|
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 - travismanley
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 11
76
« on: May 07, 2009, 14:11 »
Im guessing the reasons sites factor in deleted images into approval rating is that they have paid for those photos to be reviewed. If you go and delete old photos with low or no sales that eliminates the possibility that they will make any money off them.
travis, ...into rejections, you mean ! yes, i agree. especially for BigStock . they tend to work slowly with sales unlike other sites that sells straight off like SS. the first time i requested deleted of a whole stack of my work, they actually told me to leave me. i told them that was crazy as there were no sales at all.
but i left it, and voila , the sales came. i couldn't believe why anyone was able to locate such old images, but that was just the way it is with BigStock. i do sell quickly for some new images, but it seems i sell more of my oldest image. i cannot explain that, maybe they rotate or something.
also going back to Karimala. i like the idea of getting rid of dead images too. you could rework on them and resubmit with a fresh look. but all this takes up your time as well, which could be better spent in making new images and uploading them. what do you think?
I have also noticed many of my sales are on older photos that dont sell particularly well at other sites. As far as deleting old photos that you are not so proud of. Really what harm do they do just sitting in your portfolio? You have already done the work to upload them why not just let them sit? If you are worried about buyers stumbling across and old photo you took that is not reflective of your current skills why not direct people to a Flickr account or something similar with just your best images?
77
« on: May 07, 2009, 13:55 »
I was struck by the fact that deletions count against us, too.
Karimala, BigStock is not the only site that counts deletion as a rejection. If you submit an image to most site and before the review, you delete it, it gets included generally as part of your rejection. That's why Support will advise you to be careful to only upload only when you are certain that is the image you want reviewed. There is only two parts in the ratio, so I can't see how deletion will not be factored into your rejections.
Really? In over 3 years, I've never noticed that before. I just did at BigStock though...deleted two images from the queue that are being rejected elsewhere primarily for "too many on site", and my percentage dropped by .05%. I can live with that, because it's so rare that I ever delete anything before approval.
What I'm having an issue with are images that have been online for a year or two or three that I would like to remove, because they are not reflective of my current skills. Improving the archives and our own portfolios by pruning dead wood should not count against us.
I'd also like to see the sites with upload limits shorten the duration counted in the percentage. At DT, my acceptance rate is 77.3% over the course of 3 1/2 years. However, over this past year it is 91%. Big improvement!
Having been a reviewer and seeing the ridiculous amount of garbage that comes through the queue, I definitely support the need for upload limits. I just want them to be fair and reflective of the photographer's current work. Like so many others in the beginning of microstock, I barely even knew how to use a camera and had a steep learning curve. In three years I have grown into a fairly decent photographer, and I would like my upload limits to reflect the hard work I've put into photography instead of reflecting my start as a true amateur.
Im guessing the reasons sites factor in deleted images into approval rating is that they have paid for those photos to be reviewed. If you go and delete old photos with low or no sales that eliminates the possibility that they will make any money off them.
78
« on: May 07, 2009, 09:52 »
Tape seems the way to go. I had to take a couple video classes when I was in animation school and got used to it so it doesnt bother me. Tape is great because its cheap too.
Is there any difference in video quality going from tape vs a hard drive?
good question. you're going from analogue to digital (10101010).
That is not correct.
Most of the video cameras that use tape nowadays are using DVC (digital video cassette, also known as miniDV). This means that the tapes are digital and NOT analog.
The quality on the video cameras that use tape are usually higher quality than the video cameras that use a hard disk or memory. But that mostly has to do with the compression that the video is saved with.
Video cameras that use tape mostly save in AVI format. AVI format is not compressed as much and has larger file sizes. Video cameras that use hard disk or memory usually save in a much more compressed format (such as MP3, MOV or WMV) and have smaller file sizes.
Thanks for clearing that up.
79
« on: May 07, 2009, 09:50 »
What was the movie where all restaurants were Taco Bell, Judge Dread?
I love that movie...Taco Bell too...im hungry 
80
« on: May 07, 2009, 09:04 »
Tape seems the way to go. I had to take a couple video classes when I was in animation school and got used to it so it doesnt bother me. Tape is great because its cheap too.
Is there any difference in video quality going from tape vs a hard drive?
81
« on: May 06, 2009, 16:41 »
Thanks for the tips, I really appreciate it.
I need a new camcorder and also would like to get my wife an little point & shoot so I was thinking if I could get something that would also maybe work for stock, at lest long enough for me to determine if it is worth investing some serious $$$ into a better HD camera.
I need to just try them out for myself like you suggested.
82
« on: May 06, 2009, 15:48 »
Also, if you don't mind dealing with tape the HV20 and HV30 are excellent choices as well. I noticed the price of the HV30 has dropped to $600 at a few places that are taking pre-orders for the new HV40.
This is a bit more in my price range. So the big difference is they use mini-dv rather than a hard drive? How is the video quality better than something taken with a point and shoot digital camera? Obviously the P&S are probably lacking some manual controls and the lens quality probably isnt great, but other than that why the big jump in price?
83
« on: May 06, 2009, 15:39 »
Travis,
The HF200 is the upgrade to the HF100/HF11 and is an outstanding camera for stock footage. It has excellent low-light performance for indoor and a nice sharp image. Shooting at 30p (60i) gives you excellent results with fast moving action.
What I personally like about it is the tapeless workflow using AVCHD. Canon is the only company which has maxed out the spec at a full 24 mbits which is why it does so well with the conditions listed above. The lack of moving parts is also desirable because I've heard too many horror stories about the tape mechanism in the HV20/HV30 wearing out from overuse.
I don't actually have one yet, I'm ordering mine in a couple of weeks, but I have spent almost a solid month doing research and from what I gather, the Vixia line is the best for consumer HD camcorders right now.
Thanks for the reply, that looks like a great piece of equipment just a bit more than I was hoping to spend.
85
« on: May 06, 2009, 09:32 »
Hey Chris. My approval rating at IS is pretty bad but I have around 800 photos up there.
I would submit the dragonfly, the camel profile, and that last baby pic. I would stay away from submitting "colorized" or sepia toned images. Also im not sure how valuable insect photos are (I could be wrong).
Try to give them a little range like a landscape, a portrait, and maybe an animal photo.
86
« on: May 05, 2009, 13:51 »
It has made me a better stock photographer.
I think it has made me technically better, but has also brainwashed me a little too into thinking every image has to be technically flawless at 100% zoom.
87
« on: May 05, 2009, 13:44 »
problem being you end up with the same keywords as everyone else if you rely totally on it.
I usually write about ten or more of my own keywords and then see what it suggests to fill in another 10-20
88
« on: May 05, 2009, 13:34 »
I think a couple of ads on the page wouldn't hurt. It would help pay for itself and any improvements.
I used picniche keywording tool the other day and threw everything out but 2. I keep more of the keywords when I use Yuri's. It is more accurate.
I agree, the picniche tool needs a little work. The Yuri tool takes a little more time but yields better results.
89
« on: May 05, 2009, 10:53 »
got my fist sale today for 12.5 euros, enough to payout.
90
« on: May 05, 2009, 10:14 »
sounds like you desperately want to succeed in using projection.
I hate when I come off sounding desperate, lol. Im just a little obsessive I guess. I get an idea and its all I can think about. After talking about this and mulling it over im pretty much convinced blue screen or PS is going to be the way to go. I am pretty good at isolating in PS, its just takes so much time. I am looking at getting some new lights that im hoping will allow me to knock out the backdrop in camera with no PS, so that could potentially be better than projecting a backdrop that I am stuck with. Also like was mentioned before the images quality on the projected image would probably suck, so im better off compositing in PS where I have more control. Thanks for all the tips guys!
91
« on: May 05, 2009, 10:07 »
Just started using the tool and it is a big help and time saver. Thanks Yuri
92
« on: May 03, 2009, 10:27 »
im not sure why im having a hard time getting this to work. If you stick a gel in front of your light it projects the color onto your subject, why wouldnt this work with a slide? Maybe I should try some different slides.
Im using my canon 430ex with a custom gel holder I made and a sketch on some clear plastic I put in the gel holder. (the sketch is just for testing, ideally I would print an image on a transparency and use that)
You need a lens to focus the image.
Im guessing you are probably right. Maybe im in over my head on this one. Im not sure how I would put this whole thing together.
93
« on: May 02, 2009, 15:07 »
who/what is Malak? What equipment are you talking about here so I can Google it.
Thanks
Travis, just wikied Malak and found this...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malak_Karsh
thanks
94
« on: May 02, 2009, 14:55 »
Here is one of Gremlin's shots that looks like he was using a projector
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9186638-leaf-girl.php
Hope he doesnt mind me posting this.
I wonder how he is doing this?
Have you tried a good ol "double-exposure" ?
That would work, but for what I want to do I would have to mask the model out and if im doing that i might as well just isolated in PS.
95
« on: May 02, 2009, 14:49 »
im not sure why im having a hard time getting this to work. If you stick a gel in front of your light it projects the color onto your subject, why wouldnt this work with a slide? Maybe I should try some different slides.
Im using my canon 430ex with a custom gel holder I made and a sketch on some clear plastic I put in the gel holder. (the sketch is just for testing, ideally I would print an image on a transparency and use that)
97
« on: May 02, 2009, 14:08 »
I think you are pretty much talking about this: http://www.virtualbackgrounds.net/home.html
Has been done many years. Doesn't look real.
Some people like the post-cardy style...
Yup, that is pretty much what I had in mind. Those look really big and expensive. Not really what I was hoping for...oh well.
98
« on: May 02, 2009, 14:02 »
That is a little confusing with the AB "effective and true watts". I asked them about it and they sent me an email about a mile long that was way over my head. Seems like most people are confused by it too.
Im still not totally what lights too get, I need two and would like to keep it under $600. Those Calumet's look nice, im just not sure if they are powerful enough.
99
« on: May 02, 2009, 13:53 »
there is a contributor on iStock who does this very well - gremlin. it is a cool idea, I'd like to try it also. though I think it lends a very artsy look to the image. I wouldn't use it much for stock.
I was actually thinking of using it more for non-stock portraits, but if it worked out well maybe seeing if I could it for stock too. Man those blue/green screens are expensive and all the reviews on them are horrible.
100
« on: May 02, 2009, 13:41 »
I used to use a projector to get a sky background when I used to shoot architectural models. Because it was all film, the work was very fiddly. It turned out okay although I never really liked the outcome that much. This with a good medium format projector which was way brighter than a 35mm unit. The lighting has to balance. Plus you have to project from an angle which will give some weird focus issues. There is a reason why isolation have become so popular.
Ya, this is why im thinking maybe blue screen might be a good idea. If I could get the lighting right for a non-photoshop isolation that would work too. I was just hoping for something that wasnt going to break the bank.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 11
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
