on CDs 10 years ago or even earlier. But they are brand name CDs; and they were read very few times since recorded.
I've read many times that DVDs are protected much better and should survive longer. However I've read may posts of people who lost their data, like one above so I am revising my backup strategy right now.
I used to put my RAW and edited PSD files on 2 DVDs of different brands; but now I will put a copy on 2 external hard drives (that will be different brands and will only be used for backup; one of the 2 will be kept off-site); plus I started uploading selected most important RAW files to Amazon S3 (to avoid too high costs I don't upload large PSD files; just some RAW files and personal data). That's my plan for now and it is already partially implemented.
504
« on: December 30, 2008, 16:12 »
Amazon S3 get more expensive if you store lot of data into it, but with its multiple geolocation datacenters and somewhat good SLA it is quite good and amazon is serious with its cloud computing services (like ec2, cloud front etc..). So I think my backups are quite safe in their hands:). <...>
That s3fox is also very nice tool. But for better backup automation the jungledisk is needed.
best regards: MjP
Yes indeed Amazon is serious and I am trying it now myself, so far just with manual copy via s3fox. I think I will use some automation for personal non-photography files. But I need to find another solution for photos - my ADSL line is too slow for large volume backup (it took 10.5 hours today to transfer 1.65 GB of data).
505
« on: December 30, 2008, 14:37 »
Mark, I think there is nothing wrong with your approach but it is very uncommon in microstock. There are 2 most typical scenarios:
* amateurs starting earning with microstock little by little without having any registered business; and getting one later when (if) their sales grow enough;
* long time photography professionals already having registered business.
I don't know how much effort and expense is to register business in your country, but with my experience I would give it a try first, i.e. without registering a business and get it registered later if you succeed to grow your sales enough.
506
« on: December 28, 2008, 14:48 »
I use Carbonite..
Cheap and above all, unlimited storage for almost no money!
Second one is Mozy.com wich I upload everything (jpeg,raw,psd).
I found a lot of negative feedback about both Carbonite and Mozy. Data lost / not restored with Carbonite; too slow upload and various problems with client for Mozy... Also beware that there is no commitment from online backup companies - no uptime guarantee; no data availability guarantee, i.e. there is no SLA at all and Terms_and_conditions deny any responsibility. So using an online backup might be a useful extra option but isn't looking safe as a primary backup method, at least with cheap companies. Amazon S3 looks better with an explicit SLA (which is assured by such a serious name like Amazon), but it becomes more expensive when you store large amounts of data (>100GB)... BTW it works nicely with freeware FireFox addon S3Fox.
507
« on: December 28, 2008, 10:15 »
I put RAW + processed PSD files on DVD (2 copies stored separately although both at home). Quite annoying for large sessions when I need to archive 10-15 GB of data (i.e. 3-4 DVDs 2 times...), so I really hope it will not take too long for BluRay to become affordable.
I have several copies of ready-to-upload JPG files - on PC hard drive, on USB stick, on external USB hard drive; and just in case some microstocks allow to download my own files for free
508
« on: December 26, 2008, 07:36 »
When I convert an image from Adobe RGB to sRGB in Photoshop, I can never see any change in the appearance of the image.
Unfortunately it isn't that easy. If you do just a blind conversion from AdobeRGB to sRGB in photoshop you will most likely get parts of your histogram clipped. I think it's easier to do the conversion during RAW processing, just by setting the default to sRGB and controlling the histogram.
509
« on: December 26, 2008, 07:19 »
Come on, sRGB isn't THAT bad When I convert from RAW to sRGB tif I always take care to avoid clipping of deep shadows and/or bright highlights.
510
« on: December 25, 2008, 16:09 »
What is conclusion!?
1. Shoot in AdobeRGB, PS processing in AdobeRGB and upload in AdobeRGB.
2.Shot in AdobeRGB, PS processing in AdobeRGB, converting and upload in sRGB.
3.Everything in sRGB.
Various scenarios are possible indeed. My choice - don't bother and save time - so I convert to sRGB while doing conversion from RAW.
511
« on: December 25, 2008, 13:06 »
I don't think login name is protected; on the other hand diplayed name could be considered a brand name. Still, I don't think it is copyrighted by default unless registered as a brand name.
What makes it more complicated is mixture with real words in different languages or names. Apparently my username MikLav that was created from MIKhail LAVrenov is a normal first name in some slavic countries.
Remark: I am not a lawyer, so it's just my personal opinion.
512
« on: December 25, 2008, 09:37 »
I have stuck with Adobe RGB. Here's why, and you can decide for yourself<...>
While techincally AdobeRGB and ProPhoto RGB are better than sRGB, it is much worse practically (as already explained above). * By default, internet browsers don't represent AdobeRGB colors correctly on screen, they look dull * Many of microstocks don't convert preview files into sRGB * Therefore if you upload your pictures in AdobeRGB to microstock the colors will look dull for buyers. So choose sRGB even it isn't the best one.
513
« on: December 21, 2008, 15:58 »
btw it is fixed already
514
« on: December 20, 2008, 12:14 »
I dont think so. I have 99-99.9% acceptance ratio, but dont think it has anything to do with image positions. When sales go down, they go down...
same with me
515
« on: December 20, 2008, 12:14 »
You take photos have them stolen or have concepts stolen while sites sell them for peanuts. You work to take pictures that are rejected for dumb reasons and complain that reviews take to long. Then we drool on our face being happy that we made a sale for a dollar and complain that it takes two weeks to get paid.
You came here anonymously which doesn't help with your credibility. You only made a few posts and most are complains about microstock. All serious traditional photo stock businesses already realised that microstock business model works and allows to earn quite substantial money. You are too late mate (by a couple of years)
516
« on: December 20, 2008, 08:09 »
I can share something that was told to us Macro producers at a big Getty meeting this last fall at photo Expo that explains it all but I would rather do it through a PM as I don't want to upset the king or Queen for that Matter.
Please share Jonathan ... you have my curiosity totally spiked ... regarding rejections of your work by IS - it's only their loss and the other sites' gain ... kind of idiotic on Istocks's part though IMHO ...
Could you please share with me too?
517
« on: December 20, 2008, 04:44 »
Have you noticed an explosion of rejections of images almost to 100%...
My personal record of rejected photos 13/13, yesterday 3/6, today 5/5...
Only in December...
My approval rate(till now) about 80-90 %...
No, in average they accept about 95-98% of my pictures.
518
« on: December 19, 2008, 14:58 »
I can't vote because there is no one "best" for me - one is "best" for user interface, another is "best" for sales (and that isn't always the same one), yet another is "best" for rejections feedback, etc...
519
« on: December 17, 2008, 05:20 »
The only difference in rejections I see lately is that they are more strict with the keywords (just as they promised earlier). I don't see a difference in rejections for picture quality
520
« on: December 13, 2008, 05:37 »
3/4 of my last batch was reviewed in 1 day, but remaining pictures stay there for 3 days
521
« on: December 04, 2008, 12:13 »
I got an email from Moneybookers and they say that they don't provide their service between US to US, and US to EU customers.
but Serbia isn't in EU, shouldn't be a problem for you ?
522
« on: December 03, 2008, 15:30 »
I am glad I am not in this nervous queue for the first shipments If things will go well I'll buy my 5d Mk II somewhere in March-April after the first rush fill be over; and hopefully after possible initial issues will be fixed and firmware updated...
523
« on: December 03, 2008, 03:58 »
So where do you get hung up? Can't edit fast enough?
Can't edit fast enough, and keep adding "final touches" to each and every photo even when I realize the photo is generic and isn't my top achievement. I am trying to improve though and got some moderate success
524
« on: November 30, 2008, 02:21 »
I don't expect it to go too low - but it depends on how many do they still have in stocks and how well they will be going out...
525
« on: November 25, 2008, 16:32 »
flat (low) for the last couple of years  No significant changes recently (already low enough)
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 28
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
