Jump to content

Rudy Umans

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rudy Umans

  1. 8 hours ago, K.L. Kohn said:

    Perhaps I should take up knitting. 


    2 hours ago, Gtranquillity said:

    I don't remember THAT, but I do remember David! ;)

    Take up knitting goes back to the beginning of time (SS time that is), but was made popular by Stephen Rudolph (Bichon) 10-12 years or so ago. Yes, the same guy who shaved with Nutella!  (Nutella became another forum icon)

    "so hang up your g*damn camera and take up knitting" was his response to somebody who complained too much. It stuck around ever since.

    Those were the days when microstock still had values and meant something and the forums had a lot of highs and lows. Big fights and big laughs

    Stephen was banned from the forums a few years back. He and I stayed in touch and no, he hasn't changed a bit.


    It's a new era now. 

  2. On 6/3/2020 at 7:58 AM, makesushi1 said:

    feel free to also submit this so they hear us!

    this is a pic:


    "They" are just the reviewers. Not the decision making suits

    Besides, many, if not all, reviewers are also contributors

    What do you want from the ordinary employees of Shutterstock? Show solidarity and resign so they can wait in the unemployment line with the other millions? Go on strike? Do you really think that the regular employees of Shutterstock who are trying to make ends meet like everybody else and live in a tiny apartment in a very expensive city don't feel our pain? 

    Leave them out of it! It is not them everybody should to protest to. Rather go straight to the top.

  3. 12 minutes ago, R Scott James said:

    Agreed. I have deleted all my videos and 75% of my images. I am close to a payout and i am thinking is it worth it to stick around????? Or should I take a full stand on principal and close my account???????.

    Wait until they paid you. You never know waht other hattrick they might pull 

  4. 4 hours ago, Stefano Barzellotti said:

    The problem is that it is not about noise, but about film grain which can only be decreased by lowering contrast and sharpness.

    I realize it is grain. 90% of my work is still on film with vintage cameras that I scan.  I would try Topaz Denoise Ai anyway, you will be amazed. I would also try Topaz Sharpening AI. With scanning on a flatbed, you lose some of the original sharpness that you can get back with sharpening AI. (unless you wetscan in lighter fluid, but I assume you didn't do that.)

    The other option, and might be the best one for your purpose, is not to scan at all, but digitize them with a DSLR 

  5. For film standards, I think those images are perfectly acceptable. For modern digital standards, they are not as far as stock goes.

    As a matter of fact, I think the scans look very good (not for MS)  Did you try running them through Topaz Sharpen AI and Denoise AI?

    What scanner and resolution did you use? and what software? 

  6. 40 minutes ago, Shirley Cronin said:

    The aperture will only impact on how much of the image is in focus, but it all depends on where you focused. I am struggling to find the focus point in the image, so unsure how you are focusing. For macro, on a tripod, I always use the screen and zoom in to be very specific.

    There is more to aperture and DoF than "how much".  At some point, diffraction will begin to play a roll (as mentioned before). It all depends on the lens where that point is, but it is rare if that point is smaller than f/11.Older lenses with fewer lens elements allow usually for a smaller aperture before diffractions begins to play a roll. Modern more complex lenses usually do not.   Doesn't mean you can't use that and smaller apertures, but at f/22 and smaller it usually becomes noticeable in most subject matters.

    As also mentioned by Chris and Steve, for macro you might want to try f/8 and focus stack. Little bit more work, but better results. As long as the subject is not a living moving creature that is.

    As far as practical use for focusing goes, a very general rule of thumb 1/3 of the total DoF is in front of the Focal point and 2/3 is behind, but with macro, the DoF is so small to begin with that this doesn't really matter much any more.

    it also depends on the angle of the lens in relation to the subject. It does not depend however on the focal length of the lens. Some people think that telephoto lenses have a shorter DoF at any given aperture than wide angle lenses, but they do not. It's the same

  7. 15 hours ago, Steve Bower said:


    No sweat!  I was a little oblique in my comment so it's understandable why you might have missed it.

    My only answer is he was using a 1.4x or 2x extender on his lens.  What would those aperture be?  I never was too good at "aperture math", Sorry.

    I don't use extenders (never have), but it would affect the lower portion. e,g, f4 becomes f5.6 or f8, but it will not go beyond the upper f's. A max lens aperture of f32 remains f32.

    The "ideal" f stop though will be different/lower than with the original lens alone. An extender will affect diffraction and the circles of confusion will be larger.


  8. 12 minutes ago, Steve Bower said:


    You should have read all the posts.  I brought this up early on.   I always liked you, so your forgiven.  😃 Joke! 

    oooh Steve. I thought  I read all of them, but i guess not thorough enough. I am sorry, and I still like you :) 

    I edited my post to rectify my error


    I am still wondering where that f57 comes from and what is really going on here.

  9. I don't think this is really an aperture problem. even with f32 on that Tamron it would have looked better. I used to own that lens and used it with f32 (I know.... shoot me..) and it looked much better than this rose.

    Something else is going on

  10. 8 hours ago, chris kolaczan said:

    Minimum aperture for that lens is f32 so something is off with your numbers.

    How come you are the only one who questioned f57?

    EDIT: How come you and Steve are the only ones who questioned f57 


    To my knowledge f/57 doesn't even exist on any modern small format lens.

    BTW, I get sharper images with my pinhole cameras and they have an aperture of f/233. The same with any of my pre-war vintage cameras. 

  11. 10 minutes ago, eskystudio said:

    Agree. But what can hurt them is bad press and bad publicity. 
    The more people make their voices heard the more  chances it will spill into larger publications. 

    I don't  disagree  with you and I didn't say that threads like this are not useful. I was just saying that SS doesn't worry about it.

    In my opinion though, this whole thing will not kill SS directly no matter how hard we yell and scream. I think that, even in the long run, we are still the minority 

    What will kill SS is arrogance. The two biggest company killers are lack of cash flow and arrogance and I don't think that SS has a cash flow problem..........

  12. The worst part is that SS doesn't even worry about threads like this or what we think or that people leave. That was all considered.  I can picture how that meeting went. "You know we will get flack for this"  "So what, You lose some, you win some." "There will always be people who say, better than nothing"  

    Did Jon really leave voluntarily or was he outvoted?



  13. 1 hour ago, Phil Lowe said:


    With this announcement, SS has informed us that we are no longer in a symbiotic relationship with them. 

    We haven't been for a long time Phil. Contributors were nothing more than an expense (aka necessary evil) for at least 8 years now. Probably since Anthony left.

  14. 2 hours ago, Kate Shutterstock said:

    That's correct. Our new compensation model is designed to reward content creators for producing quality work that is fresh, relevant and in demand by our customers. By resetting the royalty levels each year, we aim to provide an avenue for contributors to be fairly rewarded for content that is performing well at the current time.

    Other agencies did the same thing. How did that work out for them? 

    (I give you a hint, it didn't)

  15. I think the only reason many contributors put up with all the inconsistencies and other crap over the years here at Shutterstock was the pay-out,

    but if SS takes that away................what's left? 

    In all my years in management, I learned that people put up with a lot, but do not touch their wallet and their coffee

    I have a feeling that they will have to move their office to the Bronx pretty soon. 

  16. 1 hour ago, Phil Lowe said:

     Played with it a little and, so far, feels more like CorelDraw than AI..  

    Affinity's answer to AI is Affinity Publisher

    The good thing of Affinity is that all their 3 programs (Designer, Publisher, and Photo) work together as one program. You can instantly switch back and forth between the programs within the file you are working on. At least that works from publisher and I am not sure if it is already implemented in the other two. It not, it will be soon.

    They are also working on scripts and might come out in version 19

  17. 2 hours ago, oleschwander said:

    No, you're right. Especially color slides. And with blue skies it's almost impossible. There are lots of noise in blue skies in 35 mm slides - maybe it's the film quality at that time ...? But also black and white are rejected for the grains. I got the black and white image above accepted though. It was shot with a Leica ... maybe therefore ..

    Try a 1 - 2 pixel caussian blurr on the blue sky. Mask the rest out. Or use the soft blur brush

  • Create New...