Jump to content

wiskerke

Verified+
  • Content Count

    4,618
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,651 Forum reputation = excellent

2 Followers

About wiskerke

  • Rank
    Forum regular

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Haarlem - The Netherlands

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    https://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={FFC98980-6AD9-430F-B9D5-52E863CFA153}&name=wim+wiskerke
  • Images
    2571
  • Joined Alamy
    11 Jan 2004

Recent Profile Visitors

7,063 profile views
  1. Mine are smaller and thicker material, but that's because I have only used them on my strobes. (To copy artwork behind glass in museums.) I have a sheet peeled off from a display screen somewhere, which polarizes, but I've not tried it yet. That would be a free diy solution. All lcd screens seem to have them. I've just checked: I have one peeled off, but one still glued to the plastic sheet and that's much easier to use. Because it's in front of your light the optical problems with the lcd layer still in place don't matter much. I had expected it to work as a polarizer also. (I've not done any research on those. Just looked at them and had a light bulb moment a while back.) Anyway: the bigger the lights (like the Kaiser strip lights that Krugh uses) the bigger the polarizer films, because you will have to be able to turn them a bit to get the best result. At a 90 degree angle to the one on your lens. If you're in a dark studio, the ones on your lights will be the reference and they can be small: 2 from 1 Lee sheet. But when you're in a well lit museum, no such thing: your lens filter will be the reference. The usual color cast of polariser sheets are no problem anymore with digital, as long as you use the same material on both lights. Which gives a Lee filter the advantage. wim
  2. Finally. Shot in the days of the referendum. Wondering in which campaign this will turn up. 😁 Commercial electronic, Websites, apps, social media and blogs (excludes advertising). Worldwide for 5 years. One cent under $$ 🙄 wim
  3. I'm busy right now doing the same thing. Just they will not go on Alamy and my originals are only about A4. I about manage with my 55mm on a smallish old enlarger stand. My lights are these 20W Led work lights on the small Manfrotto Nano stands. For 2x £9.94 for the lights one cannot go wrong. Anything can be a light stand of course, I just happen to have loads of different stands. My lights are 80cm left and right from the heart of the image. Aimed at the other side =old process camera trick - they usually had 4 lights aimed at the opposite corners. It's best to have them slightly higher than the camera front lens. Otherwise you'll almost always need to block the lights. Another concern is reflecting light from the ceiling which will cast the shadow of the camera on your artwork. If the surface is just a little shiny, your camera's reflection may show up in your image. Blocking the lights is usually not that difficult though and one or two pieces of black cardboard and or some black curtain will do the trick if need be. If everything else fails, a polariser may be needed or even one in combination with polariser filter sheets in front of the lights. Getting the camera and artwork lined up parallel, another trick from those days comes in hand, involving 2 pieces of mirror. In my case 2 Ikea mirror tiles. One needs a small patch of the back scratched off. 5-7 mm exactly in the middle is best, because it makes it easier to see, but about everything will work. A nice round patch is achieved by taping a 5 to 7mm washer to the back of the mirror and scraping away the part that's exposed with a needle or a small knife like an exacto or surgical blade. When the camera is aiming down and the artwork is beneath, the untouched mirror goes on the ground board where the artwork will be, while the one with the see-through hole goes face down against the lens. Hold it in place with a couple of rubber bands on each side and shift it around till the hole is in the middle of the lens. now look through the viewfinder or at the screen. You will see a sort of tunnel veering away in one direction. Adjust the camera until the tunnel is completely straight and the small black dot (being that hole) is in the middle. Maybe try it without a camera first. It also makes for a nice teachers trick. 😉 Before you buy a copy stand or start hacking away at an old enlarger, make sure your lens will cover the artwork without much distortion. Which usually excludes most if not all wide angle lenses. For FF 50mm is about as short as one can get. Longer is usually better, but your working distance may become too long. For smaller work, the problem is usually how to get stuff in focus. Unless you happen to have a macro lens of course, or some macro tubes. Old enlarger lenses, even good APO ones cost very little and fit most dslrs and certainly mirrorless cameras with a focusing helicoid adapter. If you have some time, watch Peter Krogh (of the DAM book) do all of this in front of an audience. His aligning method is a little less precise. But pay attention when he speaks about taped down guides to align the artwork when you have to do several (or a lot) of the same size: Another one of those old tricks from the graphics department 😉. He shows how the polarisers work as well. Which may be useful if you need a glass plate to flatten those wavy photos. Or even a book copying easel. Or Buchwippe in German - ah I wish I had one. Here's a modern one - only 6000,- I believe. You could also experiment with keeping them flattened in a press or under a pile of books for a while. A flat dry mount press would be nice. (Never go warmer than 50C though.) I had one. They were expensive then and even more so now. As a coincidence it's current owner died very recently and we're trying to find a place for it where it will be somewhat accessible for students. It weighs a ton btw. wim
  4. You mean you did not put this portfolio on Alamy, but an agency did that? Or is leonello calvetti 1,440 images your own portfolio and there's an agency that sells the same images, but under a different name or pseudonym? wim
  5. No idea. I had a very specific reason this weekend, but no. Normally I'm in favor of keeping the old one up with a link to the new one. This has saved some sales for me in the past: clients actually liking the old one better or it had been in the pipeline for a long time. wim
  6. Not sure they're still willing do that. wim
  7. 42 for 1603 Which now is a very good month: best of the year. But it used to be just a good month. Monthly average $$ so far over 2019 vs 2018: -18.7% Monthly average amount of images sold (licensed): -4.6% wim
  8. At present - no idea. Historically all got lost: ranking was done at pseudo level. Now we have some sort of ranking at image level. If you have more than one pseudo, it's very easy to do a test: move an image from one pseudo to another and back again. Do wait until the database has been updated before each next step. Maybe do this with an image with many sales and one without. wim
  9. You cannot delete a pseudonym with images in it. wim
  10. I had five of those, all from/to Japan. All the same image. However the total of the last sales is significantly higher than the initial sales. So I'm not complaining. A simple search on this forum for refunds brings up 15 pages @25 with questions, outbursts and answers. Just refund: 26 pages. If one adds reason or why or Alamy, the list gets shorter. Don't forget to check the box All of my search term words in the +More search options tab. Is there a good answer? Yes many even. The most important one: we see those sales and refunds because the reporting is done almost real time. If you get upset, just don't look. wim edit: and guilty as charged, I'm in those threads quite often 😂😳
  11. May I suggest a wifi analyzing app on you macbook and going around the apartment/hotel to find the best place to sit? Could be the hallway or the entrance. It may look less weird if you use a phone to scout out the location though. (This is what I do, using wifi analyzer, but it's android.) https://www.netspotapp.com/best-apps-to-measure-wifi-signal-strength-windows.html is mac. You may even discover the device this way, in which case you could try the cable. Usually no need for a password that way. 😉 (The $1 cable -1 pound of course in your case- at Poundland at one point was a 15 meter Belkin cable 😁) Others have already suggested doing a speed test like from ookla: https://www.speedtest.net/ Always a good start. wim
  12. At 2087px (25%) it looks like it may have a chance. However that's far below the size limit for Alamy. S*o would probably accept it, but only if shot submitted with an iPhone. wim edit: sorry, I quoted the wrong image there. I meant to say the cabbage image needing resizing to 2087px. Your bluebells would just need some careful sharpening to counter the diffraction at f20. Yes, I just read that you believe diffraction is a fallacy, or in any case adhere to that notion. Let's not go there, other then saying the original (2013) article doesn't prove it's a fallacy, but only says it is, while showing the opposite. It does however come to the right conclusion that one can counter it's effects somewhat. And even indicates one must possess some editing skills to do so believably.
  13. Maybe try a $1 network cable first to see if that brings a solution. Lots cheaper. You do need access to the modem or the router though. Poundland maybe? wim
  14. 5 weird sales/refunds here as well. Positive outcome so far though. Quite a lot of sales otherwise too. $ - $$$. David, glad to see you back. Really sorry to hear of your loss, my condolences. wim
×
×
  • 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.