Add some zing to your site (or cash to your pocket) with stock photography

If you're a photographer or a the owner of a website, you should check out iStockPhoto.com. iStockPhoto is a Canadian site that allows photographers to upload their own photos to a platform that sells the royalty-free photos to designers. Note: In this case, royalty-free means that the designer pays a single flat fee for the usage of a photo and does not pay the photographer or site each time it is used.

Here's how it works:

For designers:
You can purchase stock photography for one of two prices: an ad hoc price and a subscription price. Only site-proprietary credits may be used to pay for photos. Credits cost up to $.94 apiece with an on-demand purchase, and as little as $.29 apiece with a $521/month 60 credit/day subscription (which are use-it-or-lose-it credits). $.32 credits are also available with a $96/month 10 credit/day subscription.

The price of photos then depend on the size and resolution that you would like to download. Low-res photos cost one credit. Extra high-res photos cost 20 credits.

For photographers:
As you might imagine, there are a lot of photographers out there that believe that their work is cunning and genius and that graphic designers would gladly give a left leg (or something else) to get their hands on one of their photos. The truth is, there are lots of good photographers out there and iStockPhoto is very particular about the photos -- and types of photos -- that they post on their site. In fact, just to be able to post photos on the site, photographers must fill out an application, read about several of the site's guidelines, take and pass a quiz on the material, and submit three artistic samples. I've always considered myself a skilled photographer, but my own application was denied.

Remember, this is a stock photography site. Most of the photography is non-controversial and geared toward a corporate environment. The models are attractive, the kids are cute, and the colors are bright. Before you submit any of your photos, browse the site to see what has been the most popular. From what I can find, this is the most popular photo on the site.

Photos are heavily screened before being listed, and guidelines are clearly posted for the types of pictures that are in highest demand (currently businesspeople and sports). If you decide to submit some work, I would recommend taking photos specifically for the purpose of selling them as stock photography, ensuring that they are at high quality with a low ISO and not over or under exposed.

Photographers are paid 20% of the selling price of the photo. If your work is popular, you may become an Exclusive Contributor and earn 40% instead.If you have professional photography equipment, a good eye, and the ability to capture the types of photos that are demanded by graphic designers, iStockPhoto may be right for you. If you're like me and have less than $2,000 worth of camera equipment and take photos only of your friends (unless all your friends are smiling businesspeople with folded arms), iStockPhoto may simply be a place for you to explore others' art and get some ideas.

Topography on Microsoft Live Maps

I am sometimes torn between using Google Maps and Microsoft Live Maps. Each has at least one unique feature that keeps me coming back. For example, Google Maps' ability to change my route by dragging it to additional waypoints is useful and intelligent. But Microsoft Live Maps has much better Bird's Eye View shots and satellite-photo coverage of rural areas, particularly Cooperstown, NY where I grew up. But Live Maps just got my attention on a whole new level with their 3D topology function.

When using their web-based 3D Virtual Earth tool, I can 'travel' to anywhere in the world and change my view to get a 3D representation of the view from anywhere. My first trip was to my cousin Kyle's house in Cooperstown, at the bottom of the hill that we used to climb when we were kids -- and there it was. With a few more mouse clicks and with a little help from their search bar, I was getting the view of the Himalayas from the top of Mount Everest, seeing the same terrain as what Sir Edmund Hillary saw after scaling the mountain for the first time.

I decided to put the rendered topography to the test and see how accurate it really was. I compared a photo that I took in Glacier National Park to a screen shot of the 3D representation that is displayed on Virtual Earth. See for yourself!

This is a photo I took at the
Many Glacier Hotel in
Glacier National Park, Montana

This is Microsoft Virtual Earth's
3D representation of the same location

3D rendering has been around for a long time, but not with the convenience, speed, and apparent accuracy of Microsoft Virtual Earth. I envision this to improve over time, eventually to a point when we can play a game like Chuck Yeager's Air Combat (remember that one?) and have a photo-quality 3D picture of what our world looks like with terrain and buildings included.