|
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 - Perry
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 57
451
« on: March 06, 2012, 15:02 »
Does Mk III have the same batteries as Mk II ?
I have twp Mk II bodies in my bag (the other one is a backup). If I buy a Mk III, I will have one Mk II as a backup. But I would not like to start charging and carrying around two types of batteries...
Yep, they both use the LP-E6 battery. They may have upgraded the quality of the battery, but the physical size and set up of the battery are the same.
Thanks... that's nice.
452
« on: March 06, 2012, 05:50 »
Does Mk III have the same batteries as Mk II ?
I have twp Mk II bodies in my bag (the other one is a backup). If I buy a Mk III, I will have one Mk II as a backup. But I would not like to start charging and carrying around two types of batteries...
453
« on: March 06, 2012, 04:54 »
My DT is almost completely dead this month. I'm down about 90% from the usual levels. What is happening? 
454
« on: March 03, 2012, 04:54 »
I'm a pro, and some times on a comissioned shoot I have some spare time to look at the images. It would be nice to "tag" the images with a rating so I can easily find them on DPP.
Meh, you are going to look at them all at 100% anyways to check focus on subjects, right? I just don't think you can tell enough from the camera's screen to decide, and if you are going to review them all anyways, you are wasting time.
We have propably a different workflow. I usually first check images for artistic qualities at a size that fits on my screen (DPP: Quick Check -> Fit to Window). After I have made my ratings I check the highest rated images if they are technically (Sharpness) sound. If I would first check the sharpness of each image it would take forever if there are hundreds of raw images. Much easier to choose the ten best and mark them with a rating and after that hope they are sharp. If they are not, I'll check ones with four stars.
455
« on: March 02, 2012, 17:09 »
I think the "problem" isn't that the mk III isn't good. All the complaining exist because the mk II was SO GOOD! (it's hard to improve on something that is almost perfect)
456
« on: March 02, 2012, 17:08 »
How likely is it that someone who wants to be able to rate their images in camera will shell out $4299 for a 5D III with lens?
_o/ I'm a pro, and some times on a comissioned shoot I have some spare time to look at the images. It would be nice to "tag" the images with a rating so I can easily find them on DPP.
457
« on: March 02, 2012, 09:24 »
Hmm... a new idea... How about if non-uploaded images would add upp to some kind of a "bonus"? Like if you upload nothing or very little on some week, you could upload a bit more than usual the next week?
458
« on: March 02, 2012, 09:22 »
must be because of reviewers, so they wont freak out, it would go from a queue with 40k (usual) to perhaps 10x that..
there is also the fact that we kind of select them better instead of just dumping them but I also believe we all know what to pick to IS..
But that doesn't work with me... my monthly upload limit at IS is about 160 (38/week). I rarely submit more than 60 images per month. Yet it's very frustrating thing to do because of the weekly limit.
459
« on: March 02, 2012, 09:10 »
Has anyone got a good explanation why some sites have daily or weekly upload limits instead of monthly limits?
For example my weekly upload limit at iStock is 38/week. If I do a long and successful photoshoot and get around 50 good images, why can't I upload the right away?
Why can't there be a monthly limit like 160/month? I would even settle with less, let's say 130 per month.
Weekly limits sucks, and daily limits suck even more. I really hate sorting my images in different folders to be submitted to different agencies instead of just uploading a bunch of stuff now and then.
460
« on: March 01, 2012, 07:38 »
iStock: A bit better than last months, still pretty bad
SS: Best month ever! (even on a month with only 29 days!). Almost more than my BME at IS.
DT: Okay month. Not good, not bad.
FT: Lowest since april 2008. They have dropped from my #3 site to #6 (123rf earns me more nowdays!)
Veer: Okay month. Not good, not bad.
123rf: Best month ever!
Overall an okay month, about 12% (with estimated PP sales) more than last years march, but with about 25% more images)
461
« on: February 27, 2012, 19:01 »
I need a new phone soon, and I think this will be my choice. This would be very handy when I have left my "real" cameras at home.
462
« on: February 26, 2012, 17:42 »
-- Delete this ---
463
« on: February 26, 2012, 16:29 »
My RPI is somewhere in the $0.80 region. Photos, no people shots. I spend very little money on my shoots, only a cheap prop now and then (and very often the prop is something that I can use late on!)
464
« on: February 23, 2012, 04:40 »
I can't see how they can noticeably improve the IQ much, it's already very good.
I can see: less noise, better dynamics, better color.
465
« on: February 22, 2012, 08:51 »
Yes, you can submit the same images to multiple sites. More sites = more sales. Some sites have excusivity programs, but I don't feel those would be wise choices in today's volatile and uncertain market. Do you think this is a bad thing?
The only things to consider are - the amount of time and effort that are needed to upload the images to a site. It's always about balancing the time/effort needed and the sales. - the royalty rates and other politics of a site
466
« on: February 21, 2012, 09:19 »
Oof! I wouldn't define 'good' by whether something is commercially successful or not. The general public will buy (and buy into) all sorts of cr*p. 
No, that's not what I'm trying to say. In the other end of the spectrum "fully commercial" means always cr*p. I meant that if you are going to produce something that is "good" or even "great" you need for instance: - Creativity - Talent - Effort - Time (≈ money) - Tools and material (=money) "Creativity" may be a strong drive and force, but it alone will not take you very far. If we would treat IP:s like pirates, "everything should be free, soon we wouldn't have almost anything worth looking at/reading/listening to.
467
« on: February 21, 2012, 07:09 »
FWIW, I've spent my whole life around artists and musicians who simply couldn't help but create, whether there was anything in it for them or not. Many of them ended up having to earn a crust from other avenues, but they still can't help but produce creative works for their own pleasure in their free time.
So I think that creativity is innate and a 'drive' - but whether one defines onself as an 'artist' is something else, and perhaps artists do split along lines of purely commercial artists and artists that simply can't help but seek expression for their thoughts, feelings and ideas.
Yes, creativity is certainly a "drive". But to create something GOOD there almost always needs to be money. Without money, there is little you can do. Sure, you can perform singer-songwriter stuff with an acoustic guitar in a local bar, or draw comics in your room... that's about it. But If you want to make a living (to do ONLY what you love to do!) there almost always is a need for some investments. And when you would like to earn money from your work, you start to defend your IP rights 
468
« on: February 21, 2012, 06:41 »
Anyone had any thinkstock money in yet?
I haven't Is this the latest they have ever started the pay out?
Not sure, but could be. Just when you thought they couldn't do something worse, they do.
469
« on: February 21, 2012, 06:34 »
Someone who is truly creative (I'm not but I know some who are) creates only because that's what they are (they must create), and not because it's commercially viable. The truly creative don't compromise with commerciability. That's why throughout history you had artists starving in garrets, being supported by sponsors or having other sources of income - because they were so far ahead of their time that the contemporary 'market' wasn't interested, though now they're hailed as geniuses.
Yes, but they did have some kind of financial support (like a sponsor). And it may also be possible that some starving artist would have wanted to be reasonably popular instead of starvation, but their style of work didn't just sell at the time. Mozart did write some great pieces of music for his sponsors and clients. When he did more personal work he wrote songs about poop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart_and_scatologyWhich works are better? Commerciality isn't always a bad thing. There are very, very few GREAT pieces of art that have been done without financial support or some kind of a business aspect. Of course the commerciality should always be left in the background.
470
« on: February 21, 2012, 01:01 »
Most people doesn't even know how dusty their sensor is. How to test: Shoot something with a solid light color (for example the sky). Use the smallest aperture possible (for example 22 or 32). Boost the contrast. I'm sure you'll find at least something I have to clean my sensor now and then (I use only primes so I change often). With old 5D this was almost a weekly routine (in professional photography), with 5D mk II there isn't a need for cleaning as often, I clean only when I have a big "blob" in the middle area of the image that refuses to move. I used to be very nervous when cleaning, but after I learned that it's not the sensor that is being touched I relaxed (It's the anti-alias filter - a piece of glass - that is in front of the sensor. Of course you could ruin that too, but it's not as expensive as a sensor. My methods: I use canned air (of a good brand), Just to be sure not to move the can (I usually let the can stay on the table and move the camera. I know this isn't generally recommended, but it's very effective and I havent noticed any negative sides yet and I have been doing this for years. I can't of course take any responsibility if any of you ruin your sensor with this method. If I have stubborn dirt on my sensor I use Visible Dust swabs and Eclipse liquid.
471
« on: February 19, 2012, 14:25 »
Still waiting for the reply to this question:
Why a sale from a big contributor is more valuable than a sale from a smaller one, when for the buyer each image is the best one for their project and don't care for the name of the photographer. And you even charge the same for each image!
Please explain to me why a niche contributor who has a unique collection, which doesn't sell thousands of photos per month but is the only one supplying that type of imagery, should accept the commission cut when it's you who are privileged to have those photos in the first place?!
These are excellent questions, I wish they would answer these. But I'm almost sure they won't because they haven't got any good answers.
472
« on: February 18, 2012, 06:16 »
Yup, they just don't get it do they.
They also don't get how close relations most of the professional photographers have with different advertising/design agencies/magazines etc. I have been telling facts about IS and FT to them, and next time I think I'll add 123rf to my "black list".
473
« on: February 18, 2012, 05:14 »
I'm trying to find out how the average stubscription prices turned out, but I have too little data (only four sales so far!)
My sales: 0.29 + 0.42 + 0.25 + 0.83
Average = 0.45
What's yours?
474
« on: February 18, 2012, 04:38 »
But money isn't what is going to make you happy.
475
« on: February 18, 2012, 04:35 »
I don't think 123rf will double their sales after we start to steer the traffic to some nicer sites and badmouthing (only with facts!) them on forums. The IS/FT phenomenon will happen to them. They will be lucky to have half of their current sales.
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
