Jump to content

Mike@Meonshore

Verified
  • Content Count

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

54 Forum reputation = neutral

About Mike@Meonshore

  • Rank
    Forum regular

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.meonshorestudios.co.uk

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Fareham

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    http://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={909A78CD-DF58-4C96-9348-128EE03FB265}&name=Mike+French
  • Images
    1581
  • Joined Alamy
    01 Mar 2004
  1. Whilst I'm now a Nikon shooter, I have owned much of this kit on Canon, and have in my time had all of them on Nikon. It really depends on your budget. The 50mm is a cheap option, sharp on the 1.8-1.2 versions and realistically under controlled studio conditions and assuming you are not shooting at wider than f1.8 then you'll see little difference between the £80 version and the £1000 version. Bokeh on the f1.4 and f1.2 is smoother due to an increased number of aperture blades. Contrast straight out of camera is better on the f1.2L but given you are in studio conditions and will post-produce not critical. I wouldn't recommend the 90mm TSE as it is too close to your 100mm macro. The 45mm might well be an option. Again more expensive than most of the 50mm primes you can very occasionally pick these up 2nd hand. The TSE can be used as a standard prime by locking it down in a central position, and is normally a very sharp lens, but the benefit you will additionally gain is being able to tilt and shift. Critically placing the plane of focus in the image different to that you get with a standard lens. Very useful to get larger depth of field at a wider aperture (less risk of loss of sharpness due to diffraction), or to creatively highlight the hero aspect of the shot. All TSE lenses are manual focus though..... and tilt/shifting hand-held is a challenging skill. Tripod usage only takes a short while to get used to, but as is typical much harder to become expert at making best use of the technique in your images. You could also get your 24-105 checked for sharpness, and serviced to reduce the issue of zoom creep which you really shouldn't get on this lens - it might indicate worn parts. Certainly Penny De Los Santos is a big fan of the 24-105 for her food images.
  2. What you actually need is the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/courts/patents-court/intellectual-property-enterprise-court-guide.pdf Set up specifically to handle claims of this nature. Small claims court in the UK didn't have specialist IP/copyright experience and is more for pursuing unpaid bills and reparation for poorly executed work etc... There is a small claims track with limited costs. The guide is pretty good, and as Dov stated in his post - no legal representation required.
  3. No problem. I guess it depends what you need from the system. If you need to hold licence details, durations, exclusivity details etc then it isn't ideal but for that I think you'd need a more specific stock photo management solution. The alternative if you are on a Mac is Daylite which I stopped using when I took on Light Blue. You can customise that completely yourself (or pay someone to do it) to absolutely meet your specific needs.
  4. Matt, I use Light Blue. Co-written by a photographer, and with a lot of input form other photographers it is probably more aligned to wedding and portrait shooters although easily services commercial photography, and fine art sales to end consumers. Under continued development and with good support. Hope that helps...
  5. Happy New Year everyone. Here is to a productive, rewarding, and more importantly healthy 2015.
  6. I had this happen a few years back, I went from Cheque to BACS but they had recorded my account details incorrectly and it got paid in a the sweep up tranche in late Jan/Feb, after I checked in with them and corrected it. Might be worth popping an email in, although as we are very close to Christmas it might be worth trying again from 5th Jan. If you successfully claimed then you will get paid. If you didn't hit submit then you'll have to wait until next year now as the money will already have been allocated. You should have an email confirmation from them if your claim was received.
  7. Phillipe, Hopefully by now you'll realise from losdemas' post that this has nothing to do with the number of images you hold in the library. Nor is it explicitly linked to the number of images sold. The categories and bands are critical in determining your payout, and as Regen states the amount per band fluctuates each year depending on the amount of the total pot, expenses of DACS, and most importantly the number of claimants. With each qualifying claimant receiving a minimum of £25 you can easily see that a huge influx of claimants with only 1-2 sales is going to significantly reduce the pot for those in the higher bands. You say that this is business, rather than benefit, but it is business you have not taken the time to understand, and have handed off the responsibility for to a 3rd party. Just as you can't complain if one of your stock images is licenced for $6.14 you can't complain about what you are given by DACS (and then reduced by commission from Alamy). The payback amount comprises of fees gained based on secondary reproduction of already licenced works through photocopying in libraries and other means but calculated at a very high level. It is entirely possible that none of your images were reproduced as part of the payback pot. You have to treat it as a Christmas time bonus - Payback could cease at any point - irrespective of any number of sales you make or have made in the past.
  8. Mine was in on the 4th as well, though that is of course old news now ! Down 10% - was in the same bands as last year. Either a smaller pot, or the impact of all the additional claims.
  9. It has to be standardising keyword entry with IPTC fields. Far easier for us to keyword once in Photo-mechanic or Adobe products PRIOR to upload. Pend or truncate those images with keywords greater than maximum field length.
  10. As with a credit/by-line in a magazine instead of a fee for one of your images - a photograph of a plate of food is pretty useless in terms of publicity unless accompanying an article about the restaurant or the chef.... You might have bought the food but what you are paying for is to eat it. Just like if you pay to go an see Michael Macintyre at one of his shows you pay to go and watch not ruin the show for everyone else by chatting at him while he is doing his routine... (recent UK news story) The restaurant is private land, and the staff have a responsibility to preserve the atmosphere for the other diners. They/he might be concerned you are photographing the arrangement of the food to copy it (much like some stores prevent window displays being photographed, or artists their paintings. That might not be as relevant for a bowl of soup as it is a signature dish - but then you have to set a policy and stick to it. As to the OP - I'd set mine at RM. Less of a difference now than their used to be - but with RM I'm in control of the image (or at least know where it might have been used) and have less restrictions should I choose to sell it myself of via another agency than I would had it gone out RF.
  11. To your original post about crowd funding if you have the balls to put it out there then why not - you can't really lose if all you are doing is asking people to pay for your kit with nothing in return. You'd certainly struggle in any football under DataCo restrictions to be able to use those images at all yourself - so a book or prints isn't an option from it. If you can raise the £3500-4500 for a reasonable condition 400mm f2.8L IS then why not. I think you might be waiting a long time. On the subject of sports photography in general and football in particular then I'd caution your optimism. The market is going one way. Large agencies like Getty, PA and ActionImages (Reuters) who have subscription deals with the paper - yes speed of delivery matters but so does the commercial outlay of using a non-subscription image in preference to one already "paid for". Additionally, and certainly for larger profile leagues, and matches, those guys will either have a runner taking cards and processing images, or direct wifi/ethernet connection back to a picture editor. It is nigh on impossible to beat them to the screen of the papers and technology will drive them even further in-front of the freelancer or smaller agency photographer. Far better to be working lower league with less competition, and yet still a need to publish images from the matches. It might be fun now - but sit in the pouring rain, or the freezing cold, with your £6-10k investment earning you very little per match and the glamour will soon wear off. Especially if you could have done some weather pics for Alamy in the morning, filed them, and are watching the match on Sky Sports 1, with a beer in your hand. FWIW I'm shooting for an agency shooting Premiership and Championship matches, and I'm into my second season of that. My 400mm was a trade up from a 300mm + funds from my business. The 300mm was a lens funded from weddings, portraits and commercial work (weddings excepted still and always likely to be the main income in my business). If I was only shooting football for the agency I'd struggle to justify it - fortunately I shoot some other sports which pay on usage, and some commissioned corporate sports work which satisfied my personal business plan. Keith is 100% right. Sports photography is possibly the genre with the most significant investment required and you need to have thought it through completely as to how you make it pay - otherwise you are like every other sports loving hobbyist who fancies a crack at photographing something they like to watch. Sorry if that sounds harsh but it is reality.
  12. There seems to be a wee underground trade in equipment going between photogs, heard there was a 400 2.8 going for a grand. That's quite a saving. Great wildlife lens too. Keep my ears open when I have the cash earned the right way I think I doubt that is underground trade - you'll probably find that the 400 2.8 in question is a first generation, non-IS version with a fair amount of use. IS is less of an issue in sports as you'll typically be using it on a monopod and aiming for shutter speeds of 1/800th or higher - certainly for football (appreciate motorsport freezing action you might be higher) - but the real problem with that generation of lens is that it is no longer supported by Canon and you'll struggle to have it repaired if anything were to break. It might be a steal and last for another 10 years, but it might be a grand flushed if it were to break down in any mechanically or optically.
  13. From the P1 Superstock series an AquaX jet bike during one of the races. Panned at about 1/80th with a 400mm.
  14. Paul a moot point - and it may of course have been deliberate but your "models" are holding the Union Flag upside down. Used to indicate "distress" - hence why it may have been intended or indadvertedly appropriate ;-) It is also "lese Majeste" (which means: insulting the Crown), and is theoretically still a crime in the UK.
  15. Yes I use cloud storage from Apple and Dropbox (for transfers to clients). But I have no nude selfies stored on them (I have no nude selfies....) I wouldn't put unencrypted personal information on them, but I'm happy to use them to move basic documents around and use Dropbox for image delivery for clients. I'm inclined to believe that the hacker was targeting celebs, and not just randomly hacking cloud storage.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.