|
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 - chellyar
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 16
151
« on: July 31, 2007, 04:20 »
Pretty average to lousy for me... 
152
« on: July 29, 2007, 14:20 »
Arrr,
Cheers, I'd wasted some time clicking around, but because the wonderful V2.0 is so slow down in this part of the world it was a little frustrating...
Cheers, Me.
153
« on: July 29, 2007, 14:19 »
That's cool...
Now, where was that paper napkin I was going to shoot?
154
« on: July 29, 2007, 07:56 »
Have I missed where on the FT site the monthly/daily stats page is, or is there simply not one?
I've just doing up a spreadsheet to do some stats comparing the sites I'm on and have got data for all of them apart from fotolia...
155
« on: July 28, 2007, 07:02 »
Urrr, I thought one of the major advantages of the microstock / crowdsourcing model for is the lack of formality...
It would concern me greatly that anyone coming into this 'business' would think there is a need for a union, it's not really that kind of environment, is it?
Anyway, this'll be an interesting debate, My 2c says no, but then I've only ever once belonged to a union, against my better judgment, so I could be way off on this one. :-)
156
« on: July 27, 2007, 04:22 »
77%... Interesting.
My spreadsheet I've been keeping since not long after I started microstock works out to 82% for IS.. I assume this is because it doesn't take into account stuff that has been 'dollar binned' and deleted?
Either that or my spreadsheet is broke. Might check. :-)
Sharply... I'm surprised yours is that low, you do some good stuff.
Cheers, Me.
157
« on: July 26, 2007, 23:50 »
Yeah, but the crap on Getty could easily swamp IS completely, as there is sooooo much of it!
158
« on: July 26, 2007, 07:09 »
I wonder just how fast your 'net connection would have to be to get through 300 full res images in an hour as well. Assuming 8Mp average? About 4Mb for a detailed 8Mp jpeg, 1.2Gb of data, and that's just the images...
159
« on: July 24, 2007, 15:03 »
Weird...
Reading some of his other posts he makes good sense, and obviously has been around the industry a while...
I'd assume he is an old school RM photog. if it weren't for some of his posts to his blog. Ah well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, such is the nature of the web.
So the real question remains, is that should I be calling Jon at SS 'Sir' now, along with his peers?
160
« on: July 23, 2007, 06:58 »
Ooo, there's a thought, reserving my name on there, hadn't thought of that for any of the sites to be honest..
161
« on: July 21, 2007, 17:12 »
Yeah...
Having a bit more of a look around I can't see any way to effect it, and I can't post to the SS forums and ask there due to my timezone not allowing me to log in... Can't be bothered changing the timezone on my PC just to post in their forums..
Cheers, Me.
162
« on: July 21, 2007, 07:48 »
Any idea how they appear or are set?
Just curious, as I've been playing around with putting a link to a lightbox on IS for some of my images to see if it improves sales there, and noticed some SS images have 'Similar Images' and some don't...
Is it purely systemic, or can we effect it?
163
« on: July 20, 2007, 23:36 »
Hurro...
If you're not much good at online classes, look into your local photography clubs, most decent clubs run short courses, and have people willing to help out for free, or very little.
I agree with Grizzly, in that a lot of general photography courses will probably be a waste of money unless you are a rank beginner. Given that you're already doing OK with stock, I imagine you really don't need to be told what a shutter is...
164
« on: July 19, 2007, 06:48 »
Hmmm, another new canon, I wonder if this one will focus? I was waiting for the MkIII, and I'm soooo glad I didn't pre-purchase, having read all the stories online about focus tracking issues. (I want it for motorsport and field sports).
165
« on: July 14, 2007, 16:19 »
Can you post links to the images on the other agencies, then we might be able to help out with why we think they got rejected.
SS is harder to 'get into' than the other agencies, as their noise/artifact criteria is tighter than the others, I assume because they up-res the images for the larger file size downloads.. (That's only a guess, BTW)
Cheers, Chris H.
166
« on: July 10, 2007, 15:36 »
I've done a bit of playing around with HDR as well, the cliche stuff, church interiors, sunsets... Uinsg photomatix pro and manually using layers.
Sometimes you get those lines in photomatix, using the 'enhance detail' mapping option. Doing it manually It's never a problem, as I'm masking up to the edge of the details I want.
Typically I'm just using three raw exposures spread two stops so I'm getting +- 4 stops from the 'auto' exposure. I have done a couple teathered, were I went 10 exposures in raw, 1 stop apart. It looked too surreal for my liking, but was interesting to play with.
Using layers I'll create up to 6 layers from the three raw imagses, and the mask manually the bits I want using Gaussian blurred layer masks, and then tweak with a fine airbrush if I want.
What method are you using?
167
« on: July 08, 2007, 05:07 »
Cool, on the basis of that, I don't suck.  FYI, my acceptance ratios are: (The survey results in brackets) Istock: 82% (71%) DT: 63% (49%) SS: 86% (40%) FL: 83% (not in that survey) StockXpert: 48% (67%) Also, I'm quite surprised at the low overall acceptance ratio for SS, That much be quite a burden on the reviewers to chuck out over half of what is submitted... I'd be seriously considering * it in if I were sitting on 40% acceptance personally. Also, I'm a pretty 'average' quality photog. IMHO, or at least the stuff I use for stock is... If I'm sitting on 86% on SS, there must be some really terrible happy-snappers submitting stuff there! (Present company accepted). My only glitch is StockXpert, but I think that is because I only joined recently and I submitted a whole lot of 'old' stock stuff form when I first joined IS, which would probably be rejected by all of the agencies now, but was above par two years ago. This shows how dramatically the industry is changing. I doubt I'd be able to get any shots from my old Powershot S5 accepted now, noise and artifacting was an issue for that camera even when using raw.. (Why, oh why don't they have raw on the current powershot?) Interesting...
168
« on: July 07, 2007, 21:41 »
DOH!!!! I searched on google!!! I'll shut up now...
169
« on: July 07, 2007, 13:16 »
? What's wrong with those search results, Adlai Stevenson appears to have A politician, and it's a possibly a popular name, given the diverse hits, although it might have been the same Adlai Stevenson who did all those things, I didn't click on any of the hits...
170
« on: July 07, 2007, 03:09 »
And since I have my first wedding to shoot I think it is good to do this with the new camera and flash.
Penguins get married? And the 20D/30D is a great camera, although my 20D is back focusing a bit, it's on it's second shutter and still going strong.. I'll put up with the back focus for a few more months and send it to Canon for a service me thinks. About the same time I decide if I buy another body...
171
« on: July 01, 2007, 05:30 »
ARGH! And you can't edit the title on old images at the moment, to pad them out a bit to replace the lack of description.
Off to the FL forums to see if anyone has blown a gasket over there about it yet!
172
« on: July 01, 2007, 05:25 »
In other weird things, they dropped the description I just noticed... what?
The description is pretty important to placement for some of my images, as I had a decent description for them rather than keyword spamming.... Hmmm. Bummer.
173
« on: June 29, 2007, 05:05 »
It is really tacky, hopefully they'll fix it up pronto... Some of the folks with high quality images suitable for web work will be fairly unhappy with this!
I'd not actually paid any attention to them until I saw this post, although I had noticed it was different... Asleep at the wheel it would seem!
174
« on: June 28, 2007, 04:15 »
- very seldom does anything ever need to be done to keep things in line.
Yeah, but that's the point... When things have needed attention you've done something.. A gentle prod in the right direction if you will. It's what gives any online forum it's 'culture'. Anyone who reads a lot of stuff on here, and takes part even a little knows that this forum as a certain 'feel' about it, and that you guide things along a bit... Even if you don't see what you're doing as that, it's the end result.
175
« on: June 27, 2007, 03:12 »
I can sympathise with this... I've had some odd rejections just lately, but I've given up understanding them, and I never bother to resubmit. Hurts my brain to try and figure out what they are on about.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 16
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
