Jump to content

Bill Kuta

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bill Kuta

  1. 9 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

    Bill, your comments made me wonder. My stock is exclusive to Alamy. Although I have some images on FAA, I've not had a sale there in ages. My collection's subject matter does not lend itself to on-the-wall pics. But . . . can I sell an image for personal use there that I have on Alamy. ???


    Edo, this is from the sticky topic "The importance of being accurate when marking images as exclusive to Alamy": 


    You can sell your images on a personal print site (without a stock licencing option) and still mark these as exclusive to Alamy. Selling prints and stock licences on your own website is also fine.


    Although FAA does have a stock licensing option (do they still?), I take the above to mean that if I am opted out of the stock licensing on FAA, I can have images there and still have those images exclusive on Alamy.  That's what I'm doing.


    And yeah, my sales on FAA have historically been pretty slow and minimal, but they seem to be taking off a little this year, through no new action of my own.

  2. I got into stock photography as a retirement avocation--started planning and gearing up in the late 1990's. What appealed (and still does) is the chance to make a little money (although "little" is becoming a bigger factor) while shooting photos, which I have been enjoying since the 1960's, with a large degree of freedom. I'm still enjoying the whole stockosphere, including this forum.


    Along the way, I got to experience submitting slides, then digitizing slides, then the digital epiphany. Tried a variety of stock sites, most of which have disappeared. Alamy is the last one standing for me. 


    Have never really done assignments or news. 


    Apparently I too put some art into some of my stock photos, since the 15% of my stock that I put on FAA have made more than my Alamy portfolio this year (am having a down year here).

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  3. I was going to reflexively say that the big time consumer is captioning/keywording and the internet research that goes into it. But after rethinking it, I'd say it's a toss-up between that and all the culling/post-processing that precedes it.


    But it depends on the shoot. If it's a case of my being rushed, or in an unfamiliar place with a lot of detail, then the research and keywording definitely takes the most time. For me, the best example was being on a tour in Jerusalem. So many things to discover online, a few feet from where you were.


    As to why it's more complicated and time-consuming than back in the day: the ascendancy of the middleman/aggregator/web purveyor has thrown a lot of these functions onto the image producer. At the same time, the greater ease and efficiency of using digital equipment has lowered the bar to entry into this business, which only reinforces control by those with the biggest piles of images to sell.

  4. B&H has the a6000 body only now for $448. I have the a6000 and a6300. I don't see that any of the subsequent models were that big of an improvement, unless you wanted the in-body stabilization of the a6500. Heck, I'm still using my NEX-6 with kit 16-50mm--my recent non-archive shots were all taken with it. Just too handy a size.

  5. I've been wondering why Sigma stopped making the aps-c 60mm ART lens, which has been one of the sharpest e-mount lenses on photozone. I have it and it is very sharp, currently doing service digitizing old 6cm slides. It wouldn't necessarily have competed with the new 56mm--the 60mm cost less but was f2.8, neither is stabilized.

  6. For 35mm slides, I've been wiping with a lens cloth, then with a lens brush, then a blower. Shooting with an APS-C Canon SL1, extension tube, 50mm macro, spacer ring, and ES-1, shooting into a florescent studio light.


    For 120-size (6x6 cm) slides, I'm shooting with an APS-C Sony a3000 (great use for this odd model), extension tube, Sigma 60mm ART lens, and lightbox on a little copy stand. If the slide (all family shots from the 40's - 60's) is in a glass and metal mount, I remove it from the mount, wipe it with a PEC pad and 99% isopropyl, put it on the lightbox and cover (flatten) it with a piece of glass. Then I put it back in the mount. If it's in glass taped together with black tape, I don't disassemble that but wipe the glass and put it on the lightbox. 


    Both setups allow me to do a zoom focus using the lcd.


    I'll be doing test shots for both scenarios regarding apertures. The setup for the 120 slides assures flatness.

  7. I've shot about 3-400 slides, and am generally pleased with the results, but today I'm wondering what is the optimal aperture and why. A search of the forum topic we're in shows recommendations of 6.3 to 11. Googling on the internet doesn't show many specific recommendations, mostly f8 or 11.


    But one link was from someone shooting at f4.5 (full-frame) who claims that it makes the dust/scratches very out of focus. I'm skeptical of this. But I'm going to try some test shots with a variety of apertures.


    I realize the optimal aperture depends on whether you're shooting full-frame or APS-C. (I'm APS-C, and mostly shooting old family shots, but also some Alamy archival.)


    Edit:  I guess I'm mostly questioning why we need a lot of depth of field. Slides are flat. Maybe we want the shallowest depth of field that still has edge-to-edge sharpness.

  8. Ed, what I've been carrying for 2-3 years now is a bag with a6000/10-18mm, and a6300/18-105mm.


    The 18-105mm is a G lens, f4, with internal focus and zoom. Been working fine for Alamy purposes. It's $650 at most places; I see Walmart, of all places, has a few for $570.


    Downsides of the 18-105 are: it's zoom-by-wire, which doesn't bother me; and if it's idle for a few minutes, it reverts to widest-angle, which I find annoying.

  • 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.