Jump to content

David Kilpatrick

Verified
  • Content Count

    506
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David Kilpatrick

  1. Robert - and everyone really - I know why I don't have higher sales and it's very easy - I spend 6 days a week indoors behind a desk and maybe get out to take pictures for two hours or so every week at the most, and even then usually just in passing. Perhaps one semi-photographic trip out every month and maybe two or three specific photo ventures - like actually visiting a spot I want to photograph - each year. All the rest is four to five weeks of travel, and it can take me six months before I finally process and keyword each trip because magazine deadlines occupy me full time, and involve plenty of processing other people's images, and it gets very tiring. I have an entire 84-page annual to edit next week when I'm away in Gran Canaria, and over half the images will need to have their (stoopid...) matte border surroundings cropped off because I will not reproduce these. Some four to five hundred images to check in detail, trim, and not one of them mine... This is my work and I make money from it so I should not complain, but for stock, the effect is to greatly reduce the range of places and subjects I cover. I have never even visited most places in Scotland in 26 years living here - never climbed a single mountain, never walked a coast path, never visited many towns or cities. Last week I had to spend 48 hours in Cologne so once again, as every two years, I get a dozen pictures of the same place. The key to really good sales is never visit the same place twice, take as many subjects as you can, Unless of course you live in Aberystwyth :-) in which case you can sit it out and let the world come to you...
  2. Well, it's taken me 12 years, but yesterday we clicked past the 1000 mark in total sales (now standing at 1002). Currently seeing most licences at a respectable not trivial rate (no more $9 etc) and also some worthwhile 'repeats' even though the original licences seemed to be for ever without restrictions! David
  3. Actually, the original raw files do go up to 24MB perfectly - the lens was one of the best ever made, and remains hard to match, they didn't need to change it for the A1, A2, A200 either. I have a few Dimage 5 files, only from raw, which were even smaller and a couple of those have sold. Regrettably I only shot a dozen or two raw files in the entire time I had that camera as they took 30 seconds to save - the JPEGs I took look good but are of no use for Alamy or any other library. David
  4. No, Alan, it was a (zoo)m - not, as these were the wild Gib apes, which may be the property of the Crown or something, but fair game for RF which this has been from the start back before I knew the reasons to pick RF or L. Oddly enough these older RF images have often secured very decent fees despite being small files. David
  5. Not been able to access measures for several days - always get this - Server Error in '/alamysearchhistory' Application. Runtime Error Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine. Details: To enable the details of this specific error message to be viewable on remote machines, please create a <customErrors> tag within a "web.config" configuration file located in the root directory of the current web application. This <customErrors> tag should then have its "mode" attribute set to "Off". <!-- Web.Config Configuration File --><configuration> <system.web> <customErrors mode="Off"/> </system.web></configuration> Notes: The current error page you are seeing can be replaced by a custom error page by modifying the "defaultRedirect" attribute of the application's <customErrors> configuration tag to point to a custom error page URL. <!-- Web.Config Configuration File --><configuration> <system.web> <customErrors mode="RemoteOnly" defaultRedirect="mycustompage.htm"/> </system.web></configuration>
  6. The 16-50mm was only an extra £50 over the body cost of a NEX-6 back at The Photography Show so I bought it. Excellent little lens. Sold my 16mm f/2.8 and passed the converters over to our daughter, as she has a 16mm, as with the 16-50mm and the 10-18mm nothing else was needed. David
  7. From the first batch of images I uploaded to Alamy, in 2002, a $152 sale today. From a Dimage 7 5 megapixel camera, image not culled or updated. David
  8. Checkthe field curvature wide open, f/4 and 16mm on a landscape. Let me know if you get anything like sharp edges/corners. My test sample definitely did not have.
  9. Just over $1500 which makes it a good month for me (love to go back to the over-$2000 and 60% payout days though). August so far zilch. Maybe they are on holiday.
  10. Thanks SShep for listing the Observer 10 Best Windows (in print?) - including one of those examples of minimal work - Since this is what I see if I rotate my office chair away from the computer and look behind me! Other Alamy pictures also used, and credited to Alamy on The Guardian web page created from this Observer article - all the pix seem to be here as well http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/jul/25/the-10-best-windows David
  11. You need to know the actual focal length of a lens for various reasons, but not all that often if you're a beginner. It would make more sense to mark lenses with their angle of view, say 30°-75° or whatever, but since that has never been done in the past it's too much of a departure. Makers of cameras with very small sensors do sometimes put both the actual, and the 35mm format equivalent, either on the lens or in the instructions. That's because focal lengths like 5.7mm or 8.8mm are really not very easily translated. David
  12. As if to emphasize the point, the very next sale I've made is from a 2002 Dimage 7 shot uploaded as 'archival' in 2010 - $133 for an image captioned, and clearly identified, as recording the food shortages caused by the winter freeze of 2002 in Scotland.
  13. Interesting response. I have occasionally used the description or even the caption field to mark out extremely large files or images with exceptional resolution, but never to note that an image may be softer than today's standards. That is a good idea as is it ethical. In the case of my shot, t featured a really good blue sky and this was something the early Foveon sensors did superbly (especially compared to Nikon) - the image was much better for colour (shot at ISO 100) than typical digital files of that date. And it's probably the colour which attracted them as i have many later examples of the same subject (duplicates? not exactly, but similars separated by several years, certainly).
  14. In 2006, when Alamy insisted on upscaling DSLR images when were then (almost) all below 17 megapixels up to 17 megapixel size, I filed a 2004 shot taken on a camera which was permitted then but now is not - Sigma SD9 or 10. I had a good number of sales and the 5000 pixel+ images looked just a touch softer than 6 megapixel DSLR shots on Bayer sensors treated the same way. Yesterday I made a $400 travel brochure cover sale from one of these and decided to look at the image, as I was curious to see if I remembered the origin of it correctly - and I had considered, last year, trying to locate the shoots on this and several other early 2002-2004 camera choices. My standards today are so high I expect to see pin-sharp detail at pixel level. Boy, was/is this image different. I know it will reproduce perfectly well on an A4 cover, as repro and print are my business in effect and I'm aware of the potential for quite soft large files to look perfect when correctly handled. But I am a little worried about what the client may think if Alamy provides the full size file from these early images - pretty much all my output from 2002 to mid 2006 being sub-10 megapixel. Then again I do not want to remove images when sales like this, $400 ten years after the (visible to the client) capture date, can still happen. Weighing the risks - of refund, versus of no sale at all?
  15. Reading in some sensational news rag that people alive today - some of 'em - could live to be 1000 years old (which I doubt, as even trees don't often look all that good after 1000 years and things made of meat and covered with hide would look even worse) I see that I've had a fairly decent sale, but based on my grandfathers on both sides, and my father, the licence which has a further 25 years to run and expires in 2039 will probably outlive me. Do you think you will live to see any of your textbook licences renewed? :-) David
  16. The Panasonic will shoot raw and that means Adobe/etc will provide ARGB conversion. I use the RX10 but really very rarely. It comes down to this - do I just chuck all my other cameras out, because it removes the need for them, and stop writing about cameras? Not an option for me, but I should. The RX10 is one answer to nearly all that I need. The Panasonic might be ever better!
  17. You'd be amazeed how very poor Sony and other zooms can be on the A7R (can't say about the A7). It is not immediately apparent, because it's easy to be happy with results similar to Canon 24-105mm etc which are really not all that good. Then you take something the Voigtlander 40mm f/1.4 which I was using today, MF of course, stop it down to f/8 and find yourselves almost counting the pine needles in a forest two miles away. The only E-mount zoom I have got which delivers the goods is the 10-18mm. I'm sure the £1000 each 24-70mm CZ and 70-200mm G will do pretty well, but I really don't want or need £2k worth of relatively large lenses. I am getting superb results from a 20mm Voigtlander (in Nikon fit, mounted on a tilt-shift adaptor instead of plain, and capable of 5mm shift, any tilt). I also have an 85mm Zeiss Leica mount. It's a really difficult choice whether just to stick an AF zoom on the camera of work with manual lenses and adaptors, but I know which choice always produces stunningly perfect images. I picked up a 1970s Nikkor manual f/1.8 50mm recently and for an effective £15 or so, I can tell it matches certain 50mm-ish lenses costing thousands.
  18. I now edit against white. Otherwise, my images look dull and dark when processed on Alamy and in print.
  19. Fuji has manufactured glass for all formats for decades - their repro and technical lenses, and their large format range, were legendary. I shot with the GX680 system for a couple of years. They already actually make all the glass for the Hasselblad system as it now stands, and the cameras themselves are made by Fuji, with the digital parts provided from Sweden/Denmark. A current Hasselblad actually is a Fuji. The suggestion was that the Fuji X-mount is able to handle full frame, and I can confirm that - the contact array is just a little more intrusive than the NEX array, but it's possible for the Fuji to do full-frame X.
  20. I've used a similar turbo booster. It was good enough for Alamy converting 28mm, 50mm and 200mm Rokkor lenses on to 16 megapixel APS-C - and actually very sharp. But it was pointless really as if you try to use the super-fast aperture thing (turning an f/1.4 into an f/1.0) the outer field is CA-ridden and unsharp. All the things is does well could be done better with a dedicated lens - such as, 200mm x0.7 = 135mm lens, well, a vintage 135mm lens used directly simply was better!
  21. Pretty certain it will be AF - like an updated Minolta AF but for APS-C and a bit faster, with stabilisation.
  22. It's no concern. It exists to stop former employees replicating Amazon's standard studio if they want to set up a rival warehouse/online sales system. It is so specific you would have to be a very bad photographer, or still using Fuji S5 cameras, to copy it by mistake.
  23. The video is pretty old now. I've been working with full frame adaptors, and despite the lying and deceptive approach taken by 'UK' sellers who are really in China I've ordered a Kipon Tilt-Shift adaptor for Nikon F lenses just now. I'm waiting - several days after it was officially due to arrive - for a Canon EF to NEX adaptor. Do not use Cam2UK or Digiunited on eBay if you want your goods to arrive when stated, or want any response from the former when a return and refund is needed. Nikon adaptor - $20 HK type - admits light through its lens release latch! I had to repair this using black lightproofing putty. Leica M helical close-focus adaptor (see above) was 10mm thick instead of 9.8mm and therefore would not focus on infinity. Found out that most Chinese engineers consider 9.8mm and 10mm to be close enough. For my regular Leica M/screw fit lenses, I now have a Novoflex M to NEX adaptor, because even with a 12mm or 15mm, it's perfect at infinity. Tilt adaptors - my expensive Kipon has no centre/neutral lock. Every position is guesswork. So it can't be used as an adaptor with optional tilt. My Russian version has a zero position so can be used every day, but it works by tilting the front mount from pivot position to one side. The Kipon tilts around the rear node of the lens. So I'm getting their tilt-shift, because this has zero positions for both movements, and tilts the lens around the centre of the sensor (correct design). However, I have had to choose one mount type. I wanted Canon FD. but the back focus distance is too slim - they only make this adaptor for the five thickest body type lens mounts (M42, Olympus OM, Leica R, Contax/Y, Nikon). The reason I wanted Canon FD is that I already have a 20mm FD which I use on a Kipon shift adaptor. This lens has a circle of coverage large enough to allow a 5mm shift on full frame. I also had an FD 17mm and I'm pretty sure it has very little extra coverage. I have a Tokina 17mm and suggest that this, also, is very tight on 24 x 36mm. I have bought a used Nikon AI 18mm f/4 to try with the Kipon tilt-shift, on the basis that this specification is likely to have the best circle of coverage - but I may be disappointed. Alternatives to get the extra few mm I need to use tilt-shift could include Voigtlander 20mm f/3.5 Nikon mount, Carl Zeiss 18mm f/4 ZF but the cost of trying all the choices to find the best is overhwelming - many times any return I might get from an article if ever published. I also have many other lenses, Pentax 50mm f/1.4, 28mm f/3.5, Macro 50mm f/4 SMC, assorted Minolta MD and with both LA-EA3 and LA-EA4 adaptors a range of Minolta to Sony AF lenses. By using MF and AF, and these adaptors, I have compared many lenses. There is one factor which benefits manual, old lenses and that is accurate focus. If you take a modern zoom, which superficially appears very inferior to a 1960s standard lens, it may be because that zoom if never focusing correctly - AF modules and even contrast-detect on sensor focus rarely focus any lens properly. On the NEX there is a further issue. If you use Aperture priority, the cameras have two different behaviours, controlled by light level. In low light full aperture will be used, but if the light is good, the NEX will view and focus at working aperture which might well be f/11. This results in very imprecise focus. You can correct this by using Program exposure, which always focuses wide open. But don't dismiss the quality of today's lenses unless you treat the same way as vintage glass and focus them carefully, manually, wide open. Oh - and Sony is going to launch a mirror lens for NEX, probably at photokina - likely to be a 350mm very compact stabilised design for APS-C - the world's first stabilised mirror lens.
  24. Nikon with their new 18-300mm mini lens and Tamron with their monster 150-600mm solve the problem. Just don't supply a lens hood :-) Feel really letting down test conditions by using the huge Tamron without a hood, but they make it an optional extra.
  25. Probably not - Piccure has a different version for Elements which is much slower because Elements can not use multiple processor cores like Photoshop can. So I would think Adobe's advanced 64-bit filters in PS CC are unlikely to be present in Elements. Someone may correct me on this.
×
×
  • 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.