iStockphoto

[Russinating]

Not without a release, no. Seems a bit pointless to get a release especially when I might not even get accepted anyway .

Some of the photos I was thinking of:

1.

2.

3.

4.

A lot of my other photos are on my work PC so I'll have to sift through those too.

 

[D.P.]

of those photos perhaps only the 2nd on needs a release.

Maybe it is my tired at but the the first one doesn't seem very sharp, but it is a good subject for stock.

The others might or might not get accepted but I think you might need better for your application photos.

The reviewers are also sometimes a little funny about blown highlights, etc.

I would apply with photos with more normal lighting. The 1st would be perfect if you know it is absolutely tack sharp at 100%, no noise, and the transition to the white background is excellent.

Remember, they want to see your very best 3 stock orientated photos you have ever taken.

 

[Kenai]

To be extremely extremely blunt about this - if you have to scratch around thinking 'ah, maybe this one is good enough' for a while to find 3 suitable pictures - you're probably not ready to be submitting your work to a high profile stock site.

 

[cochoc]

I never said that digital was a 'subordinate', i just said it serves a different purpose, for me at least.

Talking about 'clouded logic' is a bit hypocritical when you're trying to claim that any one system is superior to another, when they both can yield great results. If it's two means to an end then why should anybody be ridiculed for choosing the mean they enjoy most?

Sorry to respond o/t again, but you must be reading a different thread, as you are seeing things that are not there. I never claimed that digital is superior, rather I argue that it is not inferior. There is a world of difference. You actually said "Have you ever seen a digital photo (not an HDR ) with nearly as much detail in both the foreground/subject and the rest of the picture as a film one?" Your inference is clear.

And I have not intended to ridicule you, so apologise for causing you offence.

 

[cochoc]

Russinating, I really like #3.

 

[Amp34]

Also, Amp, you say post processing is the same as developing? Maybe it serves a similar purpose, but what makes it better? I'd much rather physically mess about with chemicals than spend yet more time sitting in front of a keyboard. If digital photography is so superior then why is it just another means to a similar end, one which i for one don't enjoy as much as the alternative?

It is a means to a similar end but the thing that shows digital IS superior for most applications is that most people who used to use film now use Digital. There's a reason most Pros (and I mean proper pros not people with a DSLR) use DSLRs now, why even Medium format is/has been converted to Digital. There are many things you can do with digital that you can't do with film but very few you can do with film that you can't do with digital.

Just look at the quality of photos coming out of todays Digital cameras compared to older film cameras. Yes skill is important but if that skilled artist has better tools then they can produce better art.

That said film is nice to play around with, bit like a PS3 is a lot better than an N64 but the N64 is nice to play around with every so often.