Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

Yeah, just as I joined up with one image library the whole stock thing went to hell. I ended up just leaving what I had on there in the hope that something sells, I checked back recently and found that I made a sale of a massive $4 (they don't pay out until you've sold $250+). It's just the luck of the draw, the same image library has sold single images for $30,000+. The thing that put me off more than anything was keywording everything, it's a surprisingly difficult and hard task to do effectively.
 
Dr_Q said:
The thing that put me off more than anything was keywording everything, it's a surprisingly difficult and hard task to do effectively.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's something I didn't think about. I guess if I were uploading very similar content it might be streamlinable, but it sounds like a pain.
 
I'll keep you all updated on how it goes. My situation is I have a reasonable back catalogue of images that are doing nothing and have the potential to work as stock. I have nothing to lose here, and I can now start deliberately taking stock photos instead of snapshots. Of course my job is completely unrelated so my time to devote to stock is limited.

Yes keywording is a pain in the ass. I'm finding that searching for a similar image and nicking the keywords from that is helping though, there are some very obscure keywords that seem to work well.
 
Image libraries are weird, if you take an absolutely epic photograph it could get rejected for softness, noise, interpolation artefacts or all of the above (they check at 100%). By the same merit you can take a picture of a plank of wood that is absolutely dull as anything and it will sail past "quality control". The people that make money from these libraries dedicate literally all of their time shooting specifically for stock, even very well regarded landscape photographers can no longer make more than about 10% from stock wheras the figure was more like 60% only a few years ago.
 
Last edited:
You know how great it is to be in the right place at the right time? Well, it feels exactly inverse to be in the right place at the wrong time.

I'm out shooting the sunset in a farmers field and, two fields over, I see a crop dusting plane. Now, these things get very close to the ground and, after each pass, they just barely clear the hydro wires. It's awesome.

Since I'm out on my bike and pretty close to home, I figure I'll pedal back, get in my car and go. I get out there, the sun is just setting. I'm envisioning an epic shot of the sunlight glistening off the metal body of the aircraft as it soars mere feet over the telephone poles. Then, just as I'm pulling to halt to park and get out with my camera, the plane finishes it's last pass and flies back to the airport.

DANG IT!!!

:(
 
Dr_Q said:
Image libraries are weird, if you take an absolutely epic photograph it could get rejected for softness, noise, interpolation artefacts or all of the above (they check at 100%). By the same merit you can take a picture of a plank of wood that is absolutely dull as anything and it will sail past "quality control"..
Click to expand...

A picture of a plank of wood is more useful then an epic landscape.
 
epp_b said:
A Ford F-150 is more useful than a Ferrari F50. Which would you rather have? ;)
Click to expand...

That is a bad analogy. A F50 has uses an F-150 does not have, an epic landscape's only real use is to look good, with a technically brilliant photo of a plank of wood, I can use it to make textures and etc. An epic landscape is a piece of art, a picture of a plank of wood is a resoruce.
 
epp_b said:
A Ford F-150 is more useful than a Ferrari F50. Which would you rather have? ;)
Click to expand...

That's actually a really good analogy. Everyday, useful cars make incredibly more profit than exotic sports cars, despite being far less interesting and selling for a lot less, but for a newcomer to the market, it's easier to sell a few exotic sports cars (see: the hundreds of small sports car manufacturers) than to make real money selling practical ones. :think:
 
epp_b said:
Exactly how is an F50 not a work of art? :D
Click to expand...

you <---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> the point

you're missing it :p
 
So, I think I'm going to pick up a Nikon Coolpix eithe S6000 or S8000. What do you think? are there any obvious red flags? I have a friend who works for dpreview.com testing cameras, but it's a bit below the range they normally review. :p

I know 14mp is excessive for a camera with a CCD this small (and infact, it's photos would probably look even better with a lower res, plus it's performance would probably be faster), but I LOVE the huge zoom in such a small camera.

My main goal is a slim camera, though. I'm not really a photographer, so if the camera isn't slim enough to fit into a pocket, I simply won't bring it anywhere.

Also...is it douchey to get a camera in a color? The panasonic lumix dmc zr1 looks nice, and I can get it in red for a bit cheaper, but I'm not sure it'd work as well with an eye-fi card, which I'm looking to get. Seems Nikon is a bit more agile when it comes to updating firmware to add compatibility/features.
 
Last edited:
Meh... I really don't care much for compact cameras. They're pretty much all the same in terms of what sort of pictures you'll be able get out of them. But, hey, if it comes down to fitting in your pocket as a requirement, then, by all means, get a P&S.
 
In the past, I've had film SLRs, and larger digital cameras along with a couple "pocket" sized, but the ones that traveled with me the most were the ones that didn't require me to carry a bag, or something. If I didn't have to plan ahead about having to leave it in someone's car, or I might run the risk of accidentally leaving it somewhere if I have to put it down somewhere...no worries if it's just in my pocket.

While practicality trumps overall image quality (I'll mostly be viewing these on the computer, anyway...) I still want to try and find one that performs well, even if it has to have the caveat "...for its size/class." But a large zoom (at least 6x) is a must.
 
Last edited:
I don't rate Nikon P&S cameras, my mum bought one some time ago and has had nothing but trouble with it. My sister's (albeit more recent) Canon Ixus was a lot friendlier to use and as far as I'm aware still works fine. Having said that, review sites will have a much more informed opinion, all I know about compacts is to look for optical zoom.
 
Dr_Q said:
all I know about compacts is to look for optical zoom.
Click to expand...

*laughs* we're in about the same boat. :p

Maybe there's more basic questions that might be more easily answered...

What are the types of batteries that this type of camera typically takes, and what are the drawbacks? For instance, the two Nikons I am looking at both use a Lithion Icon rechargeable battery that can be charged in the camera, and some others use AAs, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top