kmgibbs

I'm no expert but it seems to me that 'being known' has very little to do with success in the stock field. I believe having the image a buyer needs at that moment trumps name recognition. Am I wrong?

Justin,

 

Thanks for the info. Very interesting!

Thanks for the info Mikael.

Disclaimer 1st. I am very new to the area of stock photography so if I am wrong

please enlighten me.

 

First Question: Is it just me? It seems like many of the images that are placed

on the stock websites (microstock and agency) by photographers are grab

snapshots? Having perused many of the RM and RF images on some of these there

doesn't seem to be much thought or work put into the creation of the images.

 

Second Question: In your opinion, would putting my images on these sites tend

to drag them down in the eyes of photo buyers.

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

Kent

I have to agree with James. Music and cutesy sound effects will make me hit the 'back' button faster than anything else.

I realize I am wading into this debate late, but on the off chance that Adobe is actually listening, here goes....They really need to put this application on a diet. I would like to see Adobe break this bloatware up into a basic app and then offer plugin modules that users could purchase based on the type and level of functions they need. This all or nothing junk sucks.

 

Kent

I am going to go out on a limb here. Street photography to my thinking does not require people but typically it does include an element of humanity. What I mean by this is that the evidence of humanity in the scene may not be explicit but is almost always implicit even in the absence of people through how the scene is composed and portrayed as well as the 'sign', ie. tracks that people leave in their wake.

 

 

The Hell's Kitchen photograph is a perfect example of what I am trying to convey.

 

Just my opinion.

 

Kent

I had a problem with them sending me to collections for a subscription that I DID NOT renew. Ended up just paying it after fighting with them and swore I would never subscribe or purchase another issue from them. Every issue ended up in the recycle bin the minute it arrived. THEY SUCK!!!

Lithium batteries do not tolerate complete discharge. Buy a new one and remove it from the camera before storing.

"until digital cameras can capture way more bits JPEG *IS* the standard now, NOT RAW"

 

You are correct in this statement as far as you go. Tiff is also a standard and can have zero compression.

 

I understand that a new standard for JPEG has been developed, JPEG 2000. This begs the question of the lifespan of 'standard jpegs' should the software people decide to support JPEG 2000 in addition to or instead of the 'standard jpegs'. Unless I am mistaken, TIFF has been a DTP standard much longer than jpeg has been around. Heck, haven't GIF's been around longer than jpegs?

 

So, in reality, there is no 'standard' and won't ever be. Technology marches on and the best we can hope for is to stay on top of the compatibility curve or shoot film and use the latest whizz bang do everthing scanner to rescan as needed.

 

I love digital, but looking for a 'standard' is like hoping that Mac's and PC's will one day work together. Not going to happen. Profit and profit only drives this technology!

 

My opinion.

 

Kent

Aesthetics is highly subjective but here are the things I look for in a photograph:

 

What is the subject of the photograph and is it clear what the subject of the photograph is suppose to be? What is my eye immediately drawn to?

 

Are there things in the photo that distract from the subject?

 

Then I will look at the lighting and decide if I think it works for this photo.

 

I will look for any framing devices or leading lines.

 

Sometimes I will squint at the photo to see it more as shapes, forms and colors.

 

Is the subject in focus?

 

Does the depth of field help or hurt the image?

 

Are there things that could have been left out that don't necessarily distract from the subject.

 

Do I have an emotional response to the image? What is it?

 

And last but not least, do I wish that I had been able to make the photo?

 

I don't know if this explains what aesthetics is, but the more of these that a photo has, more likely it is to get a 7 rating from me.

The website says the focussing range is 75mm to 360mm. So which is correct?

 

http://www.badgergraphic.com/search_product2.asp?x=3742