|
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 - j2k
51
« on: October 07, 2008, 05:49 »
I'm testing 50D as well, and while it's ergonomics and speed aren't even comparable to my old 300d, the iso noise isn't all that great.
I've read somewhere that ACR 4.6 beta shows a lot noise at high iso with 50D as compared to DPP. I didn't bother installing the DPP so I can't verify that, but I had to clean noise on ISO 200 images (shadow areas) or they wouldn't pass the inspection.
52
« on: October 03, 2008, 13:05 »
Add me in as well. IS: janeff
Thanks!
53
« on: October 02, 2008, 09:04 »
That's cool  They should model the handle after a lens tripod collar Maybe on a XXL 70-200 cup version thou
54
« on: October 01, 2008, 15:31 »
One of my photos arrived in my mailbox on a garbage calendar  - a shot of Toronto skyline. It was lying in my home for two weeks before I actually took a look at it, then about 15 minutes later I started wondering if the publisher used a stock photo for it. When I started to check if the logos are gone from the buildings I realized that the crappy cloning job is actually my own handiwork No EL thou on that photo so I wonder how many copies are being distributed. This is the one: 
55
« on: October 01, 2008, 10:33 »
Very cool video! 3000 RAWs from one photo shoot? Ouch. Especially RAWs at those resolutions. It'd take me a year to go through that on my current machine
56
« on: October 01, 2008, 10:12 »
IS: 43.7% (BME)
SS: 26.2%
DT: 10.4% (BME)
FT: 10.4%
StockXpert: 4.8%
123: 2.6%
BS: 2.0%
Istock is on a raise for me, gaining steadily for the last 4 months. Shutterstock lagging behind, probably due to low upload volume.
StockXpert is quite disappointing - lot's of subscription downloads. Fotolia's sub sales increased a lot as well
Overall steady - income at pretty much the same level as in the summer.
57
« on: September 10, 2008, 13:24 »
Congratulations So if it goes well just one more sale to go before payout. We sure would like to see the lucky photo
58
« on: August 01, 2008, 03:20 »
Not a bad month, my second best (since March), would have been a lot better, but I uploaded only 10 new photos at the beginning of the month, and that shows especially on Shutterstock. Shutterstock: 27.3% (down 27%) IstockPhoto: 37.1% (up 27%) BME Fotolia: 13.6% BME (thanks to 2 ELs) Dreamstime: 8.7% (this site is starting to be consistent for me) StockXpert: 8.5 % 123RF: 3.2% BigstockPhoto: 1.7% (no EL's this month, this one is really slow) Time to upload something
59
« on: July 04, 2008, 12:13 »
Congratulations on the 4m image! Real shame it doesn't come with a prize. At least it should get some front page exposure. Out of curiosity - how is it selling? BTW. my initial batch of 10 images was also approved in 1 day so that happens
60
« on: June 19, 2008, 08:59 »
I found my shots on it as well, it does appear that the website is using the unwatermarked comp images from fotolia.
I'm quite sure that for this usage - essentially reselling the photos they would have to purchase an extended license, and I know I didn't sell any
Maybe someone with more experience in these matters will chime in.
J.
61
« on: June 17, 2008, 14:46 »
no, I don't have 2x tc. I've seen a couple of moon shots with this lens and 1.4x and 2x stacked and it looked nice, but then it was at monitor resolution, and I didn't see those pics up close.
J.
62
« on: June 17, 2008, 12:04 »
I've got one and I love it. I use it with a 1.6 crop body. Tack sharp wide open, fast autofocus and not very heavy. I wish it had IS, because I don't ever seem to use it in light that would allow handheld shots. Kenko 1.4 DG tele is practically glued to this lens (with taped pins). Autofocus on mine works great, very rarely hunts with the tc. But if you have 40D then you might get problems with the center af point. I noticed that the chromatic aberations are more visible with the TC - purple fringing, but it's nothing to worry about. Sharpness is almost the same as without TC, so I don't bother stopping down unless I need extra dof. As far as faults go: - no IS - minimum focusing distance 3.5m - only 400mm and only 5.6  ) Overall a great lens.
63
« on: June 10, 2008, 05:50 »
Got mine yesterday - so May 29th -> June 9th
64
« on: June 10, 2008, 05:24 »
I woke up this morning to see two licensed sales on BigStock. Is there any way to figure out which kind of special license was purchased? (I got $13.50 for each) And to think that BigStock was about to be dropped due to lack of sales
65
« on: June 09, 2008, 14:46 »
Wouldn't such use (cover + resale of prints) require purchasing two extended licences thou (unlimited run + resale)?
66
« on: June 09, 2008, 09:21 »
I'm waiting since May 29th.
67
« on: June 05, 2008, 07:55 »
At the very least the license should require a full credit. And while it is a good tearsheet and it could be very beneficial for the photographer's portfolio, 20-odd bucks is really lousy. but really I'd live with the payout, the lack of credit would drive me nuts
68
« on: June 04, 2008, 17:32 »
69
« on: June 04, 2008, 17:24 »
70
« on: June 04, 2008, 16:29 »
I've noticed that if I upload on Thursday or Friday, the images become available on the weekend, and by Monday they are buried several pages deep in their respective categories. On the other hand it seems that Sunday and Monday uploads take twice as long to review, probably to the onslaught of new images from weekend's shooting sessions So, do you have any tactics that you are willing to share? Or do you just upload whenever you have a batch ready?
71
« on: June 04, 2008, 10:57 »
I'm wondering what kind of information is available to buyers when they buy one of our files.
Let's assume that the buyer wants to credit the photographer - is that name included with the file, or do they have to check the photographer's profile on agency's website? What if the real name is hidden and only a nickname available?
I put my name in the file's metadata but doesn't it get stripped by the agency anyways?
The company that I work for purchased a couple of vectors from istock, and there wasn't any information about the artist besides his user profile.
Any experiences?
72
« on: June 03, 2008, 14:53 »
In my browser the speedometer images are downscaled a little bit which makes them fuzzy. It would be better if they were showing at 100% original size, or resized in ps or similar and not in the web browser
(I have firefox under windows xp)
73
« on: June 03, 2008, 14:30 »
ShutterStock 40.5%
IstockPhoto 31.0%
StockXpert 12.3%
Fotolia 5.6%
Dreamstime 5.2%
123rf 4.1%
Bigstockphoto 1.4%
My second full month. Shutterstock is down by about 6% (less uploads thou), fotolia down by 30%, Dreamstime down by 15%. Downtrend on these is offset by +50% on istockphoto and pretty good first month on stockxpert
Overall all I'm 26% higher than in April, but I started mid March so it's not that indicative.
74
« on: May 30, 2008, 16:08 »
Personally I think that photos right now are cheaper than necessary. If a designer can not afford to spend a few dollars on a photograph, then they are in the wrong business. Besides who would like sub par images even if they cost 25 cents? Just go to fli*r and look for images with cc licence for free. I see that crapstock.com already exist, would that be the future home of this idea??
75
« on: May 29, 2008, 11:31 »
Very nice shot. Congratulations!
Out of curiosity would you mind sharing download numbers for that image? How much did it go up?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
