I remember 2 channel TV here in the UK well. It was one channel (BBC) until 1955 when commercial TV started, but I can't remember that far back. Somewhere in the shed here I have a plywood box that was made to contain an adaptor that my dad built to allow ITV to be received on an existing set when it came along.
Radio was pretty limited as well. If you discount the short wave broadcasts from other countries, and various faint or "noisy" other stations on MW and LW, the BBC had all the stations. "The home service" and "the light programme" or the "third programme".


We didn't even have a telephone at home!


But today I think there is too much content. Multi channels of TV, mostly not worth watching. Radio with adverts and DJs drivelling on.


The consumer is spoilt for choice, but a lot of the content out there is both poor quality and difficult to find.


Can't understand why the microstock agencies who had carefully curated stock as far as quality went, have gone down the quantity over quality route,   
 

 

Let's try something different - I was thinking a list of tips on how to FAIL in this business thus a great source of information for us to share and to avoid these pitfalls. Here is my first tip on how to fail-

1. Stop submitting images-  I've heard this is the kiss of death on a lot of sites. They even lower your rankings.

Actually I think you have the wrong thing at number one.
It should really be:


1. Get involved in the microstock business.

Quote from: Difydave on June 26, 2016, 09:12

Quote from: Astonished on June 26, 2016, 08:32

True, but in the Brexit campaign all they mention is Norway and Switzerland.
It's about the EEA, Norway and Iceland are in it, Switzerland rejected it, but has bilateral agreements with the EU. Brexit campaign didn't mention about the �1.3bn EEA and Norway grants Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein have to pay without having any vote or representation in the EU.
Still sounds good?

But of course none of those countries have anything like the population of that Britain has, and presumably don't represent such a good market for the EU to sell to.
Perhaps we could charge the EU for selling their goods and services here.


Whatever. The die is cast. We are out of the rather tarnished gilded cage that the EU has  (or had) become.
I know I'm not alone in wondering how long the monster can survive now.

The only thing in common is that all of these countries are importing a lot from the EU. More than the other way around.
You can bet there will be import charges on both side. At the end the consumer will notice the prices of these goods are going up.

Depends on how good our (and their!) negotiators are. Hopefully we'll have someone better than failed UK politicians and other "cronies" to do the job on our behalf this time.


As I said earlier, I think the whole thing will fail with or without us here.


It'll be tough at first for some of the countries who are reliant on EU finance when it happens. The bigger countries will carry on more or less as normal once the first shock is over.


Only time will tell though as you say. I don't think that the EU is, or ever was the be-all and end-all. Despite it's own attempts to make itself just that.

Quote from: Difydave on June 24, 2016, 10:36

I was reading the other day about a survey where a lot of people in other EU countries would like their own exit referendum.

It's been going on for a long time whenever people are unhappy about the EU or have to pay too much to the EU or the Euro makes everything more expensive.
And not only that, calls for independence in Scotland, Catalonia, Flanders to name a few has been going on for a long time as well.

Looks like some of the people in the other countries would like a vote too.



http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/682966/EU-referendum-Brexit-France-calls-emergency-meeting-Francois-Hollande


AT least part of the vote here in the UK was to tell politicians of all sorts that we'd had enough of them ignoring what most people wanted.

Brexit: The turkeys have voted for Christmas!

No mate. The turkeys could see the way things were going, and have voted to leave the turkey farm and live free! 

If you knew then why make the comment in your original post about "any better camera that can take photos with 300DPI" ?


The only reason I said anything about it, based on your post, was to try to help you understand that it's not a case of having a better camera.


My apologies for telling you what you already knew.

I think you will find that "upscaling", that is making the pixel dimensions of an image bigger in software is what is not allowed.


AFAIK (and to be fair I know nothing about that agency) none of the agencies allow upscaling, but none of them really care about the dpi.


DPI is "dots per inch" incidentally.

Almost every change they make has adverse consequences for contributors. Whenever they have 'announcements' to make, it's fun to try to guess what's coming up, but it's always worse than I've imagined, even though my guesses aren't good. E.g. they totally wrongfooted me by forcing all photo files into subs - I hadn't even imagined that might happen.
Actually, I hadn't even considered the possibility of anything like an RC scheme, and (many of us) us not getting to our previously-promised levels. I hate to think how much I've lost due to not getting to 35%, and many people who supply more than one medium were even worse affected.

I lost the 35% I had. Never to regain it, and certainly not now. I was so very nearly at 40%.
It was, and still is, extremely disappointing.

Sound advice for well covered subjects I think your pics need to be exceptional and even then just imagine how many cookie shots people have to choose from. Far better I think to move on if a picture is rejected unless its something really special

Good advice! It's what I've always done. 
I think the OP is running around in circles looking for reasons where there are none.

It doesn't work like that by making "everything in focus" (or at least not as far as I know!). It "decides" where the focus point should be, and "brackets" that area to show you where the focus is.
As I say, it's only my opinion, but I want to decide where the focus is myself. hence my use of the fixed point.


The manual you want is the "Instruction / Operation manual DSC-RX100M3
(I think that's the right one)


The English site is here
http://www.sony.co.uk/support/en/content/cnt-man/DSC-RX100M3/list
but you'll probably want to get it in your own language.

What autofocus area are you using? Don't use "multi" (assuming your camera is the same I know they are very similar) If you do then you are letting the camera decide what the subject is.
Use "Center" focus and then recompose your shot, or use "Flexible" and move the small spot to where you want the focus.


Just to say that while I use the camera on "aperture priority" most of the time, that's only because the manual controls are a bit fiddly IMO. I usually shoot manual with the DSLR for non moving type stuff. Apart from anything else it saves having different exposures through a series. It also allows for correction for things like white backgrounds, which nearly always come out with the subject under exposed due to the camera being "fooled"


Generally when I get a new camera I read the manual (yes really! and then spend time turning off most of the automatic "features".


I want the camera to do what I want it to do.

I've just been looking at some shots I've taken with the RX100 Mk1. Some of a grey black sky with a rainbow. Bit underexposed. f4 @ 1/640th ISO 125 Really not that noisy or soft. Town shots of buildings. Winter afternoon, F5 @ 1/80th ISO 125. Bit UUE again. Not that noisy or soft.


They both needed some NR for the shadow areas in post IIRC. Not all over though. And they were taken on aperture priority, hence the bit of UUE, which wasn't really a problem.


I use RawTherapee and The Gimp. So no fancy software (although RawTherapee is a very good converter IMO)


By the way it really isn't a matter of a camera having lower ISO being "better".  It's down the the camera type, the sensor and how it's used.


I'd conclude that you might have a noisy example of the camera.


Otherwise (and no offence meant) you are getting something wrong when taking the shots,
or taking shots which the agencies don't really want, and are therefore applying stricter inspection rules to.

I use around F5.6 to F8 for landscapes. Can't say about smaller apertures, I don't think I've used them.  Tend to use bigger apertures (lower f numbers) if anything.


I use the RX as a "walking around" camera though. I have a DSLR as well. Having said that I've not had any problem with images from the RX with iStock or Alamy. I wouldn't expect to have problems with iStock TBH since they lowered their acceptance standards.


I've not tried any add on lenses with the RX, tends to cancel out the "pocketability" IMHO, but I do know that any "add on" lenses are going to introduce their own problems.


If you shoot well composed and exposed images with the right WB using optimal settings, then you shouldn't need to "pull the image around" too much in LR. I'd certainly leave shadow reduction alone as much as possible. Use a reflector(s) to get light into the shadows with still life type stuff.