|
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 - ShadySue
Pages: 1 ... 617 618 619 620 621 [622]
15526
« on: May 12, 2009, 10:54 »
Here I am again. I've posted an example here (not that I submitted: even I can see it's mushy and the lower notice especially is well out of focus. ). http://www.v-liz.com/iStock/church.jpgIt's a full size crop taken from a RAW file tweaked only for a bit of contrast. It's the one I mentioned above, IS0100; 5DMk2 (3 days old); 38mm; 1/200@f10; IS on. Handheld, admittedly, but like I said, I shoot most things handheld, and if it won't do this sort of thing handheld, it'll be no use to me at all. What's the point of an IS lens if you can't handhold it - you have to switch it off when you have it on the tripod anyway! OK, so I'm asking for feedback as to whether the mushiness of this photo is me (what should I do better?) the lens or the camera. (I had a photo taken with the same set up about ten minutes later accepted on Alamy today. One of the photos I took yesterday evening is so bad I can't see where I imagined I was focussing, others aren't so bad, maybe even OK.) I'm just going to see if I can find some even light anywhere (very unlikely in 'leaf' season) to do a tripod test on some print. TIA
15527
« on: May 11, 2009, 14:06 »
try to be more literal with your keywording. then once it is accepted, you can add some more peripheral words. I wouldn't have included the following initially, but you could probably add them afterwards safely.
Police Officer, Prison, Trapped, Trapped, Unlocking, Bondage, Fetishes, Law, Authority, Law, Security, Security System (Security Equipment), Security
Not if I was wiki-ing heh-heh. 
15528
« on: May 11, 2009, 13:20 »
The set-up will be no use to me if it only works on a tripod: I'm going to Botswana in July and most of my shooting will be from mokoros (poled canoes). The 100-400 IS L has often been recommended for safaris, where in general you have little chance of using a tripod; with my 350D I was fine with the Sigma 100-300 EX IF DG, but of course, that isn't full frame compatible. I'd imagine at least 95% of my non-isolated-on-white iStock port was hand-held. Obviously the 'set up' stuff needed a tripod.
You should be OK provided you accept that you might need to downsize the images back down to 12MP to get them sharp. You can up the ISO of course ... but then that'll increase the noise ... so then you'll need to downsize again. I have the 100-400 IS myself but ended up buying the 70-200 2.8L IS as, when I got the 1Ds, I wasn't satisfied with the results.
The trouble with 23MP is it shows everything up __ but only when you are 'pixel peeping' at 100%. I find downsizing is no great loss anyway as I get very few sales above the IS Large size. The ability to crop or downsize has rescued many a best-selling image for me.
Well, more checking/testing obviously needed. The 5d2 was bought specifically with the intention of doing editorial e.g. Alamy. I've gone as far as I can with iStock, with no models. Set-ups bore me to tears, and are bad for my dodgy back, and less usual wildlife gets nowhere unless (and sometimes even if) it's American. If I was staying at iStock I'd have stuck with the 40D for a while. I might get out and about in a wee while, and tomorrow I'll try some targets via a tripod stuff. Lisa: yes, the IS was switched on, but I just checked one of my very obviously mushy shots and the EXIF says 38mm; 100ISO; 1/200 @f10, which should be pretty good even without! Shooting RAW, and have already set the JPG options off/neutral in case for any reason I want to shoot JPG.
15529
« on: May 11, 2009, 12:22 »
^^^ I'd very much agree with Lisa. I think you can pretty much forget the idea of using a 23MP camera without L-quality glass.
When I upgraded to the 1Ds MkIII, from the 5D, I was intially horrified at the 'mushiness' of the images (even though I was using L glass). It took me a bit of tripod-mounted testing to work out that most of the problem was actually camera shake. I normally prefer to shoot hand-held. I also needed to fine-tune each lens to the camera too (a special feature of the IDS MkIII). What might look pin-sharp with a 12MP sensor may look very different when the image is twice the size. It will really show up any issues in your own technique or indeed the glass.
The set-up will be no use to me if it only works on a tripod: I'm going to Botswana in July and most of my shooting will be from mokoros (poled canoes). The 100-400 IS L has often been recommended for safaris, where in general you have little chance of using a tripod; with my 350D I was fine with the Sigma 100-300 EX IF DG, but of course, that isn't full frame compatible. I'd imagine at least 95% of my non-isolated-on-white iStock port was hand-held. Obviously the 'set up' stuff needed a tripod.
15530
« on: May 11, 2009, 12:12 »
I'm wondering if somehow I got accepted without actually being inspected! 
I'd guess I'm going to have my account suspended too. 
Now my eyes are crossing. Yesterday I went out with my new (replacement) 5D2 and a 100-400 lens and the 28-105, and most of the photos look a bit 'mushy'(of course, I didn't submit them!). How can I have got so bad so quickly?
I would spend some time doing test photos with those lenses and your 5DII. Sometimes a lens and camera may not be calibrated to work together properly and need a trip to canon service to be calibrated to each other.
Other possibility is that the 5DII is just resolving more than your lenses can handle. I notice you said the 28-105 rather than the 24-105L kit. Canon doesn't make an L quality 28-105, so if that's what you are shooting with you may need to upgrade to better glass.
Do you have any really sharp primes or L lenses you can try the 5DII with? Best way to see if your problem is the camera or the lenses IMO.
Sorry, I meant the 24-105L; the 100-400 is also an IS L. It came in between the 5d2 going back to the repairer and the new one coming, so I only had a chance to try it out yesterday. I am pretty p****d with Canon: 2 faulty 450Ds, a 40D which needed two repairs within its first three months (electrics), a 5D2 which had to be replaced within a month, and now goodness knows what. And it all costs money, having to be sent Special Delivery & insured. 
15531
« on: May 11, 2009, 11:59 »
So for a photo of handcuffs, "arrest" is not sufficiently relevant. But "nobody", is ok.
IStock is truly another world. I think I'll start adding "walrus" and "carpenter" to all my IStock submissions.
I understood from the OP that no-one was in the photo, so no-one was being arrested, and there is 'nobody' in the photo. Of course I haven't seen the actual photo, so I may have inferred that wrongly. If someone searches on 'arrest' they surely want to see someone being arrested, with or without handcuffs. If someone wants a still life of handcuffs, they are very unlikely to search on 'arrest', but pretty likely to search on handcuffs, no? And in case there are lots of people in handcuffs, 'nobody' would be a pretty good modifier/filter.
15532
« on: May 11, 2009, 11:34 »
Ok, so let's say the keywords can only literally describe what's in the picture. They still require a minimum number of keywords, right? At least that's what DeepMeta is telling me. So how many synonyms can you think up for "handcuffs", that are in IStock's controlled vocabulary?
Clearly, I haven't seen the image. But if it's just an arrangement of handcuffs on a plain background, all you need is handcuffs really, then, for example, 'isolated', 'isolated on white', plain background, white background, colour, photograph, horizontal/vertical/square, nobody. "Still life' if you must, depending on the photo. But really, if someone wants your image they will search on 'handcuffs' first then e.g. 'isolated on white', and maybe an orientation. And I've had some images selling on 'nobody' specifically, so it works as a keyword.
15533
« on: May 11, 2009, 10:48 »
I'm pretty confused about the Alamy QC as well. I was accepted first time, and was really surprised as the images were all upsized from a 350D and they'd never have made the cut at iStock. Anyway, I've had some more accepted and quite a few rejected, upsized from a 40D, which to my eye look much better: all for 'lack of definition' or camera shake (the latter for a wide angle shot taken at well over reciprocity with an IS lens.) I'm wondering if somehow I got accepted without actually being inspected! I'd guess I'm going to have my account suspended too. Now my eyes are crossing. Yesterday I went out with my new (replacement) 5D2 and a 100-400 lens and the 28-105, and most of the photos look a bit 'mushy'(of course, I didn't submit them!). How can I have got so bad so quickly?
15534
« on: May 09, 2009, 09:37 »
No; my acceptances have shot up, so that makes me a 'better microstock photographer'. I now look at purple fringing and CR etc which I never noticed before, so better much technically (moot point as to how much that actually matters, in the real world). And I'm better at cloning out logos, intruding people etc. But I've lost out in creativity, fun and some of the 'joy'.
15535
« on: May 09, 2009, 06:11 »
Of course they'd love to dr ;)op it. I'm sure they really hate it every bit as much as we do __ probably 10x more in fact. Can you imagine what JJ thinks about this for example? Are we going to see his & other admins entire portfolios on JIU/PC in full support of the concept? I don't bloody think so.
And if they are 'obliged' to do so, what effect will that have on iStock for the rest of our ports. At least Kelly doesn't stand to lose too much on royalties (though I admit his 8 to 1 dls to up stat is much better than mine 
15536
« on: May 08, 2009, 17:34 »
During one of the Microsoft antitrust trials, a leaked internal Microsoft email summarized their real strategy for dealing with innovations by smaller competitors, which they saw as a threat. The expression they used - now famous within the industry - was "embrace, extend, extinguish".
I think the parallels with Getty and microstock are obvious.
If only their intention was to embrace Photos.com/JUI, and then extinguish them. Their ridiculously cheap subs packages threaten to cut into all of our earnings.
Photos.com is just too good a domain name just to extinguish.
15537
« on: May 08, 2009, 15:45 »
That's also typical after a big company goes on an acquisition binge and wakes up with a hangover - they'll start bleeding profitable acquisitions to pump up unprofitable ones. It's all part of the "synergy".  For example, they tell profitable acquisition 'B' that henceforth, they must buy parts from acquisition 'A', which is not doing too well, in preference to 'B's previously established source. Suddently 'B' is getting substandard parts, so their quality goes down. Watch for more hasty and ill-conceived attempts by Getty to rewire the microstock businesses they're acquiring.
I thought this terse little sentence by Kelly in the latest OP was telling: "As you can imagine, this is taking a heavy toll on the staff at HQ. They're busting their asses getting other stuff done for you, and this has become a huge distraction." So, why aren't they just dropping it and getting on with the 'other stuff'?
15538
« on: May 07, 2009, 16:25 »
I never upsize in 10% increments. So far, I didn't have images rejected on Alamy. Are there any arguments why would upsizing in 10% increments be better?
No, lol... but talk to any one of those Adobe writers and they will tell you 110% increment is adivsed.
I think even Istock has published that too.
No, iStock don't allow upsizing
Pages: 1 ... 617 618 619 620 621 [622]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
