MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - Stu49

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21]
501
The first time that you a get a rejection from IS for "file has been altered too far from it's original appearance" you will appricate that they can tell.

Another example; I shot a test with a young African-American model.
I shoot raw and place a WhiBal card in the first frame.
The shots I sent her were dead on accurate, but she was unhappy with her skin tones.
She thought I made her look like an 'orange moon'.

Why? Because she does not have a calibrated monitor.
So on her screen she looked too orange.

This is the reason that color science exits and why calibrating to a known standard is essisential for consistency.

No one cares if the grass in your shots is a little too blue or too yellow... Unless the person buying the shot is in the grass seed business.
The same applies to many fields in science and industry. Accurate color matters.

And as in my example above, certain ethnic groups are very aware of how their skin tones are represented. 

Skin tones is the one place I see as needing some control, because we all have an idea what skin should look like :)  no matter where it was shot, or under what light.

Can I calibrate (adjust) a common monitor, or is it only possible with high end breads ?
My monitors have some control over brightness, contrast, gamma and colour, but is it enough for an exact setup ?? 


502
nosaya :)

>> Yes, anyone who ever prints from Lightroom or Photoshop can tell.
But that could be your printer !?  and if u calibrate them BOTH (as I'm sure u do), that doesn't mean they are correct with everyone else !

>> Anyone who puts their images on a keydrive and then takes them to a friends house to view on an uncalibrated monitor can tell.
But of course, if it's that bad.  But that's down to his monitor, not the calibration of yours !

>> And the inspectors that are required to calibrate their monitors every single day can tell.
How ??  if they don't have the original scene in front of them, then how can they tell it's wrong !?

I'm sure they can detect WB problems or GROSS colour imbalance, but they don't know what u intended it to look like, do they !?



503
Alamy.com / Re: Isn't upsizing nonsense?
« on: December 03, 2009, 12:33 »
Maybe I am wrong, but I thought working on the file and upsizing it while it was a tiff before saving as a jpg created a better photo. If the customer or anyone upsized after it was saved as a jpg, some quality was lost.

Upsizing will never increase the quality of the image, regardless of the file format. All it does is interpolating neighboring pixels. All added pixels are just calculated from the existing ones. You will never see more detail than in the original size, even with the most expensive software. Better software only produces less scaling artifacts. It can't magically add details that were not present in the image before.

I think he meant better to upsize at the tiff stage and then convert to jpg, rather than have to resize a jpg at the agency (or after download).  Less artifacts that way !  Better to leave as is though really ;-)

504
My monitor was never calibrated, so I am pleasantly surprised with the results, also in some of those links Flemish has.

Mine neither !  I have a ViewSonic VX924 and a Samsung SyncMaster 913n,  and they just did VERY well in those tests !!
Nothing special !  But both look fine :)

Never seen the point in all this so-called calibrating (which is really adjusting), the person viewing the images has no idea what the original looked like !!  Obviously it has to be reasonably close, especially for skin tones. 

How many times do we adjust colours in photoshop !  So why correct for monitor ??



You correct the monitor so the image looks the same on every other system as it does on your. Uncalibrated, the photo may look fine on your system and on another (say a reviewer or a buyer?) it may look red, or have a yellow tint, for example, but you will never know it, because you always see things on only your monitor.

Calibration is matching your monitor to a universal standard.


I didn't say I don't check it !!  I use test cards to check colour, contrast and gamma.  If it was way out then it would be disasterous, but it's never far out and I don't do it often.  I just question the practice of using optical aids to attemppt to get things spot on !?  Can anyone reall tell ??

505
My monitor was never calibrated, so I am pleasantly surprised with the results, also in some of those links Flemish has.

Mine neither !  I have a ViewSonic VX924 and a Samsung SyncMaster 913n,  and they just did VERY well in those tests !!
Nothing special !  But both look fine :)

Never seen the point in all this so-called calibrating (which is really adjusting), the person viewing the images has no idea what the original looked like !!  Obviously it has to be reasonably close, especially for skin tones. 

How many times do we adjust colours in photoshop !  So why correct for monitor ??


506
Adobe Stock / Re: Is it Fotolia or Me??
« on: November 20, 2009, 14:15 »
rejecting just about everything I upload !  they didn't use to  ???

507
Photo Critique / Re: Critique needed for iStock application
« on: November 09, 2009, 12:12 »
Sure! I posted my application pictures on my blog - http://untilitclicks.blogspot.com

The last one I submitted was the Ganesha with prayer beads. Since those images are not on iStock yet (I had to re-submit them to include in my portfolio), I just used the thumbs from my CanStockPhoto portfolio.


well done, they look a lot better than that cat food !  ;-)  Maybe it's time I had another try :)

508
Photo Critique / Re: Critique needed for iStock application
« on: November 06, 2009, 10:55 »
APPROVED!!!!!

That was quick - it only took a few hours for them to review!

Thank you everybody for taking the time to respond to me. I ended up using a different picture, but your comments were helpful nonetheless.

Can we see it, the one u sent ??  Just out of interest :)

509
Computer Hardware / Re: looking for monitor
« on: November 06, 2009, 05:57 »
what ..... i took it, ordered right now. now you need to be proud of me, otherwise i will only think of my bank account shrinking! :(

Does it really matter for stock !?  Are are you printing for exhibition ??  I wonder ?   :-\

And now you'll need a Calibrator !!!  More money !  :o

510
Photo Critique / Re: Critique needed for iStock application
« on: November 04, 2009, 07:35 »
Thank you both for your response! I see what you're saying about the focus. The focus was supposed to be on the kibble, but I guess that's not really coming through.  Thanks again!

Not enough dof for that !  :)

511
Photo Critique / Re: Critique needed for iStock application
« on: November 02, 2009, 18:27 »
It looks completely OOF to me,  or very soft at the least !?  No focal point at all   :-\

512
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy QC
« on: October 30, 2009, 15:33 »
did u just upload ONE new one ?  or ALL 4 again ??  :)

513
Alamy.com / Re: Alamy QC
« on: October 28, 2009, 18:40 »
Hello,

I submitted 4 photos to Alamy for initial test submission. I got an answer, where for 3 files nothing was written, and for the fourth file, "noticeable retouching" was given.

Does it mean I can resubmit the other three and only change the fourth? Or do they mean that this reason is for all four pictures?

Simone

I had 3 with rejection comments and 1 with nothing !  So wondering the same thing myself !?

Stu :)

514
Software - General / Re: What is the best IPTC these days?
« on: September 30, 2009, 07:41 »
I use Prostocmaster, the free edition.  Even if u don't use it for upload, it works wellfo metadata !!  Stu  :)

515
Use iSyndica !! free version is very handy :)  or Prostockmaster, if u want to keep tags of what was accepted/declined.  Allowed 5 upload files per 24 hrs!  That's 5 files to ALL your allowed sites !!  Stu

516
Mostphotos.com / Re: Mostphotos 3.0 Comming Today?
« on: September 18, 2009, 07:12 »
Problem is I am on IE.8, the MostPhotos website is seeing my browser as IE.6, I even went through the whole IE.8 install again with the same result.

I cannot be the only visitor to MostPhotos that will be getting this error which is from a third party service.

Windows XP Pro and IE.8 being seen as IE.6

This is the page my IE.8 is ending up on http://www.mostphotos.com/ie6

David  ???


did u try uninstalling IE6 !?  I use IE8 (sometimes) but I noticed IE6 was still on there from initial install I assume.  Try in uninstall programs from Control Panel.  :)

517
Panthermedia.net / Re: Panther Media Upload / Contributor Back End
« on: September 18, 2009, 06:24 »
given up trying here !!  dozen images stuck in submissions !  it says I can only upload 2 per day, but then takes me round in circles twice and says 'NO MORE TODAY' !!  which means I get NONE moved up !

Very helpful !! ;-)

518
Zymmetrical.com / Re: All Uploads STOPPED at Zymmetrical!
« on: August 15, 2009, 07:48 »
uploads might not be stopped, but submissions seem to be !

mine have been waiting in the 'Describe' queue for weeks !!

Stu

519
no change that I can see !!   2 to 4 weeks they said !   lol   that was 2 months ago !!

maybe they've given up trying ! ;)  S

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21]

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results