|
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 - Bateleur
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 35
276
« on: April 15, 2008, 04:56 »
I second coppermine ...
Do you use Coppermine? Or can anyone point me to a site that uses it? I'm interested but I'd like to see some results.
277
« on: April 15, 2008, 02:04 »
Hmmm ... I'm not sure about his method either. And what a performance!
It reminds me of a method that was recommended by certain people a while back, using a bit of scotch tape sticky side down on the sensor. Anyone who did that needed their head examining.
Apart from the other concerns expressed, what does this stuff leave behind? Yes, I know that they say it all peels off but you have to take their word for it. If it sticks strongly enough to need peeling off it could well leave a small, invisible residue behind.
Use it again and again and again and ... ??
For me the main thing is not to get too anal about dust. A while back, in the UK they were selling a little zip-up bag for lens changing, with sort of reverse gloves (like equipment for handling radioactive waste). The idea was you put your camera and lens into it, zipped the whole lot up and changed the lens in a supposedly 'sterile' environment.
Talk about a laugh and a waste of money. But I bet some suckers bought it and spent their time putting camera and lenses in and out of it while the world went by.
I'm sticking with my Arctic Butterfly brushes and rocket blower.
Dust is a fact of life in DSLRs. Live with it and take photos.
278
« on: April 13, 2008, 17:02 »
Interesting ... no one is exclusive (not yet, anyway).
Or, if they are, they're breaking the rules.
279
« on: April 13, 2008, 12:54 »
Okay. Thanks. I've put in my number.
280
« on: April 13, 2008, 12:00 »
By 'agencies' do you mean purely microstock agencies, or all agencies?
281
« on: April 11, 2008, 15:17 »
I submitted a batch of 16 on Wednesday.
They reviewed them today - which is fast - found something wrong with the first one, and rejected the whole lot.
Now that's rejection for you.  (Was someone complaining about it in another thread?)
If you look in the Alamy forums for threads about their zero tolerance policy (that's what they call this thing of dumping a whole batch if any don't pass) you'll see a lot of complaints about it.
I'm not complaining. That's the way it goes. I'll fix the errors (or reject the dud photo) and try again.
It does get people's attention though and I think they were trying to clean up their reputation for having a huge pile of images with a lot of dreck in the heap.
What they need is for a good image editor to go through the heap and chuck out all the rubbish. There are some appallingly bad images on Alamy.
282
« on: April 11, 2008, 10:55 »
I submitted a batch of 16 on Wednesday. They reviewed them today - which is fast - found something wrong with the first one, and rejected the whole lot. Now that's rejection for you. (Was someone complaining about it in another thread?)
283
« on: April 11, 2008, 10:49 »
692 at the moment.
When I first joined the submissions quotas were much freer, and I joined an uploading challenge set by someone (I can't remember who).
That really got me going and gave me a solid base. Things slowed up after that.
284
« on: April 11, 2008, 10:37 »
Wow, that's a difficult question. Do you mean with all agencies or only with one? And some of my images, I hope, will go on and on ... sales dropping off as they age but still selling.
285
« on: April 11, 2008, 03:51 »
Yes, they've updated their terms for Photoshop Express (applicable from 10 April), and the bit they've added is shown in red. 8. Use of Your Content.
1. Adobe does not claim ownership of Your Content. However, with respect to Your Content that you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Services, and unless otherwise specifically agreed in any Additional Terms that might accompany individual services (such as Photoshop.com/Express), you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other Materials or works in any format or medium now known or later developed. What does it mean? They haven't removed the bit that says they take a RF right, sub-licensable, in perpetuity, to anything you submit. Does the bit in red make any difference to that? I can't see that it does. It sounds to me as if there will be a tiny little check-box somewhere, which most people never notice, for users to opt out of this rip-off clause. P.S ...
Acrobat competes against CutePDF and many others.
Foxit reader (free) is a way, way better option than Adobe's also free, but horribly bloated PDF reader.
286
« on: April 09, 2008, 00:47 »
corbis ran a photo comp last year (or possibly late 2006?). Had nice prize money $'000s but as a condition of entry (entry not winning) the photographer agrees to transfer the full copyright of all accepted images to corbis.
says a lot to me...
Some competitions slip that nasty condition into their rules for entry. Nikon did it too, in the UK last year and there was a howl of protest from several professional photographers' organisations. In the end Nikon dropped the condition. Read the rules carefully folks, and don't go anywhere near a competition that takes all rights to all entries. What's more, warn anyone off any competition you find that does that.
287
« on: April 07, 2008, 15:03 »
288
« on: April 07, 2008, 00:36 »
Thanks once more everyone. You've given me a great selection to look at and send to publisher.
... could even dig through my sunday league football shots if you wanted something like that.
Sure. If you're willing, that sounds interesting. I'm particularly keen to find an image that clearly says 'amateur sports'. Unfortunately I'm also running up against a deadline  Thanks again everyone.
289
« on: April 05, 2008, 12:37 »
Thanks everyone. I knew you'd come up trumps. There's a whole pile of pictures to look through. I wish I could use them all :-)
290
« on: April 04, 2008, 10:40 »
For once the boot's on the other foot for me ... I'm looking for suitable images. I've written a book on photography, which is due to be published in the UK later this year, and I'm trying to illustrate it with as many photos of my own as possible. But I can't cover everything. So I'm looking for images to illustrate certain techniques. At the moment I'm on the sports photography chapter and I need: 1) A photo of amateurs playing a sport, any sport. That doesn't mean to say that they must be doing ridiculous things, but they must clearly be amateurs. So, a shot of footballers in a packed stadium just won't work. 2) Two images of some high-speed sport (e.g. motor/motorcycle/horse racing) one using a low shutter speed and panning to give motion blur, the other at a high shutter speed to freeze action. Must be the same sport for both. 3) Players or spectators showing some sort of emotion - anger, joy, frustration, etc. 4) An alternative sports image, strong graphically - track markings, equipment, seats in a stadium or similar 5) An image of an offbeat sport - tiddelywinks, cheese-rolling, bog-snorkelling, dwile flonking, whatever. If anyone on the forum's got anything suitable let me know. I'd like to give first chance to fellow microstock groupies (and it saves me searching endlessly  ). The publisher has an account with Fotolia, so it would be simplest if stuff is with them. But I may be able to persuade them to use another agency or even go private if the image is right.
291
« on: March 11, 2008, 02:28 »
It's a great pose. Looks like he's thinking about being a lumberjack  Congratulations.
292
« on: March 11, 2008, 01:22 »
Yay! One of my images heads the 'Stock Photo Blog' section on Dreamstime this morning. 
293
« on: March 10, 2008, 17:34 »
I use Capture NX too, Version 1.2, and I've never had a problem like that.
I basically use it for converting RAW to TIFF (on the assumption that a Nikon program will do this best for Nikon images), and sometimes do a little bit of processing in it. But i do most of my post-processing in Photoshop.
Didn't know there was a version 1.3 out. I'm off to download it now. Thanks for the info.
294
« on: March 07, 2008, 13:37 »
295
« on: March 06, 2008, 17:29 »
Just can't stick to that diet?
Don't stress about it. Stay cool.
You can gaze at yourself, lovely and sylph-like in the photo-frame, as you tuck into another Monsterburger with triple fries.
296
« on: March 06, 2008, 03:39 »
I'm by no means an expert on this - so I should probably keep my big mouth shut - but the evidence seems incontrovertible. Ken Rockwell, on one of his pages ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm ... in which he also tells us what an amazing, brilliant, multi-faceted person he is, having invented pretty well everything that's anything in photography) says " Adobe RGB is irrelevant for real photography. sRGB gives better (more consistent) results and the same, or brighter, colors." Well Ken, when I take an image in Photoshop and switch it from Adobe RGB to sRGB it immediately goes flat, dull and lifeless. I can see that with one click. Try it for yourself. On top of that, another guru, Scott Kelby, writes, " Photoshop's default color space (sRGB) is arguably the worst possible color space for professional photographers. This color space was designed for use by web designers , and it mimics an 'el cheapo' PC monitor ...
Honestly, I wouldn't even recommend this space for web designers today, and it's fairly ghastly for photographers ..." 'nuff said. I'm sticking with Adobe RGB.
297
« on: March 06, 2008, 03:08 »
All in all, I say yes, go for it, it's free afterall. Nothing to lose!
Yeah, nothing to lose except your non-watermarked images that almost anyone can hijack.
Thanks but no thanks.
Like I said, anyone that doesn't respect copyright infringement and theft will never see my images.
So it does look like images on RedBubble are being used for purposes other than intended, I guess I just got lucky!
That proves it! As you said, you're lucky that it was an honest agency. I wonder how many other times are images used from Red Bubble without the copyright owner ever being aware.
298
« on: March 05, 2008, 10:40 »
Great one! I've just tried it and it gives an amazing result. Thanks Miz.
299
« on: March 04, 2008, 13:33 »
Anyone here have images with Sodapix, a Swiss-based agency that likes off-beat images? http://www.sodapix.com/I've had images with them for ages and haven't sold a thing. Anyone else had better luck?
300
« on: March 04, 2008, 10:44 »
Thanks Miz. I've learned a lot from you. Grateful that you share so generously.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
