|
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 - Daneel
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9
151
« on: February 20, 2007, 02:58 »
How "successful" are you right now using your S3 for stock? If you have an average 75% or greater acceptance rate over all the sites, if you're uploading a lot of files regularly, and if you're actually getting steady (if not huge) sales at the moment, then you obviously know how to use your equipment. Yes, this all applies. Do you plan to stay with microstock for a while? If so, and if you're comfortable with the equipment you have now, then I think it's better to stick with what got you there for a while, or at least until you feel very much at home shooting microstock. Otherwise learning to use some new gear all over again will probably just slow you down and if you're doing well now, then it's pretty iffy whether you'll do better very soon just because of an equipment upgrade. In photography it's always been the eye behind the camera and not the camera itself that makes people successful or not. I'd say you should get very used to this stock world first before you start fiddling with many different equipment options.
You can take all that for what it's worth (about 2 cents 
I'm feeling comfortable with it, but I also learn about its limitations. The S3 has DSLR-like controls, so I believe that there would not be much of a slow down. I have to think over it, but my thread in the "Photo Critiques" forums makes me believe that now my equipment is constraining my success / acceptance rate, so as soon as my stock earnings will pay for it, I'll probably consider getting a DSLR. I do have a well-paid day-job but I do want this hobby to pay for itself (which it so far does very nicely) :-). All the best, Michael
152
« on: February 20, 2007, 02:53 »
Hi! Deep breath--OK, here we go. I think what's going on with your images is that they show a lot of jpeg compression artifacts at 100%. Each image shows jaggies and could use a bit more detail. Furthermore, the apple doesn't have a distinct edge; it bleeds into the background too much.
I think your technique is fine (but be very careful to clean up all dust and lint from the objects you shoot). It's your camera that's letting you down.
Many thanks for this reply. The Canon S3 which I use doesn't support raw mode, so the JPEGs are all "second generation JPEGs". While I save them at the highest quality in Photoshop, this might cause the artefacts or it's just the in-camera compression (I've set everything to the highest value there). I obviously don't have the eye to spot these artefacts yet. Can you help me seeing them? Only if you have the time of course...but I'd really like to learn. All the best, Michael
153
« on: February 20, 2007, 02:41 »
Michael, if you're in the south bay (San Jose) be sure to drop by our office!
Wow, thanks for that invitation. I'll definitely consider it! All the best, Michael
154
« on: February 19, 2007, 16:58 »
Hi!
I'm also loosing my hope with them, but maybe there is really something wrong with my photos which only they can see (and none of the reviewers of the 8 other agencies which I partecipate in) :-).
Maybe there is really something wrong with my photos. This is also the reason for me posting here.
Thanks and all the best,
Michael
155
« on: February 19, 2007, 16:51 »
I think I got it *g*
156
« on: February 19, 2007, 16:50 »
Where are these real great prices? Nothing in california is cheaper than the rest of the country (except maybe illegal substances). Even fruit that is grown in California is cheaper in the rest of the country than it is in California.
Are you from a different country and so the exchange rate is currently in your favor?
I'm from Austria :-) All the best, Michael
157
« on: February 19, 2007, 16:26 »
Hi all,
which US-shops can you suggest for buying DSLRs and Cameras? Possibly on the west coast (LA, San Diego, San Jose)...? I'm going to San Jose in two months and might buy a DSLR and 1 or 2 lenses there...the prices there are real great.
thanks,
Michael
158
« on: February 19, 2007, 16:25 »
Thanks for all the tips so far. I'm going to the states soon, maybe I should get my first DSLR while I'm there :-)
All the best,
Michael
160
« on: February 19, 2007, 15:26 »
Hi Steve,
kewl - thanks!
All the best,
Michael
161
« on: February 19, 2007, 11:59 »
Hi!
Sounds great, maybe the IQ will increase by using a smaller f-value.
I'll experiment.
All the best,
Michael
162
« on: February 19, 2007, 11:40 »
Hi! Many thanks for your valuable replies. I'm really learning a lot, many thanks. Practically speaking, those really small apertures shouldn't be used because of diffraction problems degrading your image, especially with digital cameras.
BTW, your light tent set-up sounds just right.
While we are talking aobut f-values and light tents. I've been wondering about something. I currently shoot all of my isolations with the highest f-value which my camera supports (which is 8 ) in order to be sure to have as much as possible of my object in focus. But I'm now wondering if this habit of mine is hurting my image quality? I know with a higher f-value I sacrify "brightness of the photo" (naively said, should I say exposure?) for depth of field. I have to compensate the lack in "brightness of the photo" with a slower shutter speed. Now I wonder if there other things which I implicitely sacrify by shooting at f8. Does it affect contrast or color? In my photo series, should I try going down with the f-value and see if I can get better photos with, e.g., f4? Will certain characteristics of my image quality improve by that? Which ones? Many thanks, Michael
163
« on: February 19, 2007, 10:02 »
I notice that all the lenses which you suggest above have a fixed aperture. Doesn't that limit your depth of field?
These are the widest apeture avaliable for the lens. other ones can be selected easily.
When you see fore example 17-85 f4-5.6, it means the widest apeture changes with the zoom, that is at 17mm it is f4 but at 85mm it is f5.6. Off course other apetures can be selected.
Uh...see, I'm a DSLR newbie. So the lower the f value, the higher the quality of the glass, right? Just one more question: What does the other end of the aperture range depend on - is it the body? Many thanks, Michael
164
« on: February 19, 2007, 09:50 »
Hi! If you have $2000 to spend, I'd buy a Canon 24-70 f4L and a 70-200 f4L. Better yet, buy something like a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 or Sigma 24-70 f2.8 DG and a set of lights. Lighting for stock is almost as important as the lenses.
Thanks. I still have to learn a lot w.r.t. lighting. For my (self-built) light tend I currently use three halogen construction lights (e.g., http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/ICL/ICL155/CON_016.jpg) - one left, one right and one from behind, together with custom white balance. Is that very bad? The results seem to get accepted well at agencies. I notice that all the lenses which you suggest above have a fixed aperture. Doesn't that limit your depth of field? With my Canon S3 I mostly shoot my isolations at its highest aperture (8.0) in order to get as much as possible of the object sharp in the photo. Is that a bad technic? I'm looking forward to your replies / explanations. Many thanks, Michael
165
« on: February 19, 2007, 08:52 »
Hi!
So which good quality lenses would you pick for a Canon body? I assume a Macro lens, a "regular" lens (for landscape / portrait) and a zoom lens?
If you want good quality, this would place you at 1000-2000 USD I guess, right? Which would you pick?
Thanks,
Michael
166
« on: February 19, 2007, 07:41 »
Many thanks.
So the habit of always getting the latest DSLR body is mostly luxury or the result of a very constraint / demanding usage environment, right? Good to know :-)
All the best,
Michael
167
« on: February 19, 2007, 07:39 »
Hi! What the camera shows you is the exposure. You read that from the meter of a DSLR.
But, again naively said: Exposure = Shutter Speed + Aperture, right? So, assuming a fixed aperture, the electronic viewfinder will show me the consequence of a changed shutter speed (which is the exposure). Sorry, I don't mean to nit-pick, just want to understand. Thanks, Michael
168
« on: February 19, 2007, 07:29 »
No camera can show you the consequence of changed shutter speed, since it includes movement. In that respect, our eyes are too fast: they will not see blur until it's on the photo.
For still images of objects in my light tent, the electronic viewfinder of my Canon S3 does a pretty good job at indicating the exposure effect of the selected shutter speed in the viewfinder (assuming a constant aperture for this example). Except for some artistic photos, I'm usually not shooting many if any (fast) moving objects for Microstock (given that Microstock is our focus in this thread). All the best, Michael
169
« on: February 19, 2007, 07:21 »
Hi!
So the "naive" conclusion would be: If you have a limited budget, don't care much about the DSLR body but get the best glass within your budget?
All the best,
Michael
170
« on: February 19, 2007, 07:19 »
lens and options are the advantages of the DSLR even if you say the quality from the Sensor is identical (I dont know the technical things about sensors but I tell the girls that bigger is better and they agree  ).
The larger size of the sensor of DSLRs helps to minimize noise at higher ISOs or uncrontrolled environments. Re live preview - cant get much better than looking though the lens (ie. infinite resolution compared to a screen of ??) but agree that seeing a screen is easier than putting your eye to the eye peice with some angles.
Sorry about my ignorance, but will the live preview of a DSLR show you a live preview of the effects of aperture and shutter speed? I got the (wrong?) assumption that an optical viewfinder can't do that. have you got any friends with DSLR's? It would be interesting to get your feedback. Most people only got back to P&S from DSLR for size/weight reasons, not quality.
Unfortunately not, at least not that I know. I'm considering getting one to improve my stock photography (mostly isolated objects in a light tent or outdoor photos, no models yet) and I'm trying to find out if it's worth it. All the best, Michael
171
« on: February 19, 2007, 07:03 »
Hi all,
given the same glass, what are the differences between the various Canon bodies (XT, XTI, 30D, 5D, 1D)? Will a XTI with the same glass get (much) worse image quality than a 1D with the same glass?
All the best,
Michael
172
« on: February 19, 2007, 06:59 »
Hi all,
many thanks for the replies so far (please keep them coming).
Switching aperture, shutter speed is a quick an painless thing to do on the Canon Powershot S3, it also has all the other options of a DSLR. In addition it has a live histogram preview and a live preview of the final photo thanks to the electronic viewfinder. I think DSLRs neither have a live histogram or an eletronic viewfinder, due to their architecture. I think I would definitely miss these features. How do you cope with that?
The point of high quality lenses for better contrast and colours is well taken. I guess that's a strong point for the DSLR. I also heard that the autofocus is much better than with ProSumer cameras.
People say that pictures speak more than a thousand words: It would be awesome to see a microstock photography comparison (e.g., an object isolated in a light tent) with both a DSLR and a ProSumer camera in order to get a better idea about the "drastic image quality difference because of the lenses".
All the best,
Michael
All the best,
Michael
173
« on: February 19, 2007, 05:47 »
Hi all, this question is one which has been going through my mind for a long time. It is clear that the DSLR is the more versatile camera and really shines compared to ProSumer cameras in particular at higher ISO. However, in this discussion I would like to discuss DSLRs vs. ProSumer cameras in a controlled environment, as the one which we are mostly using for our Microstock photography, i.e., - Very good lighting - Shooting at lowest ISO (e.g., ISO 80) This discussion / my question is based on a discussion which is going on at dpreview, where the basic conclusion is that DSLRs do not have much (if any) advantages over ProSumers in a controlled environment, such as the one described above. Their really advantages appear at higher ISOs. The dpreview discussion is in located here, for your review: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=21836849I think one of the advantages of DSLRs vs. ProSumer cams in a controlled environment is faster autofocus, which is relevant when working with models. Other than that - what do you think? I would love to hear your objective and well-founded opinions. All the best, Michael ps: Disclaimer: I currently own a Canon Powershot S3, which I succesfully use for Microstock at iStock, Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Fotolia.
174
« on: February 19, 2007, 03:57 »
"Ooops" ;-)
175
« on: February 19, 2007, 03:54 »
Bryan, why do you resize the images? Doesn't that affect image quality? I know we've heard this issue here before, but I haven't seen a satisfactory answer yet.
Why don't you write him an e-mail and ask him? He just answered my latest question ( http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=1240.0) within 5 minutes. If you do, please let us know what he replies... All the best, Michael
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
