|
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 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... 57
551
« on: October 26, 2011, 14:17 »
Does anyone know, are the computer cursors copyrighted? Like the arrow in Windows? Or is the design considered generic? I have seen the same cursor on lots of stock images, and now I'm planning to do a very different thing with the cursor.
Do I have to design my own cursor I.E. just move some pixels or can I use the "official" cursor (I would prefer the latter one, but not sure if it's legal...)
552
« on: October 26, 2011, 13:13 »
I really cannot understand the "collage" thing at DT. If I wanted the OP's high resolution image of the camshaft, should I really download some collage where the camshaft is small? Or should the OP make collages that are for example 25,000 * 25,000 pixels so he would not need to downsize the image? And then I would need to download the full size file just so I can get the d*mn camshaft in full size? Thinking about this makes my brain hurt... 
553
« on: October 24, 2011, 17:03 »
Very nice... Goint to try it out with some of my images. But the form wants the infringers email adress, what if I can't find any?
554
« on: October 22, 2011, 13:58 »
My advice: Don't care. Just upload to a lot of places (this way all of your images are avalaible for download at least at some sites), never look what has been accepted or rejected, especially not the reasons behind the rejections. Just keep stuff you KNOW is good and stop worrying.
555
« on: October 20, 2011, 03:34 »
556
« on: October 20, 2011, 03:13 »
I have no idea why you keep bringing up medium format cameras in this thread? They aren't really meant for similar shooting style. EOS-1D X is a on-location autofocus-fps monster, while most of the medium format cameras are for studio tinkering.
557
« on: October 20, 2011, 03:01 »
I just shot a wedding with a 5D as my backup and realized there is no way I could shoot with it on a regular basis. It just feels too fragile to me. I am so hard on my gear that I would be shocked if a 5D lasted in my arsenal more than a year.
Has anyone really broken a 5D (incl. 5D mk II) because its "fragile" body? I have shot my stuff with 5D cameras (mk I and mk II) and never had any problems with durability (though I never have dropped any camera, but If you are going to drop your cameras even the Eos 1 series could break...) It's also funny that you said you were shooting weddings... that's not a very harsh condition in my books  I would like to use Eos 1-series cameras, but I simply can't afford it. I could afford one body, but I would not be able to have a spare camera of the same caliber nor upgradind my camera every time they come up with a new model. I currently have two mark II in my bag, it's a really nice feeling to know that you can keep shooting even if one camera breaks (never happened!) Now you all think I'm really poor, but my point was to rather invest to lenses or studio gear. A body is really easily replaced when needed... EOS-1D X seems like a decent camera, I'd like to have better AF and better high ISO performance. But I would feel stupid to change into something with less megapixels. I know there is no real difference, but why couldn't they make the new camera for example 24 mpix just so It would feel more of an upgrade from 5D mk II. I would hate to see smaller numbers in image dimensions when photoshopping!
558
« on: October 14, 2011, 10:25 »
I'm sure that you know this already, but I don't get it. A APS-C sensor is only 1/4 smaller than a FF (1.5x). If you have 16mpx aps-c sensor then a 20-21mpx FF sensor is about the same density. 36mpx is a lot on a full frame sensor to me.
Full frame 36mm*24mm = 864mm Canon APS-C (EF-S) 22.2mm * 14.8mm = 329 mm
559
« on: October 14, 2011, 02:29 »
I really don't think the reasons for anonymity have changed.
If you require identity (and as an aside, I don't know how you can reliably verify that) you'll just lose those people who don't want to put their portfolio at risk (for the vindictive agency)
+1 I have been thinking about this for a while now, how to curb the negative trend that so often overtakes threads,
It's just reflection of how things currently are in the microstock business.
560
« on: October 13, 2011, 17:28 »
I could live with the plasticy feeling of the Quadras, but I find the 400Ws too limiting. It's enough for most indoor uses, but in sunlight it's just not enough (The Ranger RX's 1100Ws is about 1.5 stops more, not much, but could be enough in many cases.)
And two sets of Quadras would still be 800Ws, and cost more than Ranger RXs.
561
« on: October 13, 2011, 17:25 »
No hope left for iStockphoto. If they are looking for someone to blame, they should just look into a mirror.
562
« on: October 13, 2011, 14:52 »
I don't have portable strobes, I wish I had. Ranger Quadras are nice, but they feel too plasticy and have their limitations.
I have been thinking to buy Ranger RXs instead, but correct if I'm wrong: they still don't have a Skyport receiver (with effect control) ?
563
« on: October 13, 2011, 03:59 »
Mine situation is even worse. They never showed up anythwere. No sales or searchable what so ever. Just a poof, they disappeared after the approval emails. I have been sending emails to the supports but heard nothing back, it's been 3 days. Funny thing is that other batches approved the same day showed up normally and getting sales...
Same for me. Approval emails. Files disappear. And now after three days, I haven't seen the images anywhere. (BTW, the images are/was editorial, does that have anything to do with the disappearance?)
564
« on: October 11, 2011, 14:04 »
These look soft. Especially image number 2 looks shaky (it's 1/5 seconds hand held!)
Use
1) Tripod +mirror lock-up
2) Good lens (These are shot with kit zoom lens)
If you want to pass QC, do not post any of these images, shoot new sharp ones.
565
« on: October 11, 2011, 06:40 »
Same here, every site is has bad sales. especially IS is very, very weak. If the sales doesn't pick up at IS this will be the worst IS month in years (I'm not kidding)
566
« on: October 11, 2011, 04:31 »
Show us some images to comment. Maybe your images need some improvement, maybe not - hard to tell without seeing the images.
567
« on: October 06, 2011, 14:26 »
when it was clear that the PC would win the game with its open architecture and its Fortran compiler and its development tools.
What has that to do with the "home user" I'm trying to point out? I have some cheap 8GB Chinese unbranded crap now that has twice the memory as an iPod at half the price and doesn't need the bulky iTunes to just copy MP3's on it.
Oh, and you had that BEFORE there was an iPod? "When Reagan was president we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. In Obama's America, no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs." A witty saying proves nothing.
I'm not trying to prove anything, It WAS just a witty saying that I read somewhere this morning. I don't want to continue this argument, I like Apple products and you don't. You say Apple products are crap, still they seem to evoke the feelings of the consumers, feel totally new and sell in millions. Maybe they are crap, but I like them (maybe not all, but many)
568
« on: October 06, 2011, 10:48 »
Sorry, but no other than Steve Jobs REALLY saw the potential (especially for the home users) of the graphic interface.
I think you mean Xerox, but then history is always written by the winners.
What exactly was Xerox's offering for home users?
I guess the answer is the first graphic interface which was imitated by both Microsoft and Apple.
If I remember correctly, you could have bought a house (or at least a car) for the price of one Xerox computer. Doesn't sound home use to me...
569
« on: October 06, 2011, 08:17 »
Sorry, but no other than Steve Jobs REALLY saw the potential (especially for the home users) of the graphic interface.
I think you mean Xerox, but then history is always written by the winners.
What exactly was Xerox's offering for home users?
570
« on: October 06, 2011, 07:14 »
If the rest of the computer industry didn't have Apple to chase, we'd still be using command line instructions to execute commands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interface#Xerox_PARC
The Xerox Alto (and later Xerox Star ) was an early personal computer developed at Xerox PARC in 1973. It was the first computer to use the desktop metaphor and mouse-driven graphical user interface (GUI).
It was not a commercial product, but several thousand units were built and were heavily used at PARC, other Xerox facilities, and at several universities for many years. The Alto greatly influenced the design of personal computers in the following decades, notably the Apple Macintosh and the first Sun workstations.
Steve Jobs was 18 in 1973. His main achievement, IMHO, was computer animation with Pixar and his superb innovation marketing skills.
Sorry, but no other than Steve Jobs REALLY saw the potential (especially for the home users) of the graphic interface. Even Edison did not invent the light bulb, but he made it better. Steve Jobs did not invent mp3 or hard drive or pocket-sized portable devices, but he did put them all together (with his team) and presented us iPod. The genius of Jobs was to create things that combine something familiar and something new, and machines that had a FEEL. "When Reagan was president we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. In Obama's America, no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs." i.R.I.P. Steve Jobs
571
« on: October 05, 2011, 18:05 »
It's funny because it's sad and true!
572
« on: October 03, 2011, 16:32 »
573
« on: October 03, 2011, 14:09 »
I love the Scottish single malts from Islay: Laphroaig, Ardbeg, Lagavulin etc. Smoke and peat is my thing I really can't understand people that think something like Jack Daniels tastes good.
574
« on: October 03, 2011, 00:58 »
Microstock is simply put.....hack photography. You might enjoy doing it but for the most part what you shoot isn't what you'd hang on your wall in your home. No matter how you slice it, the isolated bananas, the plastic model loving her job is nothing more than hack photography. MS is (as it should be) all about money. It is not about enjoyment, it is about volume, which equates to money...even though you may enjoy it. Take away the money part and the rest is moot.
Sour grapes?
Not necessary. A great part of my income comes from microcstock, but most of the time I would still be rather shooting something else, if I had the choice. If someone thinks that microstock photography is the most interesting or artistic genre of photography... well, I pity them (Yes, we DO have sometimes fun shooting and even editing is sometimes fun, but still it would be even more fun shooting something else. You know, personal artsy stuff that would never pass QC. Or shooting just weird portraits of people I know and see around me without thinking if the photos have sales potential)
575
« on: September 30, 2011, 13:26 »
Customer A downloads 5 of my images per day=$0.99 royalty per downloaded image which results in $4.95 from customer A.
Customer B downloads 1 of my image per day=$4.95 royalty per downloaded image which results in $4.95 from customer B.
Customer C downloads 9 of my images per day=$0.55 royalty per downloaded image which results in $4.95 from customer C.
Customer D downloads 15 of my images per day=$0.33 royalty per downloaded image which results in $4.95 from customer D.
This is correct only if the customer downloads ONLY your images. If they download images from other contributors on the same day, the numbers will be affected. For example Customer A downloads 1 of your images and 9 from other contributors = 10 images You will get $0.50 and the other contributors will get 9 * $0.50
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
[/url]
