What I can't get my head around or understand is this, I uploaded an image of the statue Johann Struss in Stadpark, Vienna with details of when it was placed there in the public park 1921 and when the original artist died 1935 etc.. and after it was rejected I inquired as to why no resubmit and was told.


"Thank you for your message and sorry for the late reply. A property release from the estate of the original artist of the works would be required for this file to be re-considered."


This was in dec 2008 I uploaded the image and there was already images on istock of the statue at this time and there are more images uploaded accepted by other contributers in the past couple of months. I am contacting those people to ask if they submitted a property release but my guess is they didn't.


If so I think it is all a complete farse by Istock and it leaves me dissapointed in them and their repsonse.

Great interview, covered a lot of aspects of iStock. Your explanation of how iStock works was put a lot better than mine normally is when people ask. Good interviewer too.

Hi Guys,


I was just wondering about iStock's plans for marketing iStock_Audio. I subscribe to a few creative magazines and the photo side is always being advertised and promoted (free stock photos etc) and it got me thinking . . . is iStock planning something for us audio contributors? :) Can you give us the heads up?


Cheers


Zofia

I have not worked with HDV footage yet, but had similar issues with FCE in the beginning, and tried the various codecs through QT Conversion until I decided on the H264 for the best balance of size and quality. Maybe try the following: instead of exporting through QT conversion, open the clip in your left viewer, and don't drag it onto the timeline. Set in and out-points, and export as Quicktime (uncompressed). Do the same with QT conversion, and use the H.264 codec, quality set to 95%. Check what the difference in file size and quality is.


If you can get hold of FCPro Studio, do so, and use Compressor in Studio. There are quite a few setups or templates for conversions, which seem to be far more sophisticated than QT Conversion. I used QT Conversion to convert PAL to NTSC in the beginning, but the quality is not good. Now I use Compressor for it, and struggle to see the difference. Maybe this is the route to go for you.

I really look forward to Snow Leopard update!

It's been done before =)


I haven't gotten anything in though, all rejected cause of their super strict model release check. One of my sets got rejected for not providing a identification picture on the MR when it clearly says optional in the box. Another I didn't provide a shoot location when it was clearly a studio shot.


It took about 1 month to get review and rejected. After that I just went ahead and uploaded my rejected MR images to istock.


I think I'lll try Getty again when I reach my next goal of $1500 a month in istock.

Yeah, it seems to take up to 3-5 days at the moment even for exclusive images. Might be a side-effect of the iStockalypse in Istanbul right now and I hope it will improve again later next week...


And I know the "I've seen too much" feeling right now. I soooo feel in the mood to shot some more this week. But I said to myself that I will not set up any new shoots until I have at least the mass of images processed that I shot during the last three months.


I think I'm getting close to it with my Florida images (68 approved, 9 more in the queue, I think I will get maybe 15-20 more out of it). I hope I'll finish those next week. And then I have to move on to the pics I shot in Canada in August and two shoots I had here in June and September. :-)

with these bugs running around I just suspected lots of people were sick :(

here in far northeast Tarrant county you'll often find a cowboy Christmas--chili-pepper lights, rope & barbed wire wreaths...

i was bored waiting for a page to load for something I was working on and I, in a moment of shameless curiosity, googled my name, and because they gave credit, the search engine found it. really really neat to see how someone used the file!

go electronicchild you can win the battle

Hey fritz where are ya ? :)

Maybe one of these:

I'm a professional musician, I know what I'm listening for, and I most certainly can tell the difference between a master and an MP3 - pass the blindfold!

Ich sage nicht, dass es "sollte". Es gibt aber Leute, die das behaupten... ich weiss ja auch nicht mehr als ihr über Best Match & Co. :-)



Klar doch. Theoretisch. Im Prinzip. Jaja, ich weiss das.


Es macht sich nur gerade etwas Frust breit, weil nach jeder besseren Woche gleich wieder eine Ernüchterung folgt. Bis jetzt läuft das ganze Jahr bei mir abwärts und ich warte halt darauf, dass endlich mal eine Trendwende kommt.


Ausserdem ist das hier doch der Jammer-Thread, muss denn alles hier total realistisch sein? ;-)

If the 8 bit makes the difference why does the JPEG I uploaded also look different in LR2 and PS CS2?


The images I posted before where all from the same RAW file.


This is an enlargement from the uploaded JPEG as seen in Lightroom 2 and [http://a5.vox.com/6a00f48cdc0ecb00030123ddba38c5860b-pi]this is the same blow-up as seen on PS CS4. Again the PS image is lighter and the posterization is visible while it is not in Lightroom.

Oh, thanks for the taxonomy! Yes, it's a delicacy in some cultures, so I thought *maybe* this might get a download now and then.


Thanks to all for the help!

All interesting stuff but I think people have drifted from the origonal post by Jung Kang. Lots of things introduce noise/effect noise levels but his question is very specific he wants to know how "shutter speed" is effecting noise level. :)


Please share how shutter speed is effecting noise lavel.

Hi everyone,


My interpretation and first entry for the challange:


It is like jungle out there - or at least I feel this way every time we go shopping with the kid :-)

I think it's a browser issue. I'd try another :)

It al depends on how much you want to spend. For example Calumet have the following:


http://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/item/999-522K/


As long as you stay with UHF you should be Ok - but avoid VHF - there are too many things that interfere with it.


Another thing to consider is a good shotgun microphone that you can point at the speaker but is wired directly to your camera.

try using one only flash

Photomatix isn't free.

Got it, thanks Glenn!