|
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 - DallasP
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 22
226
« on: August 31, 2017, 15:24 »
Maybe that's why you have not reached 500 euros 
To properly capture a sunset or a sunrise, stretching over 2 hours in real time, you need something between 1,200 to 1,800 frames.
What. Are. You. Talking. About? 
I have reached many thousands of euros with my timelapses and hyperlapses, but you don't seem to know how to make one.
You can capture a year, seasons changing and all with 12 frames if you want. That would be a short timelapse of half a second. Or you could capture a year with 365 frames, that's 1 per day, for 15 seconds of video.
You can capture a sunset with 2 frames (very short timelapse). You can capture a sunset with 200 frames. You can capture one with 7,200 frames - that's one per second over two hours. Or you can capture one over 30 minutes with 21,600 frames. That's only 2x real-time speed though.
My last star timelapse was 360 frames over 3 hours.
To sum up: 400 frames is 16.7 seconds of footage which is more than plenty for almost any use.
And by the way, you must live on the North Pole if your sunset lasts 2 hours.  20 minutes is enough at the equator.
Thanks for the lecture and for stating the obvious. You can, of course, create a "time-lapse" made of 12 frames. But I would call it GIF, rather than timelapse 
Good luck in selling that, anyway!
And when it comes to sunset timelapses, if you really want to capture it properly, you must start when the sun is up and finish it when it is really dark. You want to capture a decent amount of frames for each phase of the transition day->sunset->dusk->night, and that, my friend, takes ~2 hours, even at the equator.
Maybe you should try this, one sunny day,
Your're welcome!
While we're arguing frame rate ... lol. Technically you could have a two frame timelapse and stretch it out to an hour :/ My last sunset I think was around 1600 frames, and I squashed it to one minute ... I start when the sun is still pretty high as well, dial in some settings and just leave it until the battery is dead. lol
227
« on: August 28, 2017, 14:06 »
One time my camera setting switched to the "small" size setting instead of "large" so I couldn't use anything I shot that session (an abandoned house). I always check that setting now ... Not sure how it happened to begin with.
I had a similar mishap. Had my iso at 1600 during and outdoor hike! Forgot to change to 100 after shooting at night the day before 
Done that multiple times. Pulled the camera out, started taking photos wondering why the camera thinks it's way brighter than my brain does. Sometimes I realize it in time to actually get the photos I'm after, other times ... nope :/
228
« on: August 21, 2017, 10:55 »
Paypal doesn't ... and Paypal has a debit card ... Payoneer Doesn't
Exactly opposite. Payoneer has it and If I remember well Paypal has a debit card for US Citizens only, so it doesn't exists for major number of contributors.
Yes, I edited it. You could have read that on the screen. I have a paypal MasterCard ... Jump the pond. bahahahaha. Seriously though, don't jump the pond. It's a mess over here. I actually don't even use the PayPal debit card as I just withdraw Paypal funds the same time I withdraw other funds ... They haven't been charging me anything, and Payoneer's is a buck. Which isn't much really, except for when you need $50, and only have $50 :/
229
« on: August 16, 2017, 20:24 »
Do 'what'?
kinky .... I just assumed you'd read the title, I'm sorry. I meant shoot the eclipse.
230
« on: August 16, 2017, 17:20 »
Anyone ever do this before? Sounds like a fun way to burn out my retinas or melt my camera.
231
« on: August 16, 2017, 16:33 »
Does anyone know which is best for getting paid into a gbp bank account, payoneer or paypal? I can't seem to track down exactly how much they take on top of market exchange rates and a lot of the fees for payoneer seem to relate to a credit card that I am not interested in.
I just want to know which is cheaper for getting my ss payments.
Payoneer charges $1 for bank transfers, Paypal doesn't ... and Paypal has a debit card ... Payoneer Doesn't Edit:I wasn't aware that they had a card ... still, they charge a buck for transfers ...
232
« on: August 13, 2017, 17:09 »
Goes the other way too ... 20% of images are going to be bought by 80% of the buyers.
233
« on: August 13, 2017, 14:33 »
Maybe I need to refine this question, how many of that 100 Million do you think buy images with subscriptions on a regular basis instead of on demand? 50 Million I think maybe 50 Million based on my own sales which are about 50% Subs and 50% everything else.
Maybe I need to refine this question, how many of that 100 Million do you think buy images with subscriptions on a regular basis instead of on demand? 50 Million I think maybe 50 Million based on my own sales which are about 50% Subs and 50% everything else.
I suspect many do both either to top up as they've used up their subscription or because (probably increasingly rarely) they can't find a suitable image on their "main" site. Also bear in mind my old chum Pareto....of those 100m 20m probably buy 80% of all images.
Well, let's calibrate our uncertainty a bit then (I started to do this before I made my guess). We can assume that there are two main groups in the total pool of buyers; businesses and bloggers. Also, probably safe to assume that Large Enterprises are quite likely to hire an agency so this number taken from World Bank Group is a pretty good one. "A World Bank Group study suggests there are between 365-445 million MSMEs in emerging markets: 25-30 million are formal SMEs; 55-70 million are formal micro enterprises; and 285-345 million are informal enterprises." We can even use that lower number ... Now, maybe a quarter of those use some "non-micro" service, a common one that I'm familiar with is Creative Market, we used that quite a bit at the newspaper. Maybe 1/4 don't really have a big need for images ... Maybe a brick and mortar mom & pop store or something like that. On to bloggers, of the 7.5 billion people in the world 1/2 are are likely to be children, 1/2 of those adults maybe live in third world countries. If we assume maybe 1% of the remaining 1.875b people have a blog that's nearly 19m in our "pool" Now, I know that we all like to cheerfully and naively believe that everyone is honest and comes out to buy their images ... but, many don't ... and also, many probably either entirely use something like Death To Stock, MorgueFile, or their own images. So we narrowed our SME pool down to about 182.5m ... our blogger pool down to 18.75m leaving us with a total pool of 201.25m ... If half of those are honest and buy their images, that still gives us 100m. My rather relaxed 100m-300m still seems like a good guess. Now 20% of those buy 80% of the images. The others are probably like me, and just buy one or two a month, then maybe 20 in a week. lol
234
« on: August 12, 2017, 05:07 »
Also what is a realistic number for possible buyers out there 100K?
Possible buyers worldwide for stock photos? I would say in the millions.
90-95% of all businesses + more and more regular people.
What a fun question to play with .... I'm going to say with 90% certainty ... Somewhere in the range of 100m - 300m
235
« on: August 08, 2017, 16:18 »
Guys i just wonder a question, if there is some words exist in my photo's title but somehow it was not included in the keywords area, is that possible for buyer to find the photo through this word? 
If it works anything like google the title should matter significantly more than the keywords. Shutterstock even removes the keywords if the word is in the title to prevent redundant information.
No they don't.
They did last time I uploaded :/ pretty sure.
Well I just ran through the last dozen or so uploads and nothing has been removed - they are exactly the way I uploaded them - any words that are in my description still appear in my keywords.
Guess I'm mistaken. Anyhow, if the search is anything similar to google the keywords will be redundant ... but, I wouldn't bank on it being entirely google-like. Google has taken to ignoring keyword metadata in web pages. Odd enough though, google somehow did start indexing image metadata :/ and pages with images or other media tend to rank significantly higher.
236
« on: August 07, 2017, 16:42 »
Guys i just wonder a question, if there is some words exist in my photo's title but somehow it was not included in the keywords area, is that possible for buyer to find the photo through this word?
If it works anything like google the title should matter significantly more than the keywords. Shutterstock even removes the keywords if the word is in the title to prevent redundant information.
No they don't.
They did last time I uploaded :/ pretty sure.
237
« on: August 06, 2017, 23:01 »
No back-up? Ouch!
You get what you deserve, no more!
One full back-up a week and live happy!
Been using incremental every Sunday night. Saves some space and gives you the peace of mind. I've never had one that I couldn't recover but, last year I had a failure scare me bad enough to never chance it again.
238
« on: August 06, 2017, 22:56 »
Guys i just wonder a question, if there is some words exist in my photo's title but somehow it was not included in the keywords area, is that possible for buyer to find the photo through this word?
If it works anything like google the title should matter significantly more than the keywords. Shutterstock even removes the keywords if the word is in the title to prevent redundant information.
239
« on: August 06, 2017, 22:47 »
low ISO is best for bright sunlight
No need to bring up all these old threads.
Why you guys revive old troll threads?
Why on earth you want to shoot in bright light?
Go in a shaded area, or wait for sunset or sunrise, like any other photographer
That is such a silly statement it might work for landscape photographers but not for sports or street and editorial
uhm ... I think we're all fairly capable of rolling the iso up a bit if the shutter speed or aperture requires it. The point still remains that lower ISO will collect less light given the other parameters.
240
« on: August 04, 2017, 14:59 »
low ISO is best for bright sunlight
No need to bring up all these old threads.
Why you guys revive old troll threads?
241
« on: August 01, 2017, 13:56 »
They're still above ss for me. The poll doesn't like me though because I never make $5. lol
243
« on: July 28, 2017, 16:41 »
I always remember the censorship is extreme here. Can we loosen that up a bit? I think we're all adults man!
244
« on: July 28, 2017, 16:39 »
I just called out someone for posting for their business with clearly stolen images ... He replied to call him, and then deleted the post.
You're welcome.
I have contacted Facebook for a similar question, one time
Facebook answered me: "Thanks for your report - you did the right thing by letting us know about this. We looked over the Page you reported, and though it doesn't go against one of our specific Community Standards"
That's what facebook said back to me as well. I simply typed on their post. "Since you're making money from the stand, shouldn't you at least pay for the images that you're using to promote it?" The owner of the stand replied "call me, ##########" I texted because I hate the phone "I contribute to both of those sites ... We only make an average of maybe 40 cents per image sale. I don't make much off of it but, for some people that's their entire livelihood. Taking the images like that is the fundamental equivalent of me going down there and taking some corn." Then the post was gone. He replied with a smiley face is all. I don't generally care much when individuals do that kind of thing just in their day to day posting and memes but, when it's a business promoting their wares and whatnot I think they can put a couple bucks out for a * image without a watermark.
245
« on: July 27, 2017, 17:12 »
Actually I was thinking about D3100 or D3200 but I haven't runed where I could by them new. Is there any big diference betwen them and D3300 in photo quality?
And thank you all for answers!
uhm ... it's an ounce and a half lighter? https://www.google.com/search?q=d3200+vs+d3300
246
« on: July 27, 2017, 17:03 »
I just called out someone for posting for their business with clearly stolen images ... He replied to call him, and then deleted the post.
You're welcome.
247
« on: July 26, 2017, 15:45 »
I love you all, even Cathy
Isn't it early in the day to be drinking already
It depends where you are.
Here in England is gin and tonic time
We call that breakfast here in the states.
248
« on: July 19, 2017, 15:03 »
Hi guys,
I have been thinking to buy my first DSLR camera and to start some serious work with stock business, but for now I have limited buget. What do you think about Nikon D3300 with AF 18-105 lense for start? What can you tell me about camera, since I have never tried to take a picture with it? How does it work inside the house (light just from lightbulb), or in lower light (cloudy weather) outside? And what kind of pictures are best with it and are the worst?
Or if you are not familiar with it, what would be your best choice in that price range?
Thanks in advance.
I still am using the 3200 ... luckily for me though I broke both of my kit lenses and upgraded to a 50mm and a 70-300. Next purchase will be something short and wide for panoramas and the VR things ... Well, that's a lie. Next purchase will be some * lights. Inside, you're going to be fairly limited I think. Grain jumps rapidly between 1600 and 3200 ISO (It even goes up to 6400 but, eek) you'll find the photos quite noisy in dark areas. If you've got decent bulbs in though or even a good lamp you can generally pull it off. Especially if shooting Raw. 18-100 is probably a decent starting lens. My real question, is why the 3300? I think you could save a few bucks and get another lens or something if you go with the 3100 or 3200. :/
249
« on: July 02, 2017, 19:33 »
I've always sort of assumed as much. Granted, the header information would mostly just make clear the file was saved in Photoshop, and that could mean you just resized it.
You can strip out all that information I think.
The thing about it is though, even if you strip all meta and exif information, the bits still are all ordered the same for the same picture. It would be nice if photography software and stock sites alike would use that to "detect similar" information. Well, it would be identical actually, for a given length of bits. They're getting better but, I'd imagine that software could eventually get to the point where it notices things like long strings of similar bits even for differently sized images.
250
« on: July 01, 2017, 16:31 »
I wouldn't normally want to have distant objects in focus if I've got a subject of interest very close to the lens.
Of course, another alternative is to use tilt on a t/s lens. That was a common approach with large format on film in the old days. Wide-angle T-S lenses tend to be a bit expensive, though.
You'd never pay off a T/S lens with microstock landscape photos.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 22
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
