MichaelJay, you always have good ideas. So I'm very interested to hear your theory about why your sales have trebled while all around you are wailing and weeping.

For the record, I'm on track for a BME myself, though nothing as spectacular as yours seems to be.

What's your preferred animation software, and what other programs have you tried?


In reading a Web review of five top animation programs, the prices seemed very high; is there a good economical program to get started with--something akin to Premiere Elements instead of Premiere?


And, do you have any estimate for the average number of hours required to do a typical 10-second animation?


Thanks!

In he UK it's 70 years after the death of the composer for written music.

Other way around...

Thanks Michael and Alina!

Yeah... I tried the stealth approach so I could make quiet withdrawal if things didn't work out but I guess the cat is out of the bag now . It should be a fun battle even if it is a little lopsided going up against one of the cage superpowers.


ETA: edited for bad speelign ;-)

(Edited on 2008-07-25 02:35:17 by swilmor)

Suzana,


This post would best be answered in either the "critique requests" or the "digital photography" forums. There are plenty of able pros there to help you out.

I'd say a combination of noise from high ISO (you don't get grain in a digital image, only noise), some noise reduction causing some of the blurring (maybe in camera?) and jpeg compression. Look at the tip of the pen, the way it seems to be smudged.


Make sure you are saving on the highest level of jpeg quality possible. In photoshop, this should be 12. I see a "JPEG 6" in your EXIF data. I don't know if that is a photoshop setting or the camera setting. If photoshop, change it to 12! If the camera, change to RAW, you will get better quality and much more control.


See the comment in this post from Dvorjakusan for a good description of noise:


http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=73672

I found that great image by chihhang on a poster for a summer party here in Munich.

I am bummed, I am leaving Monday, too. Would love to see it, though.....
Was totally looking forward to the blood splatters :)

demonoid, there are golden five digit numbers twinkling at your account - congrats, way to go!

(Edited on 2008-07-25 01:06:12 by manwolste)

Is it possible to see their entries at the size submitted? The link above does not appear to show that.

Good luck both of you!! Love the sound of an asian theme!

congrats to cglade!


now i must come clean on my own fav... 'american gothic' from nbodine. but all entries i saw were great! good luck everyone.

I've got a bunch - here's a series of this little guy

I had already many scans accepted here, made with the Epson 4990.


Of course, it is not a great scanner: on each scan, I had to work extensively, to recover colours, saturation, sharpness, etc.


A boring piece of work.


A dedicated film scanner would be way too expensive, since I mostly scan medium format, and occasionally 35mm.


Cheers,


Marco

I really do not wish to use software just to... focus. (Well...)


I know of diffraction. Diffraction limits the sharpness of the plane in focus - but since I am talking of 3D objects, NOT all in focus, f:32 is actually much better and sharper than, say, f:16, if I do my comparison on all the planes but the one in focus.


As said, for me the real problem of f:32 comes with the invisible dust that becomes visible. Certainly, stacking digitally would be a solution, but scanning film would be too - and from what I read here, the scansion is not necessarily the slowest option!


Furthermore, the image imperfections introduced by diffraction are more visible on a small digital sensor than on a (little) larger film.


This is why I am tempted to say that for this type of shots, it could be worth to go back to film.


As for the bright spot on my images... anybody has got a clue?


Thanks for the answers,


Marco

thanks again, beaucroft:) Still getting all the techs and other issues in place, so have to ask

On-camera flash (without any diffusion) is something to avoid. It's inline with your view angle and can create some problems. It's not unusual to hear comments that cameras proprietary flash gives more realistic light. But almost any other light direction than that seems to be and is better for stock photos.

After you made use of good lighting setup to create nice tones to your image, check levels adjustment to improve black and white levels, if necessary, use levels to get blown out background. It all depends of what is your subject about, so it's difficult to answer completely to what is stock photo lighting. What's typical stock photo about ?
We all want to see images with best possible contrast, right ?

When I scan, I don't rename the scanned number. I think I can be if you write a name before saving while making the action, it remember the name you used. So using the default numbers could work fine. if I understood you right.

Ou damn! It's July 3008. (I don't know what happend to me, probably I've fallen into some fridge experiment....) It seems to me that teleporting is reality now. Great! I hope it is more comfortable than that pneumatic delivery by the crazy guys of Futurama.

Hi Adam





cheers, will do

Yes... Mac please :)


On the suggestion side: Sometimes I forget to add the model release to a file. Would be possible to have a visual reference of this whithout having to open the image itself? Like an extra column in the image list where u see what images have model release and which not?

Yes, integrating content into a website you are creating is fine.

LOBO SMASH!

LOL! I've been told I'm no good at writing short stuff--cause I think too big!!

I once spoke extemparaneously for an hour and half on the craft of writing to a break-out audience of about 40 when the contracted speaker got held up by a storm delayed flight.