Jump to content

chris kolaczan

Members
  • Content Count

    6,645
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About chris kolaczan

  • Rank
    Photography wannabe.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://chriskolaczan.wordpress.com/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Canada
  • Interests
    many

Recent Profile Visitors

1,298 profile views
  1. This is not helpful Is "what the customer pays for the license" calculated for subs by averaging out the package (i.e. 750 images for $199 = $0.27 per image) or what they ACTUALLY pay (i.e. if they don't use all 750 images in a month but still pay $199). If it is the former, subscription sales are going to be a pittance and given that that is the bulk of most contributors sales, it is going to hit hard (meanwhile SS is still making $199 per month regardless of what the customer is actually buying). I'm willing to wait and see how this actually pans out but it looks pretty bad right now. A 12 month moving average for determining levels would certainly be sensible I think.
  2. I'm going to try to actually wait to see the numbers before I lose my mind like everyone else here (almost everyone anyways). I actually think this might incentivize people to upload more "high commercial value" images rather than snapshots and near duplicates just to bulk out their portfolio (yes, I ahve garbage in my port too). But, what do I know? I sort of feel sorry for video contributors. Personally, I never had very many footage sales here but I didn't have the best material either. Anyone who thought the footage gravy train was going to last forever should have been paying attention to what happened with images. Sucks that it is a reset and not a 12 month moving average. Still, I'm going to sit with my popcorn and wait to see how this actually works out. Even as a tiny contributor, I'm not sure the sky is actually falling.
  3. Actually no. I thought you were using f22 or something. Sorry, I said smaller aperture as in smaller opening (larger number). That can lead to diffraction. f6.3 is typically reasonably sharp on a lot of lenses (usually two full stops down from wide open is close to the sweet spot). Maybe diffraction isn't the issue.
  4. There are company logos and store names all over in that image. The sharpness issue could be due to lens settings (are you using a small aperture that might cause diffraction?) It is slightly soft for sure. Could also be post processing depending on what you've done. This might work as an editorial submission. There are fewer restrictions on logos etc. Edit: there is also some pretty bad moire on the grey buildings in the top right.
  5. The subject is the roof and the cat. The roof is not in focus. The subject is not in focus. Case closed.
×
×
  • Create New...