|
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 - basti
51
« on: January 26, 2011, 04:41 »
Im about 500 pictures and earnings are somewhere around $80/month. Its fact that the return gets better and better for larger ports, however some insane results like $1-2/picture/month ARE NOT average! It could be for old-timers and large portfolios which are online since 2005 or so.
With normal pictures (NOT vacation snaps - you will not get accepted those nowadays!) and being "just" average photographer like many others, you could expect real income about $1-3 PER YEAR. To cover $300/month you need 1200 pictures with yearly RPI $3 and up to 3600 (!!!!) with yearly RPI just $1. My opinion is something between 1200-1700 should work. I do count myself as being "normal" photographer and my yearly RPI is aprox $2 with 500 pictures - larger portfolios perform little better so yearly RPI between $2-3 is realistic.
To those reposting huge RPI etc. - it very strongly depends on WHEN you started! Numbers are very different for those who did in 2005 and those in 2008. Just check istockcharts how many sales do have small portfolios from 2005 and same sized after 2008 - you will be very surprised.
52
« on: January 24, 2011, 03:04 »
Good choice is Nikkor 10-24 (some refer it to be even tack sharper then Nikkor 12-24 DX). The ultimate lens is Nikkor 14-24/2,8 - probably best UWA zoom. To get pretty sharp results keep f6,3-9 - you can test each lens for the best aperture (some at f7, some at f9 etc.) but the difference between f6,3 and f9 is usually very small and most lenses deliver good results. Sigma 10-20 isnt the sharpest lens and you cant expect it to be as sharp as macro lens like Tamron 90. The other thing is that Sigma lenses usually have pretty different quality piece to piece = you better go into the shop and try 3-4 pieces and choose the best one. Buying Sigma from eshop = hit or miss. RAW is usually visibly less sharp then JPEG - RAWs are not so heavily processed with firmware, all agencies say not to sharpen your pictures but if you dont, they will reject it. I usually need to push contrast and sharpness while processing RAW to get proper results. My acceptance is aprox. 80% across big 4 = seems it works pretty good 
53
« on: December 02, 2010, 03:02 »
Point 1.: Isnt it much easier to hire some of us to create let say 100-200-500 etc. pictures in their own style and specified well selling subject insted of trying to grab someones port? I mean the result will be the same and it will be much easier for both sides - no copyright transfer of already submitted images, no trouble with deleting, deactivating, evaluating disputable value, risky reupload etc. Whats more, you will get new hiqgh quality high res pictures instead of some risky low-res old files. This is especially extreme risk at IS - Ive started in 2008 and I know there are many ports from 2005-2006 of the same size and much worse quality - but the pics got great search rank in the start and continue to sell like hotcakes - such ports have often up to 20-30x more sales then mine! However such pictures will be not accepted today.
Point 2.: 2 years income of the portfolio is pretty low price. I did stop uploading for several months and sales drop just to some level. Reupload of same pictures of course could lead to both raise or drop in sales, hard to tell. However 2 years is nothing - I see it after more then 10 years of selling pictures. The return might be slow but the pictures sell not year or two but very very long! The days when resolution of cameras multiplied every year are gone and even the low-end cameras now produce high quality images with nearly to zero noise up to iso400 - these pictures could be sold even in next 5-10 years for sure.
54
« on: November 22, 2010, 02:59 »
Pulling shadows = huge increase in noise. Its better to shoot near the overexpose rather then trying to pull too dark frames. Just 0,7EV underexposure is sometimes enough to produce horrible noise. Especially sunsets with lot of dark areas are complete horror.
f32 on APS-C is nonsense, because of diffraction the result will be likely much worse then f16-22.
The DOF differenece between FF and APS-C is just one f-stop = good bright lens like 17-55/2,8 IS USM on 7D is regarding DOF the same like 24-105/4 L on 5D. In other words, except extreme shallow DOF at f1,4 or less, you can achieve the same on both APS-C and FF, its just the matter of the lens used. Extreme shallow DOF pics would not be accepted on micros anyway.
55
« on: November 15, 2010, 03:01 »
I think the restriction applies only to this encoding, selling semi-pro cameras with "no commercial use allowed" is just crap. Its like selling Ferrari with "no speeding over 80mph allowed".
If you encode video into another format and strip all info, who could tell it was made with D7000?
56
« on: October 27, 2010, 02:04 »
Well, allright - first you need to make HDR - the normal way is to stack several exposures into one HDRfile. Maximum DR range of modern DSLR is up to 13EV, but usually they struggle with dark areas. So you better make more exposures. Some ppl say 2EV steps are enough, some say 1EV - depends on situation, but I usually do 1EV steps. If you stretch the EV steps too much and then process the images the extreme way, then it will result in serious noise. And you of course need to cover whole range of the image, better have images from nearly black to nearly white. It doesnt work properly sometimes, then removing one or two too dark or too light frames and stack HDR again. For example if you doo enough light frames but just few to dark, then the result tends to be too noisy or it doesnt allow you to process towards "normal looking" result - then removing one or two light frames could help.
You can stack HDR in any program you want, I use both Photomatix and Photoshop CS3 and both have their advantages and disadvantages. Photomatix can better handle ghosting but Photoshop can handle hand-shot sequences while Photomatix usually struggle with proper aligning.
Second impotant step is to tonemap the final HDR image again into something "visible" - the tonemapped result is usually called HDRI. Generally tonemapping is some special algorithm, which chooses some of the pixels to push 20-30EV DR into 8bit reality which in best case provides about 8EV. (here we go, btw. DR of most current DSLRs is far ahead from printers which can do just 8 EV with good ink and paper) If you do not enough frames, too wide steps between frames or push it too much into extreme look then the noise will appear. Its no beacuse of HDRI being noisy - its because you push the image over the limit. Pushing RAW too much delivers the same result, especially pushing exposure up.
The trick with noise works this way: You have one image with random noise pixels - but if you stack 5 pictures, then well, the noise pixels are not on the same places. Tonemaping algorithm is usually smart enough to make average result = so if you have pixel dot on one frame and not on eg. 4 other frames, it will throw away the noisy pixel. Of course the more frames, the better result. I did some pictures shot on iso 800 which in result have less noise then iso 100. It could be done even with Photomatix, but you need enough frames, better tight steps and no extreme pushing. Photoshop CS5 has great options for HDR tonemapping unlike CS3, but still it is far from easy use of Photomatix.
57
« on: October 26, 2010, 10:05 »
HDR does not create more noise - it does only brutal use of Photomatix. In fact HDR makes less noise as the random noise is averaged from several pictures.
HDR = high dynamic range - this is 32 bit image no possible to display on normal screens.
HDRI =high dynamic range image - processed (tone-mapped) 8 bit or 16 bit image made from HDR, this is normal low DR image but computed special way from HDR. If you do post process the wrong way, it will result in strange colors, halos, high noise etc. - this is the whole problem of HDR controversy! Many ppl simply do tone-mapping the most extreme (and often awful) way. I bet you wouldnt recognize some high quality HDRI from "normal" images.
58
« on: August 25, 2010, 11:07 »
Back to the reality - there is NO Canon lens even close to such resolution. In fact most of Canon lenses (remember most are low end or prosumer) have trouble even with 7D. Other thing is that there is simply no use for it - A3/300dpi is "only" 16Mpix and there is in 99% cases no need for 300dpi beyond A3. At least I do not pixelpeep billboards...
59
« on: May 31, 2010, 01:47 »
It seems some ppl here are confused how it works. The jareso web is totally powered by DT - its the content of DT displayed on his site with different language and so but the content is directly provided by DT and powered by internal DT API functions - ITS NOT A PARTNER AGENCY!!! The money jareso gets are from DT side like any other refferal money. He just provides extra service to customers like selection of special photos, providing service in more languages that DT doesnt have itself and drive traffic and buyers to DT - he doesnt sell anything himself!
So for us it is really great because we get the same money (unlike from partner agencies), this site drives more buyers directly to DT and catches more buyers which likely wouldnt come to DT as they dont know about it and/or do prefer searching in czech/slovak language.
60
« on: May 24, 2010, 01:21 »
Definitely Zuiko 12-60/2,8-3,5 - there is no other zoom with such versatile range and superb optics.
61
« on: April 02, 2010, 01:36 »
Xalanx & RacePhoto: Guys, you obviously suffer "fullframe" disease - buy the most pricy Canon/Nikon or even better medium format and let us others happy with cheaper stuff. Image quality matters, not camera.
I will simply strip exif and thats it, editor can judge just the image quality and who cares about some camera lists?
62
« on: March 31, 2010, 06:56 »
I think (hope) it's just a matter of time until all stock agencies will require at least a DSLR.
OMG! I think that the ONLY thing which matters should be image quality. Clear example of insanity was (not sure if its still that way) Getty - ALL Canon/Nikon/Leica were ok including those very old models with just 4Mpix - but NONE Sony or Olympus DSLR was there - what??? And btw. some Ricoh models or Sigma DP1/DP2 are often well above cheap DSLR with kit lens. And all current P&S are definitely MUCH better then any old C/N DSLR from the beginning of digital era... These "suitable" cameras are often very disputable...
63
« on: March 25, 2010, 10:34 »
1) You cant submit HDR - HDR is 32bit image in special format
2) You can submit HDRI (that is HDR processed with some tone mapping process into 8bit image)
3) There are various programs to work with HDR
4) True HDRI has LOWER not higher noise then normal exposure, but you have to edit it properly and not push it to the limits in Photomatix
5) You cant create HDR from just one single RAW - it has 12-14bit of data where often are 2-4 bits absolutely useless (unlike what you hear from Canon/Nikon etc.) - that is in best just mid dynamic range very far from 32 bit. You can do pseudo-HDRI from one single RAW, however you dont have to merge etc. - Photomatix can tonemap just one single RAW or you can do it directly in CameraRaw with pushing "fill shadows", "contrast" etc. to very high numbers - you will get something similar to HDRI but with lower dynamic range and often horrible noise and nasty halos.
6) You can use HDR to create unnatural (Im not saying bad) HDRI pictures or to create great natural looking pictures with full dynamic range (and you will not recognize its HDRI) - it depends on what you want. You can create realistic pictures even with Photomatix or create overprocessed horrible things even in PS - just depends on editing.
64
« on: March 15, 2010, 04:07 »
2x 0.30 sales myself (146 pics online), aprox 20x 0.30 sales done by my referreals
65
« on: February 17, 2010, 10:58 »
I had excatly this question in mind just week ago - BigStock + CS by published stats do earn together usually less then 10% of total microstock income, even those with larger portfolios do earn there few bucks per month. I have average portfolio about 300 pics on SS and DT and 130 at IS - it took me two years to get first $100 from DT. With sales 3-5x higher then BigStock+CS, how long till first paycheck? Deposit have great bonus program and its a chance to be there amongst msall start group of contributors and build a good search rank, unlike BigStock or CS (where all those old-timers have search rank 1000% above newbee). Chance to get first $100 from Deposit very fast was the main reason to join them - even if they fail, at least it will show some money - you couldnt say that about BigStock or CS. One is owned by SS (high chance to be closed exactly like StockXpert by Getty), second owes money to contributors and both show weak results.
And about personal info - remember you did post passport to SS? Remember all those nearly criminal or criminal treatment of contributors there? I mean all those accounts deleted without any chance to defend, all money claimed etc. - this is not exactly the proper way. And all agencies more or less behave that way, so I would say too loud Deposit is bad...
66
« on: January 25, 2010, 04:41 »
There are two solutions:
1) Buy a quality lens with very low CA
2) Leave it to non-stock, generally I do not waste time on too problematic pictures requiring lot of editing - the pocket money you earn from micro will never cover the costs (time spent on editing)
67
« on: January 19, 2010, 02:38 »
Depends WHICH polarizer it was - some of them drastically decrease quality of photo and making it blurry. Its not bad AF, its low quality glass in the polarizer! This is not likely to be noticed on cheap lenses but on better ones you would notice that. I had this experience with Marumi, same with Hama. Choosing CPL I would recommend Kaeseman, B&W and Hoya filters - Im using lenses well above Canon 100-400 optical quality and Hoya Pro 1 Digital works great. Check the same situation properly focused with manual focus and shoot it on tripod both with adn without polarizer and you will see.
68
« on: November 25, 2009, 01:38 »
awvid: Not all is true - its a pure fact that microstock heavily erodes prices in overall photography, because unfortunately clients see pics on micro for few cents and then require ANY photo for such price. Eg. common magazine price for photo was here about $30-50, nowadays you are happy if you get $20 and some extremes go as low as $7 - but the client do not realize the fact, that you simply must invoice yourself such trade. Is it worth to sell let say 2-3 pics for $7-10 and spent hour just on management and invoicing? Hell no! And we also see many pics on micro which are obviously heavily underpriced, because many folks simply have no sense what is micro and what should be sold for higher price, often because they started with micro and dont have a clue about other pricing models. So I partially agree with PD, however banning photographer just because he/she offers microstock portfolio (of course different from macrostock portfolio) is also silly.
69
« on: November 11, 2009, 01:45 »
Im using Oly 4/3 cameras which are older and have little worse sensor and firmware, so its definitely possible to use it for stock.
70
« on: October 20, 2009, 01:31 »
What I like about Canon/Nikon users - they talk about "small" sensor and "high noise" etc. while most of them have just basic entry-level plastic crap with very crappy Canon 18-55 or little better Nikkor 18-55 or another cheap and usually highly overpriced average quality lens. My friend with Canon 40D nearly got heart attack when he saw pics from my E-410 + 14-54 and they were sharper then from his 4x more expensive setup 
71
« on: October 19, 2009, 01:39 »
Hello Mr. Holgs Im another full time Olympus user. I had extensively used bunch of bodies and lenses, currently using E-410 and E-3 + 14-54, 50-200 SWD and 12-60 SWD as main lenses. However most of my portfolio was made with E-300 + kit lens 14-45 (old one). To the first question - no, you cant use Om lenses directly on modern Olympus DSLR, you need adapter, but it costs something like $20. Its very good idea to buy double zoom kit, as it often costs just few $$ more then body only. E-410 is smaller and so has abit worse handling then E-510 and E-510 has stabilised sensor. The difference in image quality is none. I would recommend biofos.com and wrotniak.net for extensive info about settings, lenses available etc. To the "horrible noisy Olympus" and other stuff like that - APS-C sensor isnt so much larger as many ppl think and up to iso800 there is hardly any difference - thats with basic settings. If you turn sharpening and contrast to off or low, the Oly will produce images much sharper then eg Canon 40D, but also noise will show. However this noise could be easily cleaned up to iso400 almost to no noise (I have NeatImage for that), while still resulting in very sharp images. Comparing Oly to APS-C is very difficult - first its very likely Canon has some in-RAW noise reduction and second it depends alot on image settings (sharpening, contrast). On Nikon or Canon simply do not exist lenses comparable to ZD 14-54, 12-60 or 50-200 and SHG line has also no direct competitor. Olympus kit lenses are amongst the best kit lenses available on DSLR. On the other hand the dynamic range and noise level are abit worse with Olympus sensor. Olys power isn in sensor but lenses have impressive quality unmatched by C/N. Half of lenses produced by Olympus have no direct competitor, all high-grade and super-high-grade lenses are very resistant to water (they survive heavy rain or short dive without problem) and even kit lenses have excellent optics. The power however is mainly in zooms, while primes are abit problem on Oly. I would recommend Oly to ppl who prefer superb quality zooms (travellers like Holgs or me), the ratio price-weight-optics-sealing is unmatched by any other manufacturer. If you prefer super-high resolution, high iso (sport, theatre etc.) and primes, then do not choose Olympus.
72
« on: October 12, 2009, 02:25 »
73
« on: October 12, 2009, 02:09 »
As I wrote already before on some other similar thread - ALL money were made and designed by someone and so ALL ARE copyrighted! The fact that microstock agencies do not refuse all is really crazy, dunno about their rules but I see serious copyright issues anytime I look on some micro portfolios. Stamps, banknotes, coins, car parts (yes, even car detail is copyrighted), cameras with vera familiar shape just with cloned-out logo etc...
74
« on: August 25, 2009, 02:23 »
Geologist
75
« on: August 25, 2009, 02:22 »
This is exactly why I have Olympus. E-410 weights nothing, however with pro grade lenses its abit too small to provide proper handling. Despite that Im using it. Two lenses Zuiko 14-54/2,8-3,5 + 50-200/2,8-3,5 provide me with excellent maximum aperture, superb optical quality and cover 28-400 eq. FF. Zuiko 14-54 is able to focus 18cm from sensor (thats just few cm from front lens). This setup together weights not even 2kg including filters (CPL, IR, ND4). If I need I can swap heavy 50-200 for extra small and light 40-150/3,5-4,0 (results from my personal extensive testing show that this * cheap lens delivers nearly same results as 50-200, but you must sacrifice maximum aperture and 100mm eq. on the long end).
14-54 + 50-200 are both one of the most weather/dust resitant lenses ever and their weight/price/optics ratio is something unseen with any other manufacturer. Together with sealed E-3 body they do provide killer outdoor setup with acceptable weight and excellent results up to iso800 (over 800 Olympus suffers from higher noise because of smaller sensor).
I do not have UW lens, I would like one, but unfortunately have no budget and if I need, I still can stitch photos together in PC.
If I desperately need to save the weight, then I would go E-410 (or newer 420 or 620) + 14-45/3,5-5,6 + 40-150/3,5-4,0 (not even a one kilogram!) or add ZD 9-18 + ZD 70-300 totaling in less then 2kg and covering unbeliavable 18-600mm eq. with still pretty acceptable optics.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
