bit.listproc.stockphoto Google Group

in addition Best Of Shweta right

gilbert.zau...@suddenlink.net — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 09:05:35 UT

[link]

swinging underneath bit.listproc.stockphoto

will.h...@msn.com — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:53:43 UT

Lisette wrote on 17 Oct 2008 20:53:43 GMT:
[link]

targeting within bit.listproc.stockphoto

robette.ponci...@msn.com — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:13:08 UT

Russ wrote on 17 Oct 2008 20:13:08 GMT:
[link]

warn Utpal Dutt

amber.bes...@aol.com — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:50:03 UT

Russell wrote on 10 Oct 2008 07:50:03 GMT:
[link]

Shake that Laffy Taffy

marion.levint...@msn.com — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 03:14:52 UT

[link]

Charlene on Bharat TV tamely

don...@hotmail.com — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:31:20 UT

[link]

bollywood nudity for bit.listproc.stockphoto

dianna.just...@yahoo.com — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:51:06 UT

[link]

bit.listproc.stockphoto

rone...@bit.listproc.stockphoto — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:02:20 UT

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
back later, has a truly frightening potential for abuse.
George Orwell issued a warning.
He told us that freedom is too much taken for granted, that it needs to
be carefully watched and protected. His last word on the subject was a
plea to his readers: "Don't let it happen. It depends on you."

[STOCKPHOTO] Scanners for agencies

idmur...@totalise.co.uk (Ian Murray) — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:35:12 UT

Dear all,
I've found the thread about which cameras certain agencies list as
acceptable/non acceptable interesting. As I understand it Getty film
submissions need to be drum scanned or from a narrow range of expensive
high end scanners only. Do list members find that justifiable or do
some see it as overkill/an artificial barrier?

[STOCKPHOTO] Re: Manual focusing with Nikon 4000 / 5000 - focusing range

j...@johnfowler.ca (John Fowler) — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 14:48:51 UT

is
corner.
part
can
up
I don't understand this procedure. Where can I learn more about it
and learn how to apply it?
I'm using a 4000, for some years now. I select a focus point
depending on the image and go with auto everything else. No
complaints yet. Of course, I'm dealing primarily with

Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: Manual focusing with Nikon 4000 / 5000 - focusing range

duv...@verizon.net (Duvina) — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:01:54 UT

I've been hearing about this and was just talking to someone earlier today.
They told me the Nikons have focus issues and I was a little surprised by
this. I shoot with a Panasonic Lumix and it's got a 12x optical zoom, the
down side is I can't change lenses, but from what I've been hearing my lense

[STOCKPHOTO] Re: Manual focusing with Nikon 4000 / 5000 - focusing range

li...@harganonline.com (Jim Hargan) — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:11:56 UT

I would like to apologize to Jacques and the group for this late
posting.
I start by finding the high point and the low point. The high point is
usually off center a bit, and the low point is in the opposite corner.
If the difference between these is 20 or less, I just split the
difference. If the difference is more than 20 (my record is 45), part

Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: Getty

aye-...@comcast.net — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 04:58:16 UT

Thanks for your reply Ethan. Did you choose to be in the Lifesize collection or is that where they put you based on the images you sent them? Do you know if they are interested in travel images?
What kinds of images did you send them for your initial review?
Thanks
Maggie
-------------- Original message ----------------------

[STOCKPHOTO] Re: Getty

soundk...@yahoo.com (soundkite) — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 03:12:59 UT

Maggie,
I submitted 10 images to Getty's new Lifesize collection back in
November. I was given a contract within a few weeks of sending them
in... much faster than I expected. Perhaps Getty responded so fast
because they are trying to build the collection quickly. Getty also
has a special interest in one of my images, which may have

[STOCKPHOTO] Getty

aye-...@comcast.net — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:59:21 UT

I am just curius, has anyone been accepted to Getty recently? I'd like you apply but I wanted to know how easy it was to get in.
Thanks
Maggie
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)

bobcroxf...@tesco.net (Bob Croxford) — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:59:10 UT

Dear Rubens
You missed a bit of my post.
"Serious stock photographers bought the Canon 1ds for the very simple
reason that it was the first fully portable digital camera with
professional level specs."
If I still shot in the studio I would still be using Hasselblad which
is OK on a tripod but one of the worst cameras in the world for hand

[STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)

rubens_abb...@hotmail.com (Rubens Abboud) — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:18:57 UT

--- In STOCKPH...@yahoogroups.com, Bob Croxford <bobcroxford@...>
wrote:
depends
which
the
so
is
after
My
fact
my
If one follows the logic you describe above, one would conclude you
were walking around with a 39MP Hasselblad, not a puny Mk II.
Any 39MP Hasselblad-carrying photographer who reads the above will

Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)

lenswo...@aol.com — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:18:26 UT

Hi David,

file sizes are selling then is there really any point in going to the
expense of upgrading equipment? "

Well, I consider 'success' one of those 'subjective' terms ;-} I am
hoping to do better, of course, but I remain at a comfort level that I find
reasonable for my individual lifestyle and circumstances. I'm retired after full

[STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data) - Fixation

jang...@interconect.com.br (Jacques Jangoux) — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:15:53 UT

Hello,
Does anyone know the equivalent of Fixation in the US? In the good old
days (20 years ago or more) you had your camera fixed or adjusted by
Marty Forscher´s (Professional Camera Repair) on 47th Street in New
York. Marty even modified a Hasselblad for NASA (was it for the moon
trip?). Have they gone digital? Or has another repair shop replaced them?

[STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)

iconma...@btconnect.com (daveinkelso) — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:15:55 UT

The issue of which cameras they want me to use is
cost of
cost/benefit
This issue is not 'which cameras they want me to use' - the issue is
that they want to control your possible choices of camera. An agency
which says a Nikon D200 image is acceptable and a Nikon D80, Sony A100
Samsung GX10 or Pentax K10D image is not acceptable could, I think, be

Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)

photo...@photobar.com (David Barr) — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:43:49 UT

Len you can't argue with success and if the pictures from smaller
file sizes are selling then is there really any point in going to the
expense of upgrading equipment? However even if it is seldom needed
I would prefer to have as large a file as possible.
I am using a 1Ds and justifying the purchase was easy. $8K to $12K

Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)

lenswo...@aol.com — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 07:56:48 UT

In a message dated 1/12/2007 12:58:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
If you are providing files that are
smaller for a brochure or advert, no matter how good a photo it
might be, what do you do when a client comes back and asks for a
larger file of the same picture so they can run the advert on a

[STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)

iconma...@btconnect.com (daveinkelso) — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 03:58:54 UT

If you are providing files that are
Most photographers have never seen a decent 6 megapixel image. I bet
Bob has not had his 1Ds MkII set up by Fixation. He probably lives
with the inaccuracy of setup, programmed by Canon to compensate for
errors, but only effective under specific conditions. All the

[STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)

photo...@photobar.com (David Barr) — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 03:16:50 UT

My favourite is "what a great picture! my brother
has a good camera and takes pictures just like
that"
David

Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)

jcly...@pelaezproductions.com (Jonathan Clymer) — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:38:17 UT

I¹m perplexed as to why there have been several messages that are so adamant
about using cameras that some agencies don¹t approve. Forgive me for this
observation, but the tone of these messages suggests defensiveness and
confrontation. Not a problem here, we are speaking freely on this forum. But

[STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)

jang...@interconect.com.br (Jacques Jangoux) — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:36:06 UT

John,
What about "what a good picture - it´so sharp!" :-)
Jacques Jangoux

[STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)

j...@johnfowler.ca (John Fowler) — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:23:18 UT

A better camera will not make you a better
Smile of the day ol' buddy - that must be what it means when the
bride's mother likes the pix so much she says "you must have a very
good camera!" :-)

Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)

photo...@photobar.com (David Barr) — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:56:48 UT

Len I would agree that it is all about the image but I have read
many posts on this and other groups about which camera files are
acceptable to agencies. I have also read postings about resizing of
files to make them large enough and removing IPTC data so the client
won't know which camera was used?

RE: [STOCKPHOTO] Kodak Moment - a little humor (?) for the day

ta...@sympatico.ca (ARLETTE DESRANLEAU) — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:07:37 UT

So, let me get this straight Mike . . . you think this digital thing is
really going to catch on do you? Hmmm, guess I better saddle up the mule in
the morning and head on down to the ol' general store to see if they got any
of them digital things.
Thanks fer the insights
Paul Aparycki
p.s. actually I loved it and it should be required "brainwashing" for all

Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)

lenswo...@aol.com — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:07:20 UT

Bob, I offer the following responses/opinions to the points you raise in your post:

(caps, where used, are for emphasis, not shouting ;-} )

<Bob: "What photographer wants to use second best?"

And just what constitutes best? If I can achieve images that meet the same technical requirements for reproduction that your 'best' does, does that mean that '2nd best' , or 3rd or 4th or 5th..........is unacceptable ?? I challenge you to show me that at sizes up to full page in a magazine, pictures from 'the best' look any noticeable amount better from one 10 megapixel SLR camera to another - perhaps at a miscroscopic level, but not at a level necessary for 99.9% of repro houses.

[STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)

bobcroxf...@tesco.net (Bob Croxford) — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:37:03 UT

The simple answer to the camera question is this. What agency or
client in their right mind would pay a photographer to use second
best of anything? What photographer wants to use second best?
I don't see it as an agency stipulation but a personal decision with
only one obvious choice.
In the days before digital professionals used a small number of

[STOCKPHOTO] Re: what do photographers want?

ren...@california.com (Renaud Visage) — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:35:39 UT

Hi Marc,
Here is my wishlist for a stock library:
- Online sign up, online contract and online uploads
- No formal portfolio review (let photographers upload any image,
accept/reject images that you like/dislike, discard images that are
poorly scanned or not meeting your technical standards)
- Ability to edit image info online

[STOCKPHOTO] Kodak Moment - a little humor (?) for the day

m...@blueplanetphoto.com (Mike) — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:46:41 UT

A friend of mine who operates a stock photography agency in Atlanta
sent this to me and I thought I'd pass it on. I don't spend much time
at YouTube, but now and then there are gems. I think you'll get a kick
out of this. It's a 3:41 video (safe for viewing by all ages). For
those of us photographing digitally, it might make another point as

Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Yet another version of sucker stock

auxo...@gmail.com (Stuart Elflett) — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:43:15 UT

That's right - however the particular parasite in question isn't running a
stock photographic site, he's an affiliate marketer looking to get sales of
his book, people to sign up to sell his book, and people to ultimately click
on ads on his site - his stock in trade IS search engine rankings, and
propogating his link will help him achieve his goals - goals that also have

[STOCKPHOTO] Re: what do photographers want?

dwa...@brownstock.com (Dwayne Brown) — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:54:30 UT

Marc,
What kind of niche are you leaning towards? I've also recently built a small independent
stock project called Brownstock, and you never know, there might be some benefit in
chatting.
[link]
Dwayne Brown

[STOCKPHOTO] what do photographers want?

m...@ashwell.co.za (Marc Ashwell) — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:04:57 UT

*Hi All*
I am starting a small niche image/stock library in Johannesburg, South
Africa.
I would like to know what features on a stock library:
A - annoy photographers?
B - could you not do without?
Basically, what would YOUR wish list be on a library, e.g. maintenance
of images, reports, payment etc.

[STOCKPHOTO] Re: Comp question to photographers in general.

rubens_abb...@hotmail.com (Rubens Abboud) — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:59:16 UT

etc.) and I
I think the only way you'll understand why I am critical and
dismissive of Protware's "technology" is when you've had the
opportunity to implement Protware on your site and have had
practical experience with the results.
In the meantime, here are some tips:
- referrer checks are not effective or even practical. The referrer

Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)

lenswo...@aol.com — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:57:59 UT

Hi Jonathan,

I deal with this issue the only way I know how (short of going bankrupt and purchasing top end Canon/Nikon gear) :

I concentrate on dealing directly with most clients, and letting the image stand on it's own merits, without any mention of the tools used to create it. Same goes for my current or future agents - if the image is technically acceptable, but more importantly, MARKETABLE, it will be accepted by most clients and agencies, with open arms. Tools used to create it are a non-issue.

[STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)

iconma...@btconnect.com (daveinkelso) — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:57:39 UT

in color
exist when
I don¹t
lead some
cameras
I test digital SLRs professionally and have tested cameras for 35
years. There are differences, and they certainly don't all favour the
Canon 1D series or the Nikon D2X. I don't need a strategy and would
not consider working for any library or agency which told me what I

Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)

lenswo...@aol.com — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:55:54 UT

Hi Zave,

The important / critical decision the photographer has to make when it comes to technical proficiency in the digital world (scanning and photoshop) is whether or not they have the time, aptitude, patience and skill to deal with producing images that meet the standards of the industry (even though these standards fluctuate on a daily basis).

[STOCKPHOTO] Re: Comp question to photographers in general.

verk...@sympatico.ca (Ed Verkaik) — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:35:12 UT

Posted by: "Rubens Abboud" rubens_abb...@hotmail.com r_a_p_i_1
What's the logic behind spending $70 on a lock for your side door if
no product yet exists to lock your front door?
If you use Protware your images will still be unprotected. This is
not a "small victory"
Thanks for the clarification on screen grabs.

[STOCKPHOTO] Re: Comp question to photographers in general.

rubens_abb...@hotmail.com (Rubens Abboud) — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:25:29 UT

The hardest part about pressing the Print Screen key is deciding
which finger to use.
Nope. A screen capture will deliver every sparkling original pixel
of the file.
all over
What "small victory"???
Your images are still one click away from being "stolen" just like
everyone else's.
What's the logic behind spending $70 on a lock for your side door if

Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)

jcly...@pelaezproductions.com (Jonathan Clymer) — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:23:52 UT

Different cameras will produce files that look different, not just in color
but in quality. This can be objectively seen, and can be shown to exist when
variables such a lens, or profile, or color rendering are accounted for.
You may not agree that these differences are significant (sometimes I don¹t

[STOCKPHOTO] Change must come - Lewis Blackwell - Getty Images group creative director - BJP article

jock.ayethe...@googlemail.com (Jock Ayethenoo) — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:23:02 UT

For info - article in the British Journal of Photography
[link]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[STOCKPHOTO] Re: request advice on efficient keywording

lar...@larrybrownstein.com (Larry Brownstein) — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:22:27 UT

Per
That was extremely helpful. You confirmed what I suspected that ALAMY
couldn't care less about whether there is a space or a semicolon
between the keywords. And I agree that there is no guarantee that
other search engines will treat the keyword phrases the same way.
Thanks.
-Larry
Larry Brownstein

[STOCKPHOTO] Re: Comp question to photographers in general.

rubens_abb...@hotmail.com (Rubens Abboud) — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:22:15 UT

didn't
A screen capture on a Windows machine will capture the exact
contents, pixel for pixel, that one sees on the screen. The Windows
GDI has its own function to do this, BitBlt.
I have no idea how the Mac does it, but I would expect it to be very
similar.
[link]
If one is really worried about theft of their images, one can

Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: Comp question to photographers in general.

jcly...@pelaezproductions.com (Jonathan Clymer) — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:22:06 UT

Can you explain how you came to this conclusion?
Jonathan Clymer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: Comp question to photographers in general.

jcly...@pelaezproductions.com (Jonathan Clymer) — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:21:13 UT

This is quite interesting and I wouldn¹t have expected this result. My
assumption was that, as on the PC, the file would be pixel-for-pixel,
level-for-level, identical. Thanks for doing this test. I would be
interested to hear if you come up with any firmer conclusions about what is
happening in the mac to account for this behavior.

Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: Archival Gold CDs and DVDs

bpslistm...@pacbell.net (Stockphoto Seller) — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:20:21 UT

Ian,

No question it would be nice to subscribe to the latest, fastest service and work there without having to handle everything yourself on your desktop. Microsoft and others have been trying to get businesses to do and store everything online for the past couple of years, but it is not selling well. The Internet is just too unreliable functionally and too insecure.

Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)

jcly...@pelaezproductions.com (Jonathan Clymer) — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 13:19:36 UT

OK, but what are you going to do about it? You disagree with me, which is no
big deal, but you also disagree with some very important agencies, which is
a very big deal. What is your strategy?
Jonathan Clymer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]