|
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 - sharply_done
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 73
126
« on: April 10, 2010, 12:12 »
Things are down for me, too - by about 20%.
127
« on: April 10, 2010, 03:20 »
Humour aside, it's obvious why this image is where it is - Getty's PC collection isn't edited or curated: any photographer can put anything in there as long as they pay Getty for the privilege. There are some deals to be had, but the standard price is $50. Offhand I'd say the photographer was trying to make the same statement you just did.
128
« on: April 10, 2010, 00:58 »
Pffft ... Getty wants to charge $600 for something as simple/common/trivial as a water droplet splashing the surface.
You're a photographer, Warren, why don't you offer to shoot the image yourself for a reasonable price?
From my perspective it looks like you're much too eager in turning down a job that happened to fall into your lap - who knows, doing this small job could lead to other and better ones!
129
« on: April 10, 2010, 00:33 »
Nice price!
I'm completely confounded as to why she preferred to license it from you for $2500+ when she could have more easily licensed it through Dreamstime for 1/500 the price - given that she asked you about microstock, she obviously knew she could. I can only guess that spending other people's money responsibly just isn't a priority with some people/businesses. I'd be willing to bet that if her boss or the author finds out about this, she will be in very hot water - why did she make a completely unnecessary $2500 purchase?
I wonder, too, how you feel about this. I don't know if I'd be able to sell someone an image for 500 times its normal price. Not without feeling (at least a little) self-conscious about it anyway.
130
« on: April 09, 2010, 23:28 »
Sorry, but I only see a very minimal difference between the two, and that's only in the middle 1/3 of the image when zoomed to 400%! It's certainly not anywhere near enough to make me consider modifying my workflow.
I think it's safe to say that at normal viewing resolution - say full screen or 66% - the difference would be trivial.
Why not post the same area again at various magnifications so we can try to spot the difference?
I almost hate to bring it up, but doing something like this using GIFs may be doomed from the start: You're trying to show us the difference between 8 and 16 bit editing using an image format that is limited to 256 colours. Too bad this site doesn't support a RollOver event so you could post a couple of stacked jpegs.
131
« on: April 08, 2010, 18:46 »
I work in 8 bit and shoot jpegs, not RAW.
132
« on: April 08, 2010, 00:53 »
...
Its amazing what artists will put up with these days just to make money, but the truth is that you are being gypped even if you think are making the big bucks. You could be making more. You just have to grow some balls, stand up for yourself, and stop letting these greedy micros walk all over you!
...
Well, and to be fair, I think it's widely viewed that FT is the only micro agency that doesn't operate completely above board. I'm very happy to be where I am, and I'm not being "gypped" (a racist slur, you should know) or "walked all over", that's for sure.
133
« on: April 07, 2010, 19:26 »
You'll only get heresay by posing that question here - ask at iStock if it's fact you want.
134
« on: April 07, 2010, 13:10 »
The good old days, to me, are right now!
135
« on: April 07, 2010, 12:39 »
I used to have the 16-35mm, but found that I didn't use it very often - I found the zoom range of the 16-35mm very limiting, and I routinely bumped against the 35mm end. My 24-70mm offers much more flexibility in that regard.
I bought the 16-35mm to shoot interiors, and it is a good lens for that purpose. I eventually decided I didn't like doing that sort of work very much (too finicky), and once I stopped seeking it out I had very little use for this lens. My gf found a nice home for it: shooting landscapes with her Rebel XT. My only wide angle lens these days is a 15mm fisheye.
136
« on: April 07, 2010, 11:53 »
Woot! (and congrats, too)
137
« on: April 07, 2010, 11:51 »
Of course that's why Serban keeps banging on about it, as if it is really important __ but really it isn't. What is far more important is revenue/image/month (RIM?!) i.e. how much income will said agency generate from a given portfolio per month. DT may be leading on RPD but is way behind the Top 3 on RIM.
Um, that's RPI. And yeah, RPDL is almost meaningless without mentioning sales volume.
138
« on: April 05, 2010, 19:47 »
Last year, April was the start of a dip that didn't recover til August.
Tell me about it - that happened just as I went exclusive ... d'oh!
139
« on: April 05, 2010, 14:52 »
One of the metrics I track is downloads-per-image-per-month (DLPI).
My SS portfolio maxed out at 3857 images with an average DLPI of 1.45.
Interestingly enough, my iStock and Shutterstock DLPIs have always been very similar - at all other agencies my DLPI was always well below 1.0.
140
« on: April 05, 2010, 13:59 »
I was satisfied with its performance and never had any issues with it. I bought it on the oft-told advice 'prime lenses are better than zooms', but ended up selling it because I wasn't using it enough to justify owning it - I often preferred to use a 70-200mm for the broader working range.
141
« on: April 03, 2010, 13:20 »
The only time you will encounter any obstacles related to this is if you become an iStock exclusive. As an iStock exclusive you cannot offer any images for free download or RF license anywhere except iStock and Getty. You can still use them for promotional purposes on your blog, your wife's blog, Flickr, photo.net, etc.
142
« on: April 03, 2010, 01:04 »
...
Yet... low and behold, I'm out shooting in the snow on a bright sunny day, dark, dark blue skies......... and whoaaaaaaaa purple fringing all over the place in jpgs. Snow against the sky, snow against shadows... So bad, I could spend a month on one image and not eliminate it all.. I suppose I gotta shoot at lower ISO's....
Sometimes you just can't avoid fringing, no matter how good your lenses are and how well you know your camera. Shooting with snow and bright sun can be particularly troublesome. Give the above technique a try - it won't take very long to fix even the most fringiest of shots. Not a month, anyway! (grin)
143
« on: April 03, 2010, 00:14 »
The fast and easy way to eliminate fringing with Photoshop is to create a new layer, change it's mode to 'Color', then paint over the necessary areas using a suitable color. Give it a try, you'll be surprised by how well it works!
144
« on: April 01, 2010, 19:25 »
I wonder how many people went to http://www.topeka.com today? (Go ahead, click it, you know you want to.)
145
« on: April 01, 2010, 19:13 »
This might be a better observation: Those who are successful are successful on iStock. Those who aren't, aren't. Sure, there are a few exceptions, but by-and-large these people are for some reason (very) anti-iStock and don't often upload there. nruboc is a classic case.
146
« on: April 01, 2010, 15:12 »
Sorta related - I used to think that human interest and soft news stories in the newspaper were the ideas of editors and writers.
147
« on: April 01, 2010, 12:50 »
Works fine for me. <shrug>
149
« on: April 01, 2010, 10:45 »
I use MS Photo Info, which more-or-less does what you want. Although it's been replaced by MS Pro Photo Tools 2, you can still get it if you Google around.
150
« on: March 30, 2010, 22:52 »
Souls are immaterial so they escape the material laws of physics.
Well, if they exist they have to be of something. If they exist but aren't made of anything, then they are ideas. If that's what you're saying souls are then I agree, they wouldn't be affected by a black hole.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 73
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
