|
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 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35
751
« on: November 02, 2006, 07:20 »
... and you have to wade through a heck of a lot of junk to find anything worthwhile on Flickr ...
752
« on: November 02, 2006, 05:48 »
FYI... The two polariser filter idea is really, really old.
Ah ... right. He made it sound like it was his own idea. But, apart from that, I've always been taught that the object is to have as little glass as possible between the object and the light-sensitive medium. Every piece of glass you add degrades the image a little.
753
« on: November 02, 2006, 04:41 »
try submitting 10 images and see how you like it. It DOES have good earning potential.
I second that. The only thing is, their keywording, etc. is a total pain now.
754
« on: November 02, 2006, 04:39 »
The guy who started the '1600 and no noise' thread kills me.  He has the most brilliant ideas. A while back he was suggesting that night-time firework shots should be taken at 1/60 of a second. Then he has developed the fascinating ... and, I believe, unique ... technique of creating an infinitely variable ND filter by putting two (yes two!) polarising filters in front of your lens and rotating them in different directions. Un - bel -eeeeevable! I love his posts.
755
« on: November 01, 2006, 09:18 »
That's about ten times better than the one I saw. At least it's straight and the figure's in focus and relates ... sort of ... to the picture.
756
« on: November 01, 2006, 08:33 »
Bataleur:
It might be helpful if you defined what a "little worse" was vs. a "lot worse". If not, then everyone will use their own definition and the results might
Good point.  Thanks. I was just taking it as a sort of visual thing, by looking at the graph. Let's say, for consistency, that: A lot better = Over 25% increaseA little better = From 2% to 25% increaseAbout the same = Between -2% and +2% of last month's figures (to allow for the inevitable small fluctuations in sales ... ebb and flow) A little worse = From 2% to 25% decreaseA lot worse = More than 25% decrease
757
« on: November 01, 2006, 02:26 »
Since the change at of keywording at iStock, how have your sales gone? Please fill in the poll (to the left). It's anonymous.
Please assess this according to the number of images you have sold (the bottom graph on your Stats Page which shows numbers as a monthly comparison), rather than the monetary amount.
I know that cash is more important ... the bottom line and all that ... but the reason for choosing numbers is because the sale of just one extended licence for a single image, or a big print purchase, can boost your cash earnings for a month and distort the picture.
758
« on: November 01, 2006, 01:27 »
Also once when on vacation and shooting jpgs I had the WB set to indoor and shot in Maui for two days on the beach like that. Didn't save most of those miscolored shots.
Yeah, I've done that with the WB too, but I use Nikon Capture as a first step in processing my images and the WB can be easily fixed. Now if only they'd come up with something similar for putting the film speed back to what it should be.
759
« on: October 31, 2006, 16:34 »
Any luck with the comet shot?
I got a sort of blurry blodge, at 300mm focal length, which at least showed that I was pointing the camera in the right direction, and the thing I'd been looking at through a small telescope was the comet. I really need a motorised equatorial mount to get decent pictures (very low on my list of priorities).
760
« on: October 31, 2006, 16:28 »
I think that, if you're going to keep sane in this game, you've got to come to terms with the fact that selecting pictures is a highly subjective process. There's no right or wrong answer.
The other forums are full of rants by people who have had pet images rejected (except for the iStock forums who squash anyone like that immediately). There's a particularly long rant on ShutterStock at the moment.
Don't waste your energy. If an agency doesn't want one of your pictures they don't want it ... full stop. They're not idiots ... or blind ... or tasteless.
They just don't want it ... for whatever reason.
Get on with it and take some more photos.
761
« on: October 31, 2006, 11:34 »
The big thing that Alamy look for are dust and rubbish spots on your image. They seem to be quite tolerant of noise and grain. I've submitted scans of transparencies to them that have been rejected by both IS and SS, and they've accepted. In fact I've never got a tranny scan past the SS inspectors, which is a pity because I've got thousands of useable trannies (scanned with a Nikon Coolscan 5000, so not rubbish scans). IS have accepted a few. I even got an inspector's 5/5 for one once
762
« on: October 31, 2006, 11:28 »
It wasn't a bad print of a good photo, that's for sure. Crooked horizon? Under-exposure? Out of focus, blurry, disembodied head that has nothing whatever to do with the rest of the picture??? Unless, of course, standards of good photos changed while I wasn't looking  The magazine was New Scientist and, I've just noticed, it wasn't this week's. I live in Switzerland and the magazine often arrives late. It was one that arrived this week, but was an issue from a few weeks ago.
763
« on: October 31, 2006, 08:57 »
Last night I was messing about, trying to get a picture of a comet that is in the sky after sunset at the moment (Comet Swan, if you want to know, but not visible to the naked eye). I wasn't doing it with the idea of getting saleable pictures, but just for the challenge. And I turned my film speed up to ISO1600. So ... guess what happened? This morning I came across a big old Russian helicopter, lifting trees for planting into an inaccessible garden, all against a perfect blue sky. Just as it had finished work I remembered I hadn't changed the film speed setting back down again  They're great shots, but noisy as hell and quite unsaleable. I've learned a lesson. Always change your settings back again immediately you finish something. And check before you start shooting again. Check and double check.
764
« on: October 31, 2006, 01:44 »
The rumour mill has it that Getty's in financial trouble. I'm not surprised if they're hawking a load of images like the one I saw.
765
« on: October 31, 2006, 01:38 »
My last few submissions to Alamy have all taken about a month to make it through the inspection process. And, after a year with them, I'm going to get my first payout tomorrow. They also have a system where payments for images have to be 'cleared' before they can be released to you. I'm still waiting for some July payments to be 'cleared'.  You've got to have patience with Alamy!
766
« on: October 30, 2006, 16:50 »
Congratulations! It's a great feeling when you sell a licensed one, isn't it.
I've sold a few licensed ones with them but, funnily enough, my biggest single fee with them so far has been for an RF
767
« on: October 30, 2006, 01:37 »
I subscribe to a UK science magazine. In this week's issue there is an article about building a railway tunnel underwater and it's illustrated (in part) with an awful photograph. I can't post a scan because I'd probably run into libel problems, but it's a picture, under-exposed, of some pretty much featureless water (sea? lake? river?) with some land in the far, far background. The horizon is crooked, and there's a balding man's head, side on and totally out of focus, taking up about a quarter of the image at the bottom right. Looks like it was snapped (that word used intentionally) from the deck of a ferry and is the sort of thing you'd get if you pressed the shutter release by mistake. Of course, I checked the credits to see where it was from. Getty! Now I'm gonna sit me down and cry.
768
« on: October 30, 2006, 01:22 »
Me too! I've sold 7 with them for a grand total of $3.50. They're incredibly tough, I've had about 50% rejection rate, but I don't mind. Keeps me on my toes. Also, it seems that quite a few people get pissd off with their Judge Ross character and his best/worst image of the day. I find it quite interesting. I don't always agree with his best choice. But for the worst ... when you see some of the crap that people submit ... Gives me hope
769
« on: October 30, 2006, 00:42 »
A good place to get information on a site (e.g. is it a scam, is the service decent, etc) is: http://www.resellerratings.com. I check it every time I buy something online from a business I haven't dealt with before.
Thanks! That's a great resource ... didn't know about it before.
770
« on: October 29, 2006, 16:09 »
I've read that Alamy will soon allow application on-line so ya don't have to submit a disk. Anyone know anything about that?
Yes. They've been testing it with certain selected users (not me  ) for some months now. Apparently they haven't got it to work as they wanted - don't know the details - so the launch has been postponed indefinitely. What a difference between Alamy's approach and iStock's! Anyway, for Alamy you still have to send in everything on CD or DVD which is a bit tedious, I must admit. Also their approval times are running to about a month at the moment ... so don't hold your breath.
771
« on: October 29, 2006, 06:10 »
Thanks. Yes. Very helpful.
It's worth knowing. Something to aim for. Actually, I heard that what with massively increased competition from other sites, Getty will now be opening up what was once a pretty closed shop. That's why I was interested. But I haven't (yet) got the facilities to take on specific studio assignments.
As for image size, yes, Alamy requires you to uprez to a minimum of 48mp (I think it is) using certain specific software. The two they recommend are Photoshop and Genuine Fractals
772
« on: October 28, 2006, 17:21 »
I applied to Getty a few weeks ago and my work is currently under review.
What are their submission requirements? Is there a web site giving the details, or can you tell us?
773
« on: October 28, 2006, 06:23 »
I just found this site offering the most amazing deals on photographic equipment ... http://www.aigars.co.uk/It looks totally genuine and very professional. But further research revealed that it seems to be a highly sophisticated scam. Check out this page ... http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/blog/?p=62The bottom line is always, if a deal looks too good to be true, it probably is. Be careful out there.
775
« on: October 27, 2006, 11:47 »
I noticed my sales had jumped too. Just thought I'd suddenly been 'discovered' Ah well .... but it's nice to have a commission raise. I think I'll upload a whole lot more to them now.
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
