Approuved cameras

[NYCat]

Huh...? Who's calling?

 

 

Cheers,

Philippe 

 

Ahhhhh. The testosterone will give me a nice beard to warm my face in the arctic. Cool.

 

Paulette

[Betty LaRue]

"I was just talking facts not opinions, backing up what Chuck said about handholding and there was nothing personal intended towards Betty. "

 

"I have no definite opinion of Betty's intelllectual abilities. "

ROFL

 

"Life is too short for sillinesss and getting shorter by the second. I will argue a point with anybody if it's based on rationality. "

 

nobody else questions my rationality.

 

"If I contradict somebody, I will always try to base what I say on actual evidence - it's not personal."

 

Hahaha. Proof is in the pudding. I have "actual" evidence.

 

"Fact is the D800 is about 200 grams or so heavier than the D500 and not a lot bigger in the hands - almost negligible.

Fact is many people, men and women use the D800 family cameras successfully handheld. I wasn't considering people with serious joint problems."

 

Need to be careful what you say when you don't know someone's personal circumstances.

 

"Fact is that is possible to get more or less whatever colour you want out of a D800 depending on how you process the raw file."

 

Less, for sure, when it comes to reds. Every red rose and geranium ended up tossed, usually. I used every PS means. Reducing red channel only got me faded reds, but didn't much address the purple color shift in half the reds. Because if I got close to eliminating that horrid purple, the rest of the flower that was a lovely red was ruined. Some that I actually managed to upload, was because I spent 30 minutes carefully cloning out the purple. Dang, I sure gained some great cloning experience!

 

I'll give it to you, MDM, that you "probably" know more about processing than I do. That's up in the air, because I'm not standing over your shoulder as you work. As you aren't standing over mine. You have a high opinion of your abilities, so maybe it's true.

It's very tempting and easy to criticize someone else's opinion when you know exactly nothing of the experience that led to that person's opinion. Especially if you never shot with that person's camera and have no clue whether it differs from the norm.

 

Just because it works for you and others doesn't mean it works for me.

 

Allan bought into the Fuji system and it didn't work for him. He hated the 18-135 lens, I love mine. Virtually every storefront I've uploaded was shot with it.

I was just sorry it didn't work for him. I never questioned his dislike or abilities because I wasn't standing in his shoes.

We all have our shooting styles and subjects. Every camera and lens may not work technically exactly like the same ones someone else owns.

I recognize that. Do you?

Betty

 

 

[TABan]

If you're just shooting editorial stock, you don't need a dSLR. I've been using a Panasonic Lumix GX85 for the past several months and the image quality is outstanding even with the kit 12-32 lens, which is sharp wide open at all focal lengths. The in body stabilization works in concert with the lens IS and is much more effective than lens only IS. Plus, nobody notices me anymore. I occasionally used a Sony RX100 successfully in the past but never really liked the ergonomics. I still have a Canon 80D, but use it on rare occasions. I had a GX85 image license in little over a month of using it.

 

I also have the Panasonic 45-150 zoom and the 20mm f1.7 and both of them are fine performers. Really, if you're tired of lugging a beast around, you should check these things out.

 

An added thought, the GX85 with 12-32 attached, 45-150 and 20mm all fit in one of these: https://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/mirrorless-mover-10

[Betty LaRue]

Huh...? Who's calling?

 

 

Cheers,

Philippe   

how appropriate, Philippe! Love it.

[Allan Bell]

"I was just talking facts not opinions, backing up what Chuck said about handholding and there was nothing personal intended towards Betty. "

 

"I have no definite opinion of Betty's intelllectual abilities. "

ROFL

 

"Life is too short for sillinesss and getting shorter by the second. I will argue a point with anybody if it's based on rationality. "

 

nobody else questions my rationality.

 

"If I contradict somebody, I will always try to base what I say on actual evidence - it's not personal."

 

Hahaha. Proof is in the pudding. I have "actual" evidence.

 

"Fact is the D800 is about 200 grams or so heavier than the D500 and not a lot bigger in the hands - almost negligible.

Fact is many people, men and women use the D800 family cameras successfully handheld. I wasn't considering people with serious joint problems."

 

Need to be careful what you say when you don't know someone's personal circumstances.

 

"Fact is that is possible to get more or less whatever colour you want out of a D800 depending on how you process the raw file."

 

Less, for sure, when it comes to reds. Every red rose and geranium ended up tossed, usually. I used every PS means. Reducing red channel only got me faded reds, but didn't much address the purple color shift in half the reds. Because if I got close to eliminating that horrid purple, the rest of the flower that was a lovely red was ruined. Some that I actually managed to upload, was because I spent 30 minutes carefully cloning out the purple. Dang, I sure gained some great cloning experience!

 

I'll give it to you, MDM, that you "probably" know more about processing than I do. That's up in the air, because I'm not standing over your shoulder as you work. As you aren't standing over mine. You have a high opinion of your abilities, so maybe it's true.

It's very tempting and easy to criticize someone else's opinion when you know exactly nothing of the experience that led to that person's opinion. Especially if you never shot with that person's camera and have no clue whether it differs from the norm.

 

Just because it works for you and others doesn't mean it works for me.

 

Allan bought into the Fuji system and it didn't work for him. He hated the 18-135 lens, I love mine. Virtually every storefront I've uploaded was shot with it.

I was just sorry it didn't work for him. I never questioned his dislike or abilities because I wasn't standing in his shoes.

We all have our shooting styles and subjects. Every camera and lens may not work technically exactly like the same ones someone else owns.

I recognize that. Do you?

Betty

 

 

 

 

Thanks for bringing me back into the conversation Betty.

 

Allan

[Allan Bell]

Huh...? Who's calling?

 

 

Cheers,

Philippe 

 

 

Another selfie huh? Philippe. 

 

Allan

[Betty LaRue]

 

"I was just talking facts not opinions, backing up what Chuck said about handholding and there was nothing personal intended towards Betty. "

"I have no definite opinion of Betty's intelllectual abilities. "

ROFL

"Life is too short for sillinesss and getting shorter by the second. I will argue a point with anybody if it's based on rationality. " nobody else questions my rationality.

"If I contradict somebody, I will always try to base what I say on actual evidence - it's not personal."

Hahaha. Proof is in the pudding. I have "actual" evidence.

 

"Fact is the D800 is about 200 grams or so heavier than the D500 and not a lot bigger in the hands - almost negligible.

Fact is many people, men and women use the D800 family cameras successfully handheld. I wasn't considering people with serious joint problems."

Need to be careful what you say when you don't know someone's personal circumstances.

"Fact is that is possible to get more or less whatever colour you want out of a D800 depending on how you process the raw file."

Less, for sure, when it comes to reds. Every red rose and geranium ended up tossed, usually. I used every PS means. Reducing red channel only got me faded reds, but didn't much address the purple color shift in half the reds. Because if I got close to eliminating that horrid purple, the rest of the flower that was a lovely red was ruined. Some that I actually managed to upload, was because I spent 30 minutes carefully cloning out the purple. Dang, I sure gained some great cloning experience!

I'll give it to you, MDM, that you "probably" know more about processing than I do. That's up in the air, because I'm not standing over your shoulder as you work. As you aren't standing over mine. You have a high opinion of your abilities, so maybe it's true.

It's very tempting and easy to criticize someone else's opinion when you know exactly nothing of the experience that led to that person's opinion. Especially if you never shot with that person's camera and have no clue whether it differs from the norm.

Just because it works for you and others doesn't mean it works for me.Allan bought into the Fuji system and it didn't work for him. He hated the 18-135 lens, I love mine. Virtually every storefront I've uploaded was shot with it.

I was just sorry it didn't work for him. I never questioned his dislike or abilities because I wasn't standing in his shoes.

We all have our shooting styles and subjects. Every camera and lens may not work technically exactly like the same ones someone else owns.

I recognize that. Do you?

Betty

 

 

 

Thanks for bringing me back into the conversation Betty.

 

Allan

Okay, friend. You know, Allan, I love the Fuji system so much that I kinda wanted to grab you by the arm and twist it. Tell you to stick with it. Then I realized your experience was not mine. How can I argue with that? I can't. You are happy with what you have now, and that's a good thing. If your kit doesn't suit, it takes all the fun out of your profession. You find yourself chewing nails, and that's hard on the teeth!

[Betty LaRue]

 

 

Huh...? Who's calling?

Cheers,

Philippe

Another selfie huh? Philippe.

Allan

Yeah! Lots of people - like Ed - shoot what they're eating. Thought I'd do the same: me and my meal ;-)

Whoeha,

Philippe

Hey! I shoot what I eat, too. Mostly desserts. How do you think I found an extra pound on my hips after eating chocolate coconut cake?

Oh, yeah. I got rid of that pound the next week. I'll probably find it again after the next baking session. I need to shoot a yo yo.

[Gervais Montacute]

The Nikon D800 is a great camera. Had one since they were released a few years ago now. But. The D800 is not a great camera if you don't use the high end lenses. Sticking a less than good lens on a 36 MP camera will be worse than using the same lens on a much cheaper camera because of the resolving issue.

 

For walking around and carrying something quick and light with a fixed lens, then I favour the Fuji X100 series or a good small compact Sony.

[Betty LaRue]

The Nikon D800 is a great camera. Had one since they were released a few years ago now. But. The D800 is not a great camera if you don't use the high end lenses. Sticking a less than good lens on a 36 MP camera will be worse than using the same lens on a much cheaper camera because of the resolving issue.

For walking around and carrying something quick and light with a fixed lens, then I favour the Fuji X100 series or a good small compact Sony.

Agreed. I used the stellar 24-70 and the great 105VR, which I wish I'd kept and adapted to my X-T2. I'm still waiting for the Fuji macro. I believe Nikon came out with a more recent 105, (past couple of years) but I can't much see how they could best the one I had. I never used an economy lens on the 800.

[Phil Robinson]

HELLO DELPHINE! (anyone remember Delphine?)

 

This is all very interesting but I don't think you have the money for a D800 or even Chuck's old D700.

There are DSLRs on the secondhand market for under £200 (D3000, D3100...) which produce excellent results and more than good enough for Alamy.

I have 1000s of pictures on here taken with a D3200 and they sell.

If a new camera is out of the question (I remember what it was like to be a student) the G9X looks like it has more than enough pixels for Alamy, but there is more to quality than pixels.

As said above, if you really want to get into Alamy and photography seriously, even the cheapest DSLR with a decent lens should be good enough.

[Allan Bell]

The competition is huge at FAA. E.g. there are more than 10,000 wolf prints. I've given up looking for mine :-( I also have the impression that paintings sell better than photographs.

 

About the different subject groups, competitions and liking others' works, it's all watched by other photographers and artists ...... not by potential buyers. So I guess that's a waste of time ;-)

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

 

Or heavily manipulated images made to look like paintings.

 

I had a stint with FAA but sold nothing with around 400-500 images so gave up.

 

No good at self promotion either.

 

Allan

 

Spelling mistake corrected.

[Jill Morgan]

The competition is huge at FAA. E.g. there are more than 10,000 wolf prints. I've given up looking for mine :-( I also have the impression that paintings sell better than photographs.

 

 

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

I had my first sale there this past Jaunuary, and it was a wolf! I don't have a premium account and have ignored FAA for a couple of years.  Don't have time to play the contest,social media, comment game.  Don't think there is enough time for all that for the return I would get.  But might play around with some graphic work later on when someday I can afford a Cintiq.

 

Jill

[Phil Robinson]

I've been with FAA for a few years and had more or less forgotten about my pix there.

I had my first sale a month ago for $131. 

[Betty LaRue]

I get a check from them every month. artistically manipulated photos do better, for sure. I uploaded photos at first, sold one or two, but really took off when I started doing things to them.

 

If you'll look on my second page, you'll see a picture of an old man on a tractor. It's called Dreams of Yesteryear. Composite of three photos. A background, the subject, and the foreground. Lots of work. You need layers for that kind of work. Photoshop rules.

 

Betty

[NYCat]

Love the parrots, Betty. You really make your work look like wall art. It is the something extra that you add as an artist.

 

Paulette

[Betty LaRue]

Love the parrots, Betty. You really make your work look like wall art. It is the something extra that you add as an artist.

 

Paulette

That is very kind of you to say, Paulette. I've been selling totes, phone cases and throw pillows with my images on them recently. I think totes are good gift items. Although I gifted my daughter with a pillow for her sewing room chair. She quilts. My iPhone has one of my butterfly cases. I do have a paying account. I earn many times over what it costs me.

Betty

[NYCat]

A friend did Christmas shopping and gave a pillow and three tote bags from my images that she said turned out to be very good quality. I'm not good about promoting my work but next year will at least sent an email to friends nudging them a little. I have not sold to strangers. Just to people I know (so far). As always, the wildlife is very, very competitive. National Geographic is there..

 

Paulette

[Betty LaRue]

 

I get a check from them every month. artistically manipulated photos do better, for sure. I uploaded photos at first, sold one or two, but really took off when I started doing things to them.

If you'll look on my second page, you'll see a picture of an old man on a tractor. It's called Dreams of Yesteryear. Composite of three photos. A background, the subject, and the foreground. Lots of work. You need layers for that kind of work. Photoshop rules.

Betty

 

I just took a look at your collection on FAA Betty and you have some incredible photos/paintings/drawings! I'm not artistic at all, apart from when it comes to photography. I cannot paint or draw to save my life! I can use Photoshop quite well though and wonder if I could get away with using some of the options to make my photos look like paintings? Do you or others do that or is that cheating?! I really enjoy using Photoshop to manipulate my images and am a big layers fan, and often my Alamy stuff is manipulated using many layers.

 

I barely take any photos these days for myself, it's all just with Alamy in mind. I often see a lovely view or I want to do a long exposure motion effect of the sea or river, and I think to myself, "I already have images like this on Alamy, and how would I keyword it anyway?" and I don't bother taking those shots. From now on though I'll think about FAA too as it's a completely different market.

 

Geoff.

I use the watercolor filter in PS some. But I also paid for software called "Studio Artist" that, at the time, was around $400. You import your image into the system, then begin trying out the various filters. I have only a dozen or so out of the huge number that I use regularly.

Once you click and the rendering begins, you can stop it with a small render or let it go until you have a heavier effect. If you don't like it, you hit the erasure button and get the untouched image back, choose another effect and start over.

Sometimes I'll do 3 different renderings, import them each to PS and save with a,b,c at the end of the file names then bring them up and compare to see the one I like best. Delete the other two.

Just as important, I heavily use textures. I have purchased probably 20-30 texture packages over the years. The textures allow me to get rid of nasty backgrounds. Using them correctly is an art in itself, because it's not unusual for me to try several to see how each works with the photo. Then once applied, you brush off the effect from the subject and possibly reduce opacity.

 

That's about all I can say because to describe my techniques would take a book, lol! I would if I had the time, but that's not for these forums. It has been suggested to me I should offer an internet course, but that's not for me.

 

Texture packages: Design cuts, Lil' Owl's, French Kiss, Florabella Action, Flypaper. The last two were the first I bought. I seldom use them now in favor of the first three.

The first three have many different bundles offered, and I have several bundles from each.

Betty

Edit. I forgot to say I use the Nik Color Efex Pro 4 and sometimes Topaz. Mostly Nik. Google bought Nik and I think it's free, now.

[Betty LaRue]

Betty - Thank you so much for all that wonderful information! I can see I'm going to have lots of fun experimenting with this.

 

I'm used to using layers and brushing masks, using feathering and various opacities to get the effect I want, and I enjoy doing it.

 

I already have the Nik packages and you're right, they're free now. To be honest I didn't like them for general stuff such as removing noise and adjusting saturation, as I did an "as good as" job manually and faster. I shall look again though for those effects.

 

I think I'll maybe try adjusting 1 or 2 images and see how I get on. I've now paid my subscription to FAA and have been busy re-doing all my pricing to fit in with the sort of prices others are charging (they don't make that simple, do they?), and I'm about ready to do some uploading. 

 

Thanks again for your help and tips!

Geoff.

You're welcome.

About Nik. On my first page, the amber effect on Downtown Oklahoma City was with Nik. Giddyup with the wagon I used the fog effect. I like the graduated fog a lot.

3rd page, The Red Barn, Yard Boss(rooster) and the tiger and turkey all had one of the Nik bi-color filters, mostly the user-defined one where I can choose the colors applied. Rooster, tiger and turkey also has a texture. I often use more than one process on the same image.

Lotsa fun.

[mickfly]

 

I get a check from them every month. artistically manipulated photos do better, for sure. I uploaded photos at first, sold one or two, but really took off when I started doing things to them.

 

If you'll look on my second page, you'll see a picture of an old man on a tractor. It's called Dreams of Yesteryear. Composite of three photos. A background, the subject, and the foreground. Lots of work. You need layers for that kind of work. Photoshop rules.

 

Betty

 

I just took a look at your collection on FAA Betty and you have some incredible photos/paintings/drawings! I'm not artistic at all, apart from when it comes to photography. I cannot paint or draw to save my life! I can use Photoshop quite well though and wonder if I could get away with using some of the options to make my photos look like paintings? Do you or others do that or is that cheating?! I really enjoy using Photoshop to manipulate my images and am a big layers fan, and often my Alamy stuff is manipulated using many layers.

 

I barely take any photos these days for myself, it's all just with Alamy in mind. I often see a lovely view or I want to do a long exposure motion effect of the sea or river, and I think to myself, "I already have images like this on Alamy, and how would I keyword it anyway?" and I don't bother taking those shots. From now on though I'll think about FAA too as it's a completely different market.

 

Geoff.

 

I put 'arty' (manipulated) images on FAA or PIXELS.com as it is known and although I have had quite a few sales they seem to have dried up after I stopped making a great effort in their forums etc.

I need to upload more but feel I have too many eggs in too many baskets, and no time to juggle them!

http://mick-flynn.pixels.com/

[Betty LaRue]

 

I put 'arty' (manipulated) images on FAA or PIXELS.com as it is known and although I have had quite a few sales they seem to have dried up after I stopped making a great effort in their forums etc.

I need to upload more but feel I have too many eggs in too many baskets, and no time to juggle them!http://mick-flynn.pixels.com/

 

 

I was hoping it wouldn't be too essential to do the self-promotion stuff, as I'm not good at that and don't know many people. I am contributing in the forums at the moment but everything takes so long.

 

I'm doing the Twitter thing too - Well I've got some people to follow me there anyway! Not that I know what good it'll do me. I hope it's all worth the effort.

 

Geoff.

I did the routine for awhile. "Liked" others work. Usually, if you do that, they'll like back. The most time-consuming is you're expected to thank back every comment made praising your work, then going to their site and returning the favor. It got me a lot of followers who could then see everything new I posted, and I'd get more comments. I think it helps placement!!!

It happened to be I was one of the first to use textures, so my work got a lot of attention. That's when people were begging me to do tutorials. There's only so much help I can give, because in the end, the rendering, the texture used, has to be an artistic judgment of the user. And I can't implant that in brains.

But there are not enough hours in the day to do it all. So I only log on every so often and try to catch up a bit. I really need to spend more time at it because my FAA income sometimes surpasses my Alamy income.

Betty

[Betty LaRue]

You're expected to thank every comment too? Oh heck, I didn't know that. Do they then thank you for thanking them?

 

I hope you'll be liking all my photos and giving me lots of comments and thanks for my comments Betty! I'm just kidding. I'm worn out doing the keywording and have got a few more up there now.

 

Hopefully Alamy won't mind this discussion!

 

Geoff.

Yes, I think we should end this. I've been walking on eggshells as it is.

[Betty LaRue]

Congrats, Philippe!

[David M]

Since i joined Alamy i have been using Olympus E series. I presently use the EM1 OMD. The sensor is not as large as some of the cameras mentioned in this  thread but i have never had an image rejected. The system is more portable than most and hand holding and getting blur motion with traffic is a breeze. Each to their own. Birding or sport get a Canikon.

 

David