| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/30/2006 04:47:21 PM · #1 |
Well let me star by asking people not to turn thi sin one more Nikon vs Canon thread.
My question is in the sense that did any of you start doing stock photos with one camera and felt the need for another, especially because of resolution? (I'm asking this because I've readed that some sites don't allow upsizing).
My goal in short time is starting doing stock and I want to upgrade my cameras. Just want to know if this is a issu to consider.
For example if I must go for the D2X to get higher resolution (not only for this of course... just an excuce) or should I buy the D200 and some lightning equipment instead.
Please give me your feedaback and personal experience.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2006 04:50:33 PM · #2 |
The D70 is 6 megapixels. That is plenty for any stock. Alamy goes so far as to say 6MP is good enough for them.
Technically 6 Megapixels is equivalent to the resolving power of 35m film. And THAT has been used for stock forever.
I'd say you are good to go.
PS, I do pretty well in Microstock with the 6 megapixel Rebel.
Even have a full page magazine ad :-)
|
|
|
|
12/30/2006 04:51:59 PM · #3 |
Wanted to add that noise is the bigger issue with stock. You want to avoid it at all cost. So, make sure you light your subjects well and over-expose a little.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2006 04:55:10 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Technically 6 Megapixels is equivalent to the resolving power of 35m film. And THAT has been used for stock forever.
|
*mumbles something about drum scans and slide film*
Congrats on the ad though, nice job :) |
|
|
|
12/30/2006 04:59:36 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
*mumbles something about drum scans and slide film* |
Even doing drum scans on 35mm film you aren't going to resolve much past 6MP. That's pretty much the limit of that medium.
But, I think that is outside of this discussion and that 6MP is plenty for digital stock photography.
Oh, and thanks :-)
|
|
|
|
12/30/2006 06:06:10 PM · #6 |
Tahnk's for the input. Good example the add with your photo. Nice!
|
|
|
|
12/30/2006 06:21:54 PM · #7 |
Oh, I missed the part about wanting to upgrade. Yes, you need the D200 and some lighting :-)
|
|
|
|
12/30/2006 06:43:27 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Oh, I missed the part about wanting to upgrade. Yes, you need the D200 and some lighting :-) |
do we all ? :)
|
|
|
|
01/31/2007 04:44:18 AM · #9 |
I had a Canon 10D for awhile, and recently moved to the 5D...personally the difference is light years better- especially when you're looking at your images at 100%...
Ian
//www.itravelstockphoto.com |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 04:47:21 AM · #10 |
|
|
|
01/31/2007 06:16:34 AM · #11 |
Warning stock becomes as addictive as DPC. I started 3 months ago and just hit 100DLs for Jan from Shutterstock. Like you the only reason I started was to make my habit self-funding. Am just about to order 2 new lenses...next is the D200.
Interestingly enough, through doing stock, colleagues are starting to offer me paid jobs 'cause now they think I'm a pro. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 10:54:17 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by itravelstockphoto:
I had a Canon 10D for awhile, and recently moved to the 5D...personally the difference is light years better- especially when you're looking at your images at 100%...
Ian
//www.itravelstockphoto.com |
Yeah, I have a 350XT, and I'm waiting to see what (if any) 5D replacement comes out. My current stock sales cannot justify the cost of a 5D or equivalent, but my portfolio is growing all the time. Combined with my portrait work, I think I'll make enough off of photography in 2007 to justify taking my camera body to the next level. One thing to consider with a higher megapixel camera is the fact that you can do a fair amount of cropping of your shots and still keep them plenty big enough for stock. That along with the improved IQ of a 5D or replacement is all I need to justify the $$$. A 1DsMKII might be a little overkill, unless your stock downloads are in the 6 figures... |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 11:09:40 AM · #13 |
I have been doing stock for a few years now & it fully supports my hobby. It definitley takes time.
As said Noise is more of a problem than megapixels.
My most sold image at Istock was taken on a 3.2 MP Canon powershot A70.
It is this image and is still selling well.
I started with the 3.2 MP canon Powershot.
Then I had the 5 MP Sony F717 & have many successfull images with that.
Now I have a Canon 350 D (XT). I definitley don't have the feeling I need more MP.
More important as said is a concept and some good usefull images and some good lighting. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 11:47:12 AM · #14 |
| Oh yeah, having said what I did above, lighting is a HUGE factor in successful stock selling. My Alien Bees kit is every bit as important as my camera and lenses for my stock shooting. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 11:57:21 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Nuno:
Well let me star by asking people not to turn thi sin one more Nikon vs Canon thread.
My question is in the sense that did any of you start doing stock photos with one camera and felt the need for another, especially because of resolution? (I'm asking this because I've readed that some sites don't allow upsizing).
My goal in short time is starting doing stock and I want to upgrade my cameras. Just want to know if this is a issu to consider.
For example if I must go for the D2X to get higher resolution (not only for this of course... just an excuce) or should I buy the D200 and some lightning equipment instead.
Please give me your feedaback and personal experience. |
It totally depends on what type of stock you want to submit. If you are trying to get into the elite professional stock companies, you will need as much resolution as you can get. A 1ds mark II (canon speak) minimum or preferably a medium format digital back. If you are going to submit to alamy, myloupe, or the micros the d70 is plenty of pixels although you can fetch more $$/image if you have more pixels.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 12:05:30 PM · #16 |
I have a Q about model releases.
shutterstock didn't accept my photos and one of the reasons they said was that I didn't upload any model releases.
I emailed them BEFORE submitting my photos and of course after rejection as well and told them I am the one and only model on all my photos.
they didn't answer.
should I sign a model release with myself? I, Svetlana, give a right to myself to shoot me....
this is just ridiculous! |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 12:07:33 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by silverfoxx:
I have a Q about model releases.
shutterstock didn't accept my photos and one of the reasons they said was that I didn't upload any model releases.
I emailed them BEFORE submitting my photos and of course after rejection as well and told them I am the one and only model on all my photos.
they didn't answer.
should I sign a model release with myself? I, Svetlana, give a right to myself to shoot me....
this is just ridiculous! |
Yes, you do need to sign a model release for yourself. If you want, I can e-mail you my standard release that has been accepted to all the stock site I upload to. Just PM me your e-mail addy.
Message edited by author 2007-02-01 12:08:11.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 12:09:14 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by silverfoxx:
I have a Q about model releases.
shutterstock didn't accept my photos and one of the reasons they said was that I didn't upload any model releases.
I emailed them BEFORE submitting my photos and of course after rejection as well and told them I am the one and only model on all my photos.
they didn't answer.
should I sign a model release with myself? I, Svetlana, give a right to myself to shoot me....
this is just ridiculous! |
Yes. That's the legal situation. They have no proof it is you. It's not the SHOOTING rights, it's the SELLING rights that they have to have. You, as the model, have to give the SELLING rights to Shutterstock. A model release isn't permission to take a picture; it's permission to sell a picture.
Edit - sorry to duplicate Leroy. Also sorry to hijack the thread :) Back to the OPs question...
Message edited by author 2007-02-01 12:09:58. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 12:33:55 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
PS, I do pretty well in Microstock with the 6 megapixel Rebel. |
Huuh dude? The Rebel you have is 8 megapixels. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 12:35:50 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by candlerain:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
PS, I do pretty well in Microstock with the 6 megapixel Rebel. |
Huuh dude? The Rebel you have is 8 megapixels. |
I've replaced my camera since that post... the other became ill with terminal shutter failure. :-/
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 12:40:35 PM · #21 |
| thank you so much for your answers Leroy and Bernard! |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 02:45:22 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by silverfoxx:
thank you so much for your answers Leroy and Bernard! |
Silverfoxx, one thing I might add, if you've never submitted to stock sites you will want to REALLY study what types of shots they are looking for. I say that with the utmost respect and admiration for your photographic ability (in other words, I LOVE your work). But most of what you have here that gets rave reviews will not get accepted on a stock site. Image grain, lots of Photoshop editing, and black & white conversion will not do well in the microstock world. Just mentioning this because shooting for DPC and shooting for stock are two VASTLY different things most of the time. Clearly you are very good at shooting what you do here, but you will need to re-focus some of that skill when you start selling stock. Good luck! |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 02:59:39 PM · #23 |
thank you Don!
I understand that. I tried to choose some very simple shots that I have, no editing, no b&w like this one:
 or this: 
but probably they were not suitable for them as well:( |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 03:05:44 PM · #24 |
Svetlana, while I'm by no means a stock super-power, taking a quick look at my Shutterstock portfolio (sorted by most popular) will show that the simple stuff tends to rise toward the top.
//www.shutterstock.com/gallery.mhtml?id=56023
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 03:09:29 PM · #25 |
| Those are great examples of what I'm talking about. From an asthetic standpoint, those shots are great especially the umbrella! But for stock, that shot will get slammed for lense flare, noise, soft focus (look at it at 100%), etc. It's a real wakeup call to most photographers (myself included) when they start with stock. My stock portfolio isn't anything special at all from an artistic standpoint, but I do reasonably well in sales. Feel free to look over my istock portfolio here for what I'm talking about. There is certainly a call for artistic stock photography, but it has to stay within the rhelm of what is considered a technically correct photo. Once you find that ballance, you will do really well. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 09:18:59 PM EDT.
