| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/08/2004 11:52:27 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by ahaze:
How are you getting 48MB- or even the 17MB they recommend- file sizes from your 10D?
edt: and while I'm at it, why are they more concerned with the file size than image dimensions?? |
Image dimensions are unimportiant in the print world - the DPI and image (file) size determine waht the final image will be able to be printed at. Newspapers can do 100-150 DPI, so most any pic on a 3mp camera will be able to be printed quite large. A good full color magazine prints at much higher resolution(DPI) so the image needs to be 'bigger' in total info. I don't have any idea the DPI the magazines need, but to get a cover shot (8.5x11) from a digital camera (dSLR) is just now becoming 'pssoble' or 'common' (take your pic - i think it has been possible, but not common until recently - this year)
chris
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 11:54:14 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
To support the RF sites we are making a capital investment in photo equipment, editing software, a computer with internet access, our training (most of mine via dpc), and our time (if we are competent with cam and computer we are more valuable than minimum wage). |
I had those things long before I heard of the stock sites, I didn't get them to support those sites. All 26 of the photos I have currently online at shutterstock were taken for photo classes or my own personal enjoyment. If I didn't have them online for sale I wouldn't be doing anything at all with them. Some of them might- just might- sell on a postcard or two, but then I'd have to invest in printing, paper, etc. For little return. I get little return for doing (and spending) nothing at all on shutterstock. And that's just the nature images. No one is going to buy a closeup shot of a microphone as a print or postcard.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 12:00:32 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by smokeditor:
Plus something that no one has metioned is //www.Istockpro.com the sister site of Istockphoto.com, its harder to get into and the prices are higher. |
Now that site I have never seen before. it certainly ruins some of my argument, in that their fees are actually vaguely okay (still nowhere near market rate, but at least they aren't taking the piss) |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 02:33:31 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by aKiwi:
I am probably one of the dreaded hobbyists ruining the profi industry. BUT my reasons are as follows.
I Love photography, but it is a hobby for me. I have no intention in the near or mid term future to make it into my profession.
I have a good job, a family, a house and very limited free time and limited money.
I need a way to make a little bit of money to help pay for my expensive hobby where I don't have to invest time or resources (Perticularly during working hours) to make this happen.
Therefore Istock and shutterstock are ideal for me.
In the evenings when I have a little time, I can prepare and download a few photos, and hopefully make some money from it.
I would love for someone to come up to me and give me $1000 for an image, but I don't have the time to go out and market myself.
Here is my Shutterstock Portfolio And I have made $37 in the last month.
I'm not thrilled with it, but it's better than nothing!
Peter |
What he said!
...And, I don't shoot with a 35mm or DSLR so even if I was good enough to get approved by them, the other sites won't even think about using my photos. Should I just quit so I don't continue to ruin the industry? Are my photos on Istock really taking food off the plates of "real" photographers?
If the "real" stock photo industry can't compete with the amatures and the istocks out there, they either need to get better or become extinct. Adapt or die, don't expect the industry to stay the same.
Message edited by author 2004-12-08 14:34:28. |
|
|
|
12/08/2004 03:45:36 PM · #55 |
I think this topic (RF stock sites vs high-end stock sites) already been hashed out here: //dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=135447
Not to disuade you from posting in this thread at all but you might want to check out the arguments there, as well.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2004 06:40:27 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by bestagents:
I don't have any idea the DPI the magazines need, but to get a cover shot (8.5x11) ... |
...you need a bare minimum of 225 dpi at the final print size -- 300 is pretty standard. That would require about 3500 pixels in the long dimension (to allow for bleed/trim).
It's not impossible to resample a digital image up to this size with some success.
There are MANY magazine covers shot digitally, but they often use medium/large format camera backs on studio cameras ... some of those have sensors which capture 4-7000 pixels in the long dimension; they also cost many thousands of dollars.
On the other hand, a digital camera which is on the scene and captures a newsworthy event may have that image published largely ragardless of quality or resolution, if it is the best/only image available. |
|
|
|
12/21/2004 12:32:23 AM · #57 |
Ok here is my 2 cents worth and my ShutterStock folio -
//www.shutterstock.com/gallery.mhtml?id=1387
I am a video producer, director by profession. I wanted to do commercial
photography but (Dallas, TX) had a limited market in the late 70's.
I did work for some high-end wedding photographers but that was not for me. I was all film until about 3 years ago. Many of the photos in my folio were shot on Kodachrome between 1975-1995. I was repped by a
"stock footage" agency for over a year - no sales. All it cost me was the postage to send the original chromes to get scanned. istockphoto.com has been around for about 4 years now. They are getting a little heady with their own visions of grandur. Like another poster said earlier - "Most of my istock rejections are higher sellers elsewhere". I don't think istock or places like it - canstockphoto.com,
bigstockphoto.com will take away the high ground - yet. Probably in 10-15 years it will all be like istock as print publications will become increasingly distributed in electronic form. I know many people who used to work in the "printing" industry. Just as I feel pressure everyday from the high school kids with a Sony DV camera the professional who makes his living shooting photos will need to stay 2 steps ahead of the istockers.
izoneguy |
|
|
|
12/22/2004 01:40:34 PM · #58 |
SharQ --
I'm a bit confused by two of your postings in this thread. In one of your earlier postings, you stated --
"Alamy is the obvious choice if you have few credentials, as they only look at your photo quality when they choose if they want you or not - they are, however, not very good for news images, and they have many other flaws."
I, as a complete amateur, take that to mean that I have zero chance of getting into an agency like Alamy. Apparently, I need "credentials" -- whatever those might be -- for them to even decide if they want me. And only then if they decide if they want me, do they look at my images.
But then you state --
"Well, Alamy will take on anyone, as long as their pictures are good."
I'm having a hard time resolving these two quotes. Certainly, I'd like to have my images on better sites and earning more revenue --- but I have to agree with the general impression of most posters here ... we feel like big agencies (Getty, Corbis, etc.) will not look at someone with maybe a few dozen good shots and that isn't a photographer for a living.
Not trying to be argumentative -- on the contrary, I really truly want to know how to get into this business further. But I am having trouble adding up all the facts so far.
-Doug
(Shutterstock gallery: //www.shutterstock.com/gallery.mhtml?id=715)
(Personal gallery, Washington DC: //www.toombs.us/coppermine/thumbnails.php?album=4)
(DPChallenge Portfolio: //www.dpchallenge.com/profile.php?USER_ID=19810) |
|
|
|
12/22/2004 02:36:09 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by dtoombs:
SharQ --
I'm a bit confused by two of your postings in this thread. In one of your earlier postings, you stated --
"Alamy is the obvious choice if you have few credentials, as they only look at your photo quality when they choose if they want you or not ... |
"If you have few credentials ..." not "If you have a few credentials ..."
The first means you DON'T have any credentials, the second means you need some but not an overwhelming number ... |
|
|
|
12/22/2004 03:02:02 PM · #60 |
I think the problem is that some folks with cheeper cameras are making money on shutterstock, not a lot, but some money. With my Coolpix, I've sold over 200 photos, of things that are so bizzare I wouldn't even put them in a normal portfolio. Stock is for everyday items, and I'll submit everyday stuff if someone will buy it and maybe a D70 will come my way through time and lots of buyers. lol Van
my gallery |
|
|
|
12/22/2004 03:07:13 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"If you have few credentials ..." not "If you have a few credentials ..." |
WOW ... don't I feel like an utter moron! Thanks General ... sorry ShaQ!
-Doug |
|
|
|
12/22/2004 04:30:44 PM · #62 |
Don't feel dumb -- I'm an experienced proofreader, so I know and notice what are the most common errors people make reading stuff like this, especially on computer screens!
Plus, there's an enormous number of idiotic statements which make it through people's everyday spell-checkers -- I don't trust them very much. Often what the person has written isn't what they meant either, as in a recent site suggestion where it was declared that the whole point was "to make more work for the admins" when of course(?) the author meant (I hope!) less work ... |
|
|
|
12/22/2004 05:02:24 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm an experienced proofreader..
Often what the person has written isn't what they meant either, as in a recent site suggestion where it was declared that the whole point was "to make more work for the admins" when of course(?) the author meant (I hope!) less work ... |
The part of the proofreading that you missed was the sarcasm, at least if you are referring to my post over in the discussion about critiques... It was a reflection of the fact that the whole "critique" system is a lot of work for D & L to code but no one wants to implement a system that rewards them in the slightest.
So, while that may appear to be an idiotic statement, reading for atmosphere and attitude may sometimes reveal the writer to be more intelligent than is first apparent :)
If I were D & L, I would look upon all these "suggestions" with a little less excited anticipation than most of us do. That was my point. :)
If you weren't referring to my post, please excuse my diatribe :)
Message edited by author 2004-12-22 17:03:55. |
|
|
|
12/22/2004 05:13:54 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm an experienced proofreader..
Often what the person has written isn't what they meant either, as in a recent site suggestion where it was declared that the whole point was "to make more work for the admins" when of course(?) the author meant (I hope!) less work ... |
The part of the proofreading that you missed was the sarcasm, at least if you are referring to my post over in the discussion about critiques... It was a reflection of the fact that the whole "critique" system is a lot of work for D & L to code but no one wants to implement a system that rewards them in the slightest.
So, while that may appear to be an idiotic statement, reading for atmosphere and attitude may sometimes reveal the writer to be more intelligent than is first apparent :)
If I were D & L, I would look upon all these "suggestions" with a little less excited anticipation than most of us do. That was my point. :)
If you weren't referring to my post, please excuse my diatribe :) |
I may have been referring to it, but mistakenly, in that I was citing it hurredly from memory. Also I generally don't use terms like "idiotic" anyway -- sorry about that.
Anyone else reading this can assume my example to be completely hypothetical, and any resemblance to any actual post, active or archived, is completely coincidental. |
|
|
|
12/22/2004 06:39:33 PM · #65 |
This subject has been hashed out so many times it's become silly. The truth is it doesn't matter how much you tell someone their photography is worth more than they think it is around here, they will still sell it for nothing. Oh, they will also argue non-stop until you give in and agree that their photography isn't worth anything...
Message edited by author 2004-12-22 18:48:51.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2004 06:50:50 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by SharQ:
Alamy is the obvious choice if you have few credentials, as they only look at your photo quality when they choose if they want you or not - they are, however, not very good for news images, and they have many other flaws. |
SharQ
Not that I think I'm one of the talented ones but I've resisted posting my pictures on the low-cost RF sites for the reasons you mention. I feel it devalues my work if I sell it for peanuts. Even if I earn lots of peanuts I still have just a bag of peanuts. I can't see it adding up to big bucks.
I'd rather aim high and try to get one of the agencies that charges decent fees for the images they sell to accept me and have my work sold for a decent price.
It's just my preference and I can't say I'll likely make more my way because I probably won't get accepted at all.
Anyway, I posted to actually ask a Q. Can you tell me more about the flaws, as you see them, with Alamy? THANKS!
Message edited by author 2004-12-22 18:51:32.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2004 04:23:44 PM · #67 |
Topping for input on Alamy... anyone else have any clue what these "flaws" might be. I had a look at the site and I'm considering submitting some of my Africa and Antarctica pics but would appreciate knowing any problems and issues others can let me know about before I do that.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2004 04:41:40 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Topping for input on Alamy... anyone else have any clue what these "flaws" might be. I had a look at the site and I'm considering submitting some of my Africa and Antarctica pics but would appreciate knowing any problems and issues others can let me know about before I do that. |
Check this thread out it may be the sort of stock agency that will suit your needs. Link here
|
|
|
|
12/23/2004 04:54:34 PM · #69 |
Thanks Gurilla, I read that thread with interest.
However, despite understanding and accepting her reasoning I am not prepared to take only a 25% cut of the profits on my images, regardless of that reasoning. Nor can I provide a huge base of images to start with or promise to provide new images regularly - my best images are travel images.
But I do wish her luck!
|
|
|
|
11/27/2007 03:05:30 PM · #70 |
Sorry it been a while since ive been here. Lifes been a wild, crazy, yet fun ride lately. I do have one suggestion to those trying to avoid stock photography sites, yet have trouble getting on to the big boys like corbis. (I myself fall in that category). Have photo exibits, plaster your home towns with them. Art center, senior cetizen centers, dinners most places would love to have an artshow or photo exibit at here bussiness. It builds there reputation, brings in customers or investors, and they can get some exra cash from your sales. Best of all all they have to do is let you borrow some wall space they wern't using anyways.
Best of luck to you all.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2007 03:22:58 PM · #71 |
You just bumped a 3 year old thread. Cool.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2007 03:27:21 PM · #72 |
Yes and damn those new things called cars.
I was a buggy whip maker and those blasted cars are putting me out of business.
Now I've changed to photography and it's all the same thing. Blasted! |
|
|
|
11/27/2007 04:14:46 PM · #73 |
haha.. yeah nothing like resurrecting the dead.. perhaps this thread will get a new and invigorating life :)
|
|
|
|
11/30/2007 05:22:09 PM · #74 |
|
|
|
11/30/2007 06:24:02 PM · #75 |
| The worst part of this old thread is I read the first two pages before I remember this discussion, then I looked at the date and noted the 2004. :) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 05:47:50 PM EDT.
