|
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 - Eco
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13
226
« on: March 06, 2008, 16:24 »
That is right Pixart. I did downsize my images, but not always to the extreme of say 4 MP. Previously, I limited my image sizes to a maximum of 8 MP, but now I upload the maximum size up to 16.7 MP.
228
« on: March 06, 2008, 13:26 »
So glad I opted out of subscription sales. Since I opted out I am uploading my maximum size images. Just today had my first XXL sale with an earning of $5.00. To earn that much with subscriptions I would have needed 16 downloads.
229
« on: March 06, 2008, 13:15 »
Yes, sometimes very funny. I got this one today of African elephants: http://www.dreamstime.com/african-elephants-image3919284downloaded with the phase/keywords: "girls legs wearing long socks thumb"  Now how on earth did the person arrive at the elephants?
230
« on: March 03, 2008, 14:17 »
This is very positive and even more reason to opt out of subscription sales. Since I opted out I am uploading my full 16.7 MP files (previously I downsized them). My reward will now be those 15 credit sales on my XXL images without the agony of seeing them downloaded for a few cents.
231
« on: March 01, 2008, 06:38 »
Ptlee, I think it is wise to consider a 5D. If you want a higher MP camera look at one with a larger sensor, not one with a higher pixel density. For that XXL large sizes I have a 16.7 MP 1DsmkII and what a fantastic camera.
232
« on: February 29, 2008, 16:56 »
February was the second full month since I opted out of subscription sales. My earnings are stable (up from January) and I had quite a few XL downloads. This month my average earning per download was $1.25, which is quite acceptable. There is no way that I will opt in again, especially with more and more photographers reporting an increase in subscription sales.
233
« on: February 29, 2008, 01:02 »
Yep, seems like the Microstock companies are finding it increasingly difficult to part with their money  I requested payment from FT and StockXpert on 19 Feb and no payments received to date (10 days). It never took this long. My request from IS took longer than 2 weeks. This is really problematic since I always tried to synchronize my payments towards the end of the month.
234
« on: February 28, 2008, 02:47 »
My advice: submit in small batches. If you have 50 images to submit you will normally stand a better chance to get them accepted if you submit them in 5 batches of 10 (waiting till each batch is reviewed before you submit the next one). With large batches, if you are unlucky to get a reviewer that doesnt like your images, he/she may reject a lot of them. With smaller batches they will more likely be reviewed by different reviewers, thus getting a more objective review of your images.
235
« on: February 26, 2008, 12:21 »
At some point in time I owned them all: 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D and 400D. I only shoot RAW and after processing hundreds of images of all these cameras it is clear that the best sensor of them all is the 8.2 MP sensor used in the 20D/30D. I bought a 40D to replace my 30D and also bought a 400D as a light weight travel camera. I sold my wife's 350D and gave her my 30D. Guess what? I took back my 30D and gave her the 400D. I never had problems submitting the 8.2 MP images from my 30D at their original size, while with the 40D and 400D I often have to downsize my images to avoid rejection for artefact or noise. Don't let Canon fool you. They reduced the default sharpening of the new 10MP cameras to reduce noise. To get the same image with comparable sharpness to the 30D you must apply more sharpening and this invariably increase noise. This is very apparent to me, even at ISO 100. I will never ever buy the 450D. I can only imagine the noise of that 12 MP on that small 1.6 sensor. It is crazy - this obsession with MP. Hold on to your old cameras. For sure the newer model will not be better for stock photography.
236
« on: February 26, 2008, 01:50 »
It is a bit early for an April's joke. Duncan will have to learn the hard way. You cannot impose the strictest selection criteria in the industry, cull images already accepted and prevent photographers from uploading, while at the same time pay the lowest royalty in the industry (0.25c per subscription download). This business model of extreme rejections and low royalties almost destroyed Crestock before they gained some sanity again. Oh well, I don't think the final demise of Canstock will be too much of a loss to most of us. We will just have to see how this plays out. Only time will tell if this 3rd party seller will make a significant difference.
237
« on: February 22, 2008, 07:23 »
About 250 images there and also no sales. I stopped uploading a long time ago.
238
« on: February 06, 2008, 11:31 »
667
-----------
2697
239
« on: February 06, 2008, 04:58 »
Well, we are just glad the site is back again.
Thank you Leaf. We really appreciate your efforts to make Microstockgroup such a valuable resource.
240
« on: February 03, 2008, 14:24 »
I agree that Sony is rising, but they have a long, long way to go still. Sony may appeal to the serious hobbyist, but not the serious professional - maybe in future. Currently they have no truly weather sealed rugged high speed camera, no super telephotos, no speciality lenses like the tilt and shift lenses, very few fast prime lenses. This is what set a truly professional camera system apart from the rest. I can see the benefit of in-camera IS, but the consensus is that IS in the lens is still more effective. That is why you pay $$$ to have the best.
241
« on: February 03, 2008, 06:37 »
Looks promising. Now if only they can find a worthy camera to utilize the full potential of this sensor. Sony themselves don't have one (because their SYSTEM is inadequate to attract serious professionals). Maybe Nikon will be interested in this sensor?
242
« on: January 11, 2008, 02:12 »
Hi Josh
Good to see that stock sites are actually taking note of discussions like this. Maybe we can make a difference after all. I am surprised that there are still non-subscription sales on Crestock. While I have experienced a sharp increase in downloads on Crestock lately they were all subscription sales and at 0.25c a download I don't feel too exited about that. I am seriously reconsidering my continued involvement with sites that offer subscriptions. I will either stop uploading or downsize my images drastically. Limiting the size of images available for subscription downloads may be a very practical compromise. In this way we don't give away our high res images for pennies and still have the opportunity to make a decent sale at a more realistic price for our high res images.
243
« on: January 08, 2008, 03:14 »
Thank you for the compliment yingyang.
Not to worry, I will stick to nature with my isolations - just expanding and diversify my portfolio a bit. My son study Zoology and he often collects all sorts of interesting insects and other small creatures for his projects. These I want to photograph before their release. Macro photos normally don't sell that well, but as isolations they may do much better.
244
« on: January 08, 2008, 02:13 »
Just started to do some images of subjects on a white background using a diffuser softbox. Unlike a cutout where you select the subject and delete the background, my images (like so many others) are photographed on white and the levels adjusted in PS until the background is absolutely white (255), EXCEPT for a faint and diffused shadow just beneath the subject. I like this better than deleting the whole background since it gives the images a bit more depth and a 3D look.
I am just a bit concerned about my description and keywording of these images. When is it an isolation and when can you use the words isolation and isolated in the description and keywords? To quote Steve-oh in another post: If in your keywords or description you say the image is isolated against white and it isn't, then it will be rejected. You need to make sure the whole white isolated background is pure white (255, 255, 255). Make sure there are no off-white spots any where, no matter how small. Looking at many isolated images on all the big stock sites I could not determine any consistent criteria. Just dont want to have my images rejected for naming it an isolation while there is a shadow area that is not pure white.
Any opinions or suggestions on this?
245
« on: January 08, 2008, 00:20 »
Yes, and they offer PayPal as the ONLY payment option - no Moneybookers and no checks. I e-mailed them twice and on both occasions they made it clear to me that they will not be offering any other payment options soon. This effectively excludes many photographers, like myself, from countries that cannot receive payments through PayPal. Just more proof that they have no intention to become a major INTERNATIONAL player in the MicroStock industry anytime soon.
246
« on: January 07, 2008, 15:30 »
Also opted out..
Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo
boatman
Alex
Eco
248
« on: December 23, 2007, 02:23 »
Vonkara
ICC profiles are something quite different from the IPTC data (title, keywords) that you entered. I am not sure why the procedure that you described changes the ICC profile. ICC (which stands for International Color Consortium) profiles are simply look-up tables that describe the properties of a particular color space. They define the most saturated colors available in that color space; i.e. the bluest blue or deepest red that the particular monitor can display. If there is no profile the red, green, and blue values that make up a color have no particular meaning. It is thus important that your files are tagged with the correct ICC profile. Normally I convert my RAW files to Adobe RGB, do all my editing in PS in this color profile, but convert it to sRGB when I save the final jpeg file. I suggest you make sure that your jpeg files are in the sRGB color space and tagged with the sRGB ICC profile. If this info is changed you may have a problem with the colors not displaying correctly when viewed in an application other than PS. I use PixVue to ad my IPTC data, but there are many other methods as mentioned by others, which will not change your files ICC profile.
249
« on: November 11, 2007, 10:59 »
I bought quite a few of Fred Miranda's PS plugins - never had a problem during the actual purchasing. The Digital Velvia is really great - that is the ONLY tool that I use for adding saturation to my images.
I bought several of the Intellisharpen plugins - one for all my different camera models. I use them extensively in my automated actions when I want to create downsized (1024x768) versions of my images for screen display. However, they are no good for preparing images for submission to stock sites. Contrary to the claim that they do not create artefacts they do indeed create artefacts when viewed at 100%.
The resizer plugin you can skip. I found the normal bicubic downsizing (or upsizing) in PS give much better results.
250
« on: October 31, 2007, 14:15 »
Eco is that from this month  ?!
I wish it was for this month only. If I can earn that many EL's each month I may actually be able to live off my Microstock earnings. 
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
