michaelrussell

<p>I have routinely used Google Reverse Images Search along with Tineye and Yandex. Tineye and Yandex rarely find anything useful for me, where Google Images finds many many results (that are not my own website). Tineye is better than Yandex, but it doesn't keep its results current so images that were gone from the internet 2 years ago are still listed. While I tend to recommend all 3, Google is the King for reverse image search. Use a browser extension to make this a simple right click vs. uploading directly.</p>

<p>I usually start with an average between the same license priced out on getty images, corbis etc, but I only sell rights managed licenses myself. That will give you both a feel for the pricing out there and the terminology/information required to properly price such a license. Good luck! :)</p>

<p>Pricing is always tricky. One way to get an idea both about licensing terms and pricing is to go and price some photos yourself. You can give this a shot on stock agencies such as alamy.com, gettyimages.com, corbisimages.com/ etc. I agree with the others that have said $50 is pretty low, and again that a credit under your photo will not likely lead to more sales for this as a print.</p>

<p>If you are still working on this google facebook timeline template or something along those lines and you'll probably find a sample image that shows the location of your portrait etc. This helped me setup my timeline image.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But is <em>one</em> mouse click away ... and in the meantime, you aren't burning up the bandwidth and taking on the latency and caching chores surrounding loading the page whether you want it or not. One mouse click!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right - but will people make that extra click to see it? I will, because I'm often interested in the data associated with a photograph, but I am not sure that most searchers are. </p>

<p>I have also experienced a drop in visitors since this was implemented - about 40%. I don't mind their new design so much - but not showing the underlying website at all does not seem appropriate - though there are more links to it now. Does anyone know if the old "preview" of the site was showing as a hit result in peoples stats? If it did - we are probably not missing out on much. If the hits I am missing are people who were actually clicking to see the rest of the page because they could see it - that is a big deal for me. <br /><br />As a search user it also winds up being an inferior search to what we had before - I often wanted to see the other related content from the source page along with the photo in the results.</p>

<p>I too would rather own this than the 100-400 (as I already own a 70-200)... but I wonder about having the TC permanently attached. Yes, you can switch it off but having it attached means you will always have that weight as well.</p>

<p>I have had a 50 1.4 for a few years and it has always given me sharp photos. :) I have no personal experience with it but the f/1.8 version is said to be almost as sharp and is a lot cheaper. I went for the 1.4 due to the better build quality though.</p>

<p>I cannot comment on the merits of a 4 section gitzo but I did purchase a GT2531 earlier this year with the RRS BH-40 head and I love the combination. Just make sure you are able to handle those cameras/lenses on the BH-40 though. If you email RRS and suggest your potential setup they are quick to respond with advice in terms of the suitability of that head vs. the BH-55.</p>

<p>I live near Vancouver and I think for the skyline you are asking about Stanley Park is likely the best place. Many of the other areas mentioned above are great too - but for what I think of when I consider a noticeably Vancouver skyline - Stanley Park offers that angle. The new Trade and Convention Center is easily photographed from there as well.</p>

<p>http://photoblog.mrussellphotography.com/?p=1415</p>

<p>I also like heading to the north side of the park and photographing North Vancouver and the Lions Gate Bridge.</p>

<p>As others have said, your choice has a lot to do with the kind of macro you want to do. I own a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 macro and love it. My friend owns the EF-S 60mm version and loves his too. I tend to shoot a lot of flower parts and insects out in the backyard while he is shooting the family's collection of crystal and other inanimate objects. I would never want to give up the added working distance between me and skittish insects given by the 100. There is also a new IS/L version of the 100 macro out, depending on your budget. </p>