pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - Cricket

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]
101
Tom wrote:

To Others:  I just want to comment on this thread.  This is a perfect example of what a great bunch of people we have here on MSG!!!  The help and advice is given so freely in effort to help and encourage those of us new to the business. I appreciate these gestures very much, again, this thread a perfect example!  Once again I sincerely send my thanks to Leaf for his efforts and to all you more learned photogs here!!

I second that opinion!!! Thanks to everyone for their replies to this thread.

And tom... I really I like your note about having a sip of beer.  I am doing that right now as I am writing this post as it definitely helps in making this noise/artifact topic a little more clearer.   :D

Cricket

102
Photo Critique / How much is too much For I-Stock?
« on: July 07, 2007, 22:28 »
Hi Guys,

Okay this post is a take off from my earlier posts about noise and artifacting. 

The question is how much artifacts and noise is too much for a picky place like I-stock?

The reason why I am asking is that some of the images I-stock rejected for "too much artifacting" the other places took without blinking an eye.

For example.. I have some pictures of people engaging in sports activities.  These shots were taken outside on a clear, sunny morning. 

With most stock agencies...  all I need to do is de-noise the blue sky and I am done...  however with I-stock... do I need to de noise every freakin' area of the image?

Like for example if the deep shadow areas of the image have slightly lighter shades of black speckles in them, do I need to touch those areas up too? 

How about if there are a two or three stray speckles seen on a person's shirt or jacket?

Is Istock looking for a smooth plastic look to an image? 

BTW... I am well aware that noise can be reduced (not eliminated but only reduced) with the proper exposure and all that... so please spare me the long winded replies about looking at my histogram, using a different camera and all that rot.

I mean lets face it folks... just like sh-t,   NOISE happens!   :D

So how much of it is too much for a place like I-stock??

Cricket

103
You know....

I'm curious about one thing... If you get rejected three times by I-stock are you permanently barred from ever trying again?  Or do you have to wait a while?

Cricket

104
General Stock Discussion / Re: Artifacts and noise problem.
« on: July 01, 2007, 21:38 »
Sharply_done,

I agree with you 100%. 

I think that each agency appeals to a different clientele/photo buyer. 

And I expect as Microstock grows & matures this differentiation will continue.  I also expect at some point that there may even be microstock agencies that will start to specialize in certain subjects.

I mean look at macrostock.  There is a stock agency that specializes for example in plants/botany.  I also know of two macrostock agencies that specialize in images of Alaska and Ohio (my homestate).  And I am sure there are many others who specialize!

pr2is:   I think I-stock's sucess is due mainly to the fact that they were one of the firsts to get into this business. 

If one looks at macrostock and sees all the sucessful agencies that are out there, one can see that there is plenty of  room for all kinds of images!!

One does not have to produce images that are overly saturated, overly processed, and unnaturally perfect (i.e. digitally manipulated to the nth degree in photoshop) ...   which are the types of images wanted by an Istock, a Getty, or a Corbis. 

Again using macrostock as a guide... if those were the only kinds of images photobuyers wanted... there wouldn't be 300+ macrostock agencies... there would only be two... Getty and Corbis.   :D

Cricket

105
General Stock Discussion / Re: Artifacts and noise problem.
« on: June 30, 2007, 22:05 »
Hi Sarkee,

I encountered the same problem that you are encountering with I-stock.  However mine was just a noise and artifacts issue rather than a camera interpolation problem.

Anyway...  I think that I-stock is just an incredibly picky agency, as the photographs that they rejected for artifacts and noise were accepted by other companies.

Like you, I got my application rejected by them twice and I just decided to close my account.  I just felt it wasn't worth my time to try again...  especially if they are going to reject me over an artifacts issue that can only be seen at 400%. 

I mean really... what!!!!???!!   >:(

Anyway... sure ....I-stock's sales are incredible but I think microstock is just in its infancy.  I think there is plenty of room for other agencies and plenty of room for more photographers and photographs. 

(Heck... just look at the macrostock agencies out there!!!  I know from looking through my various market guides that there are about 300+ macrostock agencies.)

Anyway... I am digressing... but I think as the other microstock agencies mature, their sales will improve as well. 

So... I think it's important to approach this business with the idea of being in it for the long haul, rather than looking to make a quick buck with the latest hot flavor (i.e. agency) of the month/year.

So keep on plugging away and keep on shooting.  Don't let I-stock rain on your parade.   ;D 

BTW... since you are a newbie like me... if you would like to drop me a note from time to time that would be great, as I think it would be interesting to see how things are progressing for either of us in this biz a year from now.  :D

Cricket

106
Leaf,

Thanks for the advice.  I think that I-stock is just getting incredibly picky, as the photographs that they rejected for artifacts and noise were accepted by the other agencies.

Anyway.... I have to wonder... is this artifact and noise thing that I-stock is obsessed with that big a deal????

I mean if I have to blow up the image to 400% to see it... is it really going to affect the quality of the image if it is used in a magazine, book or on a website?

I guess I can see it as a problem if the image was purchased with the intention of interpolating it to a larger size... then noise/artifacts might become an issue.... but I just don't see how artifacts which can only be  seen at 400% can be an issue if the image is going to be printed out at 100% or less.

I guess I am venting about I-stock... but I would love to hear other's thoughts on this artifact thing.

Cricket 


107
Photo Critique / Artifacts & Noise... How much is too much?
« on: June 28, 2007, 06:26 »
Hi Guys,

Another newbie question here.  I have been playing around with the noise ninja demo and I am thinking of buying it as it really does greatly clean up images.  However when it comes to things like fine textures... it has a tendency to blur stuff.

Fortunately though, Noise Ninja has an undo brush where I can undo areas that get de-noised too much.

Anyway... the question is... how much noise is too much noise? 

For example, I can still see what looks like noise artifacts in a photograph that I took which had a pine tree in it (fine texture).

However, if I de-noise the pine tree too much in an attempt to get rid of some the stray pixels that don't quite match the color of the rest of the pine tree, the tree's needles begin to look all smudgy.

So what do I do??

Leave that area of the photograph alone?  And only de-noise areas where there is relatively uniform (or should be anyway) color (i.e. blue sky, etc) ?

I guess I am asking this question, because I-Stock seems totally obsessed with noise/artifacts compared to other places and that was the company who rejected me  (see my previous post of "Compression Artifacts... How do I spot them?").

Anyway... any thoughts/advice you have on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Cricket

108
Karimala,

I tried reworking the image again.  Here it is in a before state and then after I used a noise filter on it. 

It might be too soft... I don't know.

Cricket

109
Karimala,

Sorry to be ignorant... but isn't that just the colors of the shadows?

BTW... to help me understand this artifact thing better, could someone show me a crop of a full color image before and after it has been noise filtered?

 I would like to see what the difference would be. 

I am using the noise filter that came with Corel Photo Paint, but I would like to see if some of these plugins like Ninja work any better.

Cricket


110
Photo Critique / Compression Artifacts?? How do I spot them?
« on: June 23, 2007, 21:11 »
Hi All,

I got a rejection on a photo for compression artifacts.  I blew up the image to 200 and 400% but I still don't see the problem. 

Can you see what the issue is? 

Cricket


111
General Stock Discussion / Image Processing Question
« on: June 23, 2007, 12:36 »
I am a newbie to all this stock photography stuff... but I got a question for everyone...

How long do you spend on each image, processing it in Photoshop?

Assuming you are shooting in RAW at a low ISO and at the correct exposure AND you are not doing any isolation, cloning, special effects or anything... how much time are you spending with each image before you feel satisfied that it is ready to submit for stock?

Cricket

112
Adobe Stock / Fotolia Newbie Question
« on: June 17, 2007, 15:31 »
Hi Guys,

I have question.  Last night I visited Fotolia V2 (www.fotolia.com) and created an account as I am just getting started in shooting Micro stock.

Anyway... I didn't think about it at the time (as I-Stock wants you to upload a copy of your driver's license) but when I was I completing my account information, there was a section there that asked for my SSN number. 

I put it in there but now I am kind of scared that I shouldn't have given it out -- what with ID theft and everything.  :o

Does anyone else think that is kind of weird for a stock agency to ask that question?  ???

Cricket
(In The USA)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors