|
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 - webbing
26
« on: May 31, 2011, 10:56 »
Yes keep going with this.
Go crazy with the light setup. Light the glass from all sides, alternate angles and strength of light (if you can).
That's a lot better than street signs!
Thanks all, When you say keep going with this, I have to submit 3 different kind of images doint I? I can't submit 3 food shots...
28
« on: May 30, 2011, 13:47 »
29
« on: May 30, 2011, 13:35 »
Did you shoot in jpg or in raw mode. And if your answer is RAW mode, then my next question is : how did you convert to jpg, and what method of sharpening did you use. Did you sharpen during conversion to jpg, or at a later phase in post processing ...
Shot in raw, the only post processing done was /image/autocontrast, /image/resize to 2400x11600, save to jpg with Qulaity 12 format baseline.
30
« on: May 30, 2011, 13:17 »
They ALL are not properly focused!
The first one is majorly out of focus/blurred. This won't get accepted anywhere.
It's also off-horizon, it's tilted to the right. You have to level the horizon otherwise it looks off. (The image was removed before I could read the EXIF).
The second one has an exposure time of 1/50 of a second. If you shot this handheld it explains the softness. Also don't shoot at f22 but rather f11 or preferably where your lens' "sweet spot" (best performance in terms of sharpness relative to the aperture) is.
Third one same thing. Aperture f22 in rapture priority mode. Who told you to use that aperture? Still exposure time is 1/50.
The only thing that's good is the ISO setting...
I don't want to sound rude but you need to look at your pictures closely before posting them here. Those pictures are not sharp/focused.
If you don't have a tripod (yet), get one (now). If you cannot afford a tripod find something to rest the camera on (wall, tree... anything that doesn't move). Then you can shoot at 1/50 but if you shoot handheld without a lot of training just pick a shorter exposure time like 1/150 or 1/200 to avoid motion blur/softness.
EDIT:
Now I see you switched out the first image.
Still not great in terms of focus, still a bit soft. You have some chromatic aberration (a bit of red/purple fringing) going on in the upper left corner of the sign.
Also I can see some sensor dust.
And now you are at 1/25 of a second in broad daylight... Again at f22.
You're making your life harder than it is.
Step down to f13 or f11 and get at least 1/200 of a second exposure time.
I thought you signed up with Lynda.com. Spend some more time on the basics. Then try again.
And at this point don't think of applying to iStock. It will just push you further and further away to finally get in.
I don't get it, #1 and #2 were both shot on a tripod
31
« on: May 30, 2011, 12:40 »
32
« on: May 29, 2011, 19:31 »
#1 dont see what can a reviewer like in it.. there just a gorgeous blue sky..
#2 trademark for sure..
#3 not in focus and far from focus
#4 not tack sharp (I would shoot again there but a kind of 3/4 of the sign and the other 1/4 with blue sky, and a little on the side (not front)
this last #4 has a lot of sensor spots on it really close to the sign (left and up)
shoot "girl/boy" again 
Yeah, I saw the sensor spots too. First I thought they might be on the lens, then the filter, finally the senso. Did the auto-clean that, that didn't work. Just spent 2 hours clean, test, clean, test... Finally, I think I got it. Need to re-shoot 3 and 4. So are we saying Smokey can't be submitted for the application?
Thanks all.
guess not, I dont know Smokey but sure it was design by someone.. really dont know
Oh man, I feel stupid now. It would need to be submitted as editorial, but I don't know if you can do that on the application. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Bear
33
« on: May 29, 2011, 16:57 »
#1 dont see what can a reviewer like in it.. there just a gorgeous blue sky..
#2 trademark for sure..
#3 not in focus and far from focus
#4 not tack sharp (I would shoot again there but a kind of 3/4 of the sign and the other 1/4 with blue sky, and a little on the side (not front)
this last #4 has a lot of sensor spots on it really close to the sign (left and up)
shoot "girl/boy" again
Yeah, I saw the sensor spots too. First I thought they might be on the lens, then the filter, finally the senso. Did the auto-clean that, that didn't work. Just spent 2 hours clean, test, clean, test... Finally, I think I got it. Need to re-shoot 3 and 4. So are we saying Smokey can't be submitted for the application? Thanks all.
35
« on: May 29, 2011, 12:15 »
36
« on: May 28, 2011, 16:48 »
IMO, I would stay away from shots that most of the photographers have access to in the first place.
My understanding of the initial 3 images is to be "different", unique AND creative. If it has to be a shot of a traffic sign chose a different angle or do something creative in post processing. This image doesn't show skills.
White balance could also be an issue.
Put the sign in context to its proper meaning like here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10221555-curves-ahead.php?st=915d13f
Your image is a traffic sign showing a mountain in the background. This might work if the sign shows "curves ahead" or a warning sign for "wildlife crossing" something like that.
I hope this makes sense.
I was kind of going for this sort of thing. http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-1714428-sign-interstate-desert-landscape.php?st=ae2dbe1
38
« on: May 27, 2011, 22:28 »
39
« on: May 27, 2011, 09:16 »
So are we saying that this.
http://www.ltsw.com/public/_MG_1517_Small.jpg
Would be better than
http://www.ltsw.com/public/Girldrinkingwater.jpg
Or maybe I shoiuld ask is it better or even close to acceptable?
it has a lot of noise.. seriously I would shoot more and be more ready to join IS, Shutterstock, whatever..
if you fail at IS you will have the 5th time when?
I was only putting it up here because someone said to try to reduce the sze and see if that helped.
40
« on: May 26, 2011, 20:53 »
The wildlife I really shoot for me, not for microstock. I thought the squirrel might work that's why I submitted him. But generally I don't submit wildlife.
43
« on: May 26, 2011, 16:21 »
so on the refector do you mean something like
http://www.adorama.com/WEPBRFK40.html
I got one of these from ebay - but I almost never use it either. I have used the diffuser bit when (seldom) doing still life stuff.
Thanks for this post, I just bought one from ebay for $10 US. LOL
45
« on: May 26, 2011, 15:39 »
Thanks lisafx,
Very helpful and I really do appreciate the thoughts. The siituation is that my career (that I'm currently in) is kind of winding down, probably won't be able to continure in this field much longer. I'm approaching retirement age and amy looking to hopefully suppliment income with photography. Not looking for get rich quick or anything close to that, I don't mind putting in the work if I know what work needs to be put in. My problems stem from being basically clueless when it comes to the agencies and some of the phrases and terms that the "pros" throw around because they all understand them. Could I take some classes, yeah probably but again, that's cost which will be taking from the little I have for retirement so I'm trying to learn by reading, and using tools like lynda.com and the like, plus what you folks are willing to share.
46
« on: May 26, 2011, 15:32 »
Nope 3 landmarks will not make it anymore. They want variety, my gf was rejected a couple times for shooting things too similar like: 1. the Taj Mahal 2. Machu Picchu 3. the Blue Mosque. All good shots too, not spectacular but sharp, correctly exposed, rule of 3rds etc. The last time the inspector wrote that there should be a portrait, a studio, and a landscape shot for example. Basically 3 totally different kinds of shot.
you forgot to mention the 85% they want too 
I don't know what you meant by the 85%?
47
« on: May 26, 2011, 15:09 »
I bought a Domino's Pizza franchise several years ago, and it was the things I didn't know that bankrupted me, I don't want to repeat that mistake again.
Off topic, but isn't buying a franchise supposed to set you up with everything you need to be successful at it? Locations, instructions, menus, etc.?
Oh, now that's funny. I was told after the fact that the home office looks at every new group of franchisees as "the next group of bankruptsys" Yes, in theory that's true. But it's the "clear the parking lot of snow yourself, cause a service is too expensive", "Idealy you need 2 insiders and 1 driver, for a day shift, but you can do it with 1 inside and 1 driver". etc. etc. etc.
48
« on: May 26, 2011, 15:04 »
You forgot to list Photoshop. What's it running at these days, $700 maybe?
Yeah, I've got that.
49
« on: May 26, 2011, 15:03 »
Sorry probably should have been a little more specific.
No I paid 639 US for my T1i
The figures I was throwing out were ballparks, intended to be thought provoking not actual figures.
I have a cheap tripod as well and the table top studio was 50 US so again cheap. The concern I'm having stems from critiques of my photos, using natural light being too dark, need fill, can't do that with built in flash need external light, etc, etc, etc. And a 430ex for my Canon is 400+ new, might get one on ebay for 350 or so, or is that not the cheapest way to go. As I say, I hate the things I don't know.
I bought a Domino's Pizza franchise several years ago, and it was the things I didn't know that bankrupted me, I don't want to repeat that mistake again. I have a full time job, but I'm not getting any younger and would really like to turn this into a real business but I'm not sure how I can afford the necessary equipment. That's the point of this whole thread. I make a pretty good living and I can't afford all of this equipment so I'm not sure how others can. Are business loans involved, family trusts...
Some advise like, you don't really need that, but you can't live without this, but you don't have to buy and expense one you can buy this one really cheap to get you by till you can afford the good one... That kind of thing.
Sorry this is so long.
50
« on: May 26, 2011, 14:06 »
now Yuri will enter and will say I have spent 300k EUR
seriously I see you havent noticed my comment (actually yesterday too) but like I have said and some on this topic you need to shoot more and get better and get pictures approved, your gear is more than enough
I might have missed a comment you made, but thanks. I'm shooting every day, but mostly first thing in the morning and then some wildlife stuff in the afternoon. Sun's not setting till 8:30 or so my time so I'm not getting too much at night.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
