|
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 - davey_rocket
1
« on: November 02, 2009, 20:48 »
I've got a minute portfolio (~220 images) but I had my first month of total earnings over $100. Again this may be bupkis to many, but I'm stoked. Since I stopped uploading pictures and started with vectors my earnings have gone from increasing linearly to what appears to be exponential, I'm sure that will level off soon but I smile every time I look at it 
2
« on: October 15, 2009, 10:39 »
I always thought Americans didn't know how to brew beer - at least beer you could taste  He seems a decent guy brewing a decent beer - hope it works out for him!
This statement upsets me  I've been to several countries who are supposed to have great beer and not a single one of them comes close to the majority of Pacific Northwest microbrews. You just can't beat a good hoppy fragrant northwest IPA. The american lagers and pilsners (e.g. Budweiser, miller etc) not so much though.
3
« on: October 14, 2009, 11:10 »
Categories - Are they really that necessary?
Here here
5
« on: October 06, 2009, 01:55 »
You forgot vectors
Yep, vectors... the redheaded step child of microstock.
A red headed step child is good every once in a while
6
« on: October 02, 2009, 18:57 »
Yeah SS really makes me angry with the fact that they are consistently my top earner, approve vectors in less than 24 hours and have a simple upload system...
7
« on: September 24, 2009, 11:54 »
That's interesting I've had three images "under review" since last Friday.
8
« on: September 15, 2009, 16:43 »
This is just my opinion so take it however...
I like the composition of the first but I think the selective focus might get harped on by reviewers as well as the fact that it seems underexposed. Color balance seems off as well.
The color balance is really weird on the second and the softness/blur on the fingers will probably garner a critical eye from reviewers.
Over all the photos seem photoshopped a bit too much.
Interesting composition though, I'm just pointing out the technical flaws as it seems that beautifully captured scenes get rejected for such issues.
9
« on: September 14, 2009, 10:09 »
I am no lighting expect but I wanted to point something out.
The first thing I thought when I saw the picture was that it was a studio shot isolated and pasted onto a beach background. The lighting on the model is very diffuse and contradicts what the lighting on the beach looks like. As I profered above I'm no expert and I have no solution to offer.
10
« on: September 10, 2009, 20:42 »
I actually really like the second shot a lot! It seems like a really good capture of action and I think it's framed well. The trees/grass line in the background is a bit distracting, but it doesn't take away from the overall picture that much IMO.
The first is good and most likely stock worthy. The first thing I noticed in the third was the yellow van.
The film scans look way over processed. I've never scanned a strip of film in my life but even with the small images you posted I, in my limited knowledge, would have rejected them.
If your new to stock, you'll find that quality standards for images is pretty much sky high now. It's a matter of learning the rules and how to play the game. On the other hand I see well composed and exposed art-type photos now and all I see is chromatic aberration, noise and jpeg artifacts.
Can't see the forest for all the trees...
11
« on: September 08, 2009, 22:30 »
June was horrible but July and August were stellar, especially at DT and SS.
12
« on: September 08, 2009, 22:27 »
13
« on: September 04, 2009, 11:39 »
I've spent some time sifting through the illustrations on DT and IS lately trying to find some unapproached angles to the more popular themes. In doing so I have found how horrible spammed keywords are, even at a site like IS that really cracks down on bad keywords.
What is the motivations for this. Do some sellers really think that a buyer searching for education icons is going to buy your illustration of a bear because it's just that cute?
Keywording is my least favorite part (as is probably of most or us) of submitting. I've found my files need a max of ten to fifteen keywords, beyond that the keywords become so tangential to what the file is that even if some one was searching for that term my file wouldn't be that interesting.
So while I doubt anyone would come out an claim that they spam, does this method actually increase sales or just frustrate buyers?
14
« on: August 21, 2009, 10:37 »
It's a conundrum, I feel your pain As I look back through the pictures I have taken on backpacking trips I've found that wide angle landscape shots outnumber telephoto shots about 15 to 1. I also do the majority (well pretty much all) of my shooting in the morning and evening in lighting that is less than perfect for tele lenses that aren't supper fast. I think you would regret toting the 70-200 along since it's so heavy but would greatly appreciate having the 16mm, but I guess it mostly depends on what you like to shoot outdoors. A tripod is the other heavy thing to have to lug around. 
15
« on: August 19, 2009, 12:26 »
I've been wondering the same thing.
16
« on: August 19, 2009, 11:03 »
Oops, just notice that you were looking for a free FTP client. Before I bought SmartFTP I did some research and could not find a free one that had the multi connection option... this was the most important option in my case.
I might be wrong, but when I was using FireFTP (free) I remember being able to upload to more than one site at once.
17
« on: August 18, 2009, 23:45 »
Works great Thought I'd let you know, there haven't been many replies on the IS forum, which I think is unusual. Anyways you don't have to be a contributor or buyer to contribute to the forum. You do have to sign up to submit illustrations and take a "test' but you do not have to be accepted as an illustrator. ... just in case you want to represent your self there, I'm sure there will be many who are grateful
18
« on: August 18, 2009, 23:34 »
i am using filezilla
ditto
19
« on: August 18, 2009, 21:26 »
hi,
take a long at photozone, they have reviews of most the lens mentioned. majority are apsc which may not be a issue to you (good ff wide zooms are real serious $  ). watch the ca, this class of lens is prone to it, some are not real good in this regard.
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview
Thanks for the link, I don't plan on using many of the ultra wide angle images for stock so luckily a little CA won't ruin the day.
20
« on: August 18, 2009, 21:23 »
Torres del Paine, wow! That was one of my best trips ever. Amazing scenery, great hikings.
Glad to hear such enthusiasm. I'm really looking forward to the trip. Anything that is a must see other than the typical attractions?
http://www.geocities.com/adelaide.geo/patagonia
The images are not too good because when I scanned them I had a faulty monitor.
Thanks for the link Madelaide, great information on your site!
21
« on: August 18, 2009, 19:49 »
Torres del Paine, wow! That was one of my best trips ever. Amazing scenery, great hikings.
Glad to hear such enthusiasm. I'm really looking forward to the trip. Anything that is a must see other than the typical attractions?
22
« on: August 18, 2009, 19:48 »
Tokina 12~24 has served me well. Not quite as wide but reliable and meets the budget.
BUT ... it isn't designed for full-frame cameras. I'm using it on D80.
It is also very well built and probably the next best thing to the nikon.
Thanks, that's good to hear, especially with the $400 price tag. I also saw Ken Rockwells (I know that's a dirty word around here) ebullient review of the Tokina 11-16mm as well, anyone have experience with that one?
23
« on: August 18, 2009, 12:53 »
I've got a week long trip to Torres del Paine National Park in Chile coming up in December and would like to have a nice ultra wide angle lens to take with me. I've been looking at the newer Nikon 10-24 and it seems to have gotten some decent reviews but the ~$900 price tag is a bit lofty for a broke grad student such as myself. Apparently the new tamron 10-24 is a cheeper but the quality coincides with the $450 price. Does anyone have experience with any of the other wide angle lenses or the Nikon 10-24 that might be able to share some valuable advice? What's going to be the best bang for the buck? I'd prefer to spend less than $600 but am seriously thinking about the nikon. Cheers!
24
« on: August 14, 2009, 14:24 »
If you like the script you could do me a favor and post it on the iStock forums as well. I am not allowed to post there, because I am neither a buyer nor a contributor.
Just posted it
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
