|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - michey
1
« on: April 07, 2020, 20:05 »
You have to sign few documents to request a payment but "It is highly unlikely payment will be distributed".
2
« on: December 17, 2014, 09:06 »
I wrote a long of time ago the only objective of fotolia was to find someone able to buy them. Now with Adobe they will be able to sell your images bypassing the few rights you had. On their cloud you will see hundred images sold as 1 download, lower prices and they will give your images for free to premium adobe clients. Adobe Should give software for free to image creators "working" for fotolia because 800M$ worth their pictures not the crappy people managing it. 
3
« on: December 17, 2014, 08:20 »
I agree with that 100% , hobo. With the way microstock is going, proper galleries are obviously the answer.
With "proper" galleries you will earn nothing but if you have famous and rich friends as Lik has. Anyway his picture has been sold in a private auction, with an anonymous buyer... I have sold a my image for 10.000.000$ too... 
4
« on: May 10, 2014, 19:50 »
Recently for test On SS i uploaded almost every shoots of food at 1.4 with the sigma 35 1.4 and i had not any rejections.
That's impressive. What size files did you upload?
21 mega-pixel of the 5d mark ii, nothing impressive http://www.shutterstock.com/it/pic-188649884/stock-photo-cupcakes.html?src=9EfMUzNJ8JIDU84rIJxkVQ-1-15
but no agency created me any problems, considering it was daylight through a window
OK, it really does surprise me that you got that through. Maybe the fact the OOF area is so "in your face" appealed to them. Who knows?
PS: We can start fighting now about whether daylight is better than flash, if you like 
[But, on reflection, what mystifies me more than anything is how you got 301 keywords when the maximum allowed is 50 .... at least, in English]
I have no idea why i got so many keywords in Italian, i insert 30 keywords max in English
6
« on: May 10, 2014, 10:47 »
I gather the 100 macro non-L has the same optics as the L version so the extra price is in the weather-sealing. If I'd realised that before I got mine I would have gone for the non-L, too.
I think we sort of established earlier in this thread that the extra megapixels from top-end full-frame cameras don't help with your acceptances in stock, and it's actually helpful to have smaller files that are less likely to run into SS's focus rejections. I'm currently uploading some stuff shot with my 100mm macro and I won't be at all surprised if the shallow DOF gets the rejection, in which case I will probably downsize and reupload. Good glass and a cheaper body may be a better investment than cheap glass and an expensive body. You can also find a lot of old manual focus primes with an image quality that can take on modern top-end zooms if you are willing to mess about with manually set apertures and loss of AF. The sharpest shot I've ever taken was with a 20 or 30 year old 150mm APO Symmar on a large format film camera.
Recently for test On SS i uploaded almost every shoots of food at 1.4 with the sigma 35 1.4 and i had not any rejections.
7
« on: May 10, 2014, 09:57 »
I bought a number of cheaper lenses starting out, including Sigmas. Some of them were quite good, like the Sigma 20mm 1.8 prime. However, their quality control is spotty. You can get a wide variation of quality and have to rely on luck to get a good copy. Also, Sigma customer service is famously bad. Since I started shooting L glass I have gotten consistently high quality lenses and tack sharp pictures. It's worth the extra price to me.
I guess it's worth mentioning that the L-class lenses I've got, which are my stock lenses, cost about 2% of my total stock earnings. If I hadn't been in as early as I was the figures probably wouldn't look so good, but in any professional photo business the difference between a $1,000 and a $1,500 lens is not really significant.
What's more, if I had been a bit more careful all those lenses would have been good for 20+ years, rather than the 10 that seems to be the point where I abuse them too much.
Microstock a lot of years ago was 6 mp cameras and crappy images. If we have to follow your tips, the next year everyone will have to buy a medium format camera and a 7.000$ lens to shoot for microstock and for 0.10$ each image.
You don't have to do anything, but I don't understand why you appear to be so angry and negative about L glass.
If you want my advice about cheap glass I can recommend the 58mm f3.5 Micro-Nikkor from about 1970, which will set you back about $50, the 20mm f4 Zeiss Jena Flektogon and its 35mm f2.4 sister, though I think those are both a bit overpriced on the second-hand market now, the Pentacon 135 f2.8, the Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135 f3.5 and the Sonnar 300 f4. I've used all of those for stock at one time or another.
I am not negative about L glasses. I was speaking about the quality(and investments) needed for microstock. I know people shooting with a 500d with 100 macro(non L) and on Fotolia is emerald.
8
« on: May 10, 2014, 08:34 »
Ignorance is a bad beast.
9
« on: May 10, 2014, 07:26 »
I bought a number of cheaper lenses starting out, including Sigmas. Some of them were quite good, like the Sigma 20mm 1.8 prime. However, their quality control is spotty. You can get a wide variation of quality and have to rely on luck to get a good copy. Also, Sigma customer service is famously bad. Since I started shooting L glass I have gotten consistently high quality lenses and tack sharp pictures. It's worth the extra price to me.
I guess it's worth mentioning that the L-class lenses I've got, which are my stock lenses, cost about 2% of my total stock earnings. If I hadn't been in as early as I was the figures probably wouldn't look so good, but in any professional photo business the difference between a $1,000 and a $1,500 lens is not really significant.
What's more, if I had been a bit more careful all those lenses would have been good for 20+ years, rather than the 10 that seems to be the point where I abuse them too much.
Microstock a lot of years ago was 6 mp cameras and crappy images. If we have to follow your tips, the next year everyone will have to buy a medium format camera and a 7.000$ lens to shoot for microstock and for 0.10$ each image.
10
« on: May 09, 2014, 10:13 »
I used in the past really cheap lenses like samyang 8mm and the canon 18-55 is(100 bucks) never had a problem with acceptations. You are not working for vogue or playboy, you are selling image for 20 cents, the only problem is to have a nice subject-composition , good lights and shoot in raw.
Yes. I heard from an impeccable source that a Nokia phone is the perfect camera for stock.
Ahahahah yes in fact excluding you sarcasm almost every stock sites now accept photos taken with smart-phones.
11
« on: May 09, 2014, 09:35 »
studio shots with SS are not a problem, but for outdoor (non people) shots they are really strange and inconsistent. Coming from iStock exclusivity back to SS I had them reject shots (beach, landscape) that were in flames on IS for focus or composition or incorrect white balance (usually that would be sunrise or sunset shots when the light isn't neutral).
These were 21MP shots from L glass and they were in focus, well composed and with correct white balance. I can't explain what SS's review process is or why they do what they do.
I sometimes resubmit with a note - recently pointed out that a shot was pre-sunrise, hence the color and they accepted it. But it wasn't any sort of mystery that required an explanation.
I don't complain because they don't seem to have any interest in changing anything they do.
L glasses means nothing, they have chromatic aberrations and distortion as every normal lenses, overall if you consider lens like the 16-35 or the 17-40...
Consider polarizers destroy a lot of good pictures.
Yes, it does have unavoidable optical aberrations (that can be corrected in software) but L-glass is about as sharp as you can get for the focal range it covers. Assuming any CA has been dealt with, any L lens should be able to produce pictures that will pass inspection - that might not be true for cheaper lenses.
I used in the past really cheap lenses like samyang 8mm and the canon 18-55 is(100 bucks) never had a problem with acceptations. You are not working for vogue or playboy, you are selling image for 20 cents, the only problem is to have a nice subject-composition , good lights and shoot in raw.
12
« on: May 09, 2014, 09:26 »
overall if you consider lens like the 16-35 or the 17-40...
Presumably there was some useful information you had intended to impart at the end of the sentence which got truncated to '...'
Sorry, English is not my first language and insomnia doesn't help :-). I mean a "cheap" lens like the canon 85 1.8 is better than a 24-105 L lens for example, obviously only at 85mmm. The canon 100 macro has same quality of the 100 macro l is and has half price. The sigma 35 1.4 is a lot better of the canon 35 1.4 l and has half price too. "L" means luxury, not professional.
13
« on: May 08, 2014, 15:53 »
studio shots with SS are not a problem, but for outdoor (non people) shots they are really strange and inconsistent. Coming from iStock exclusivity back to SS I had them reject shots (beach, landscape) that were in flames on IS for focus or composition or incorrect white balance (usually that would be sunrise or sunset shots when the light isn't neutral).
These were 21MP shots from L glass and they were in focus, well composed and with correct white balance. I can't explain what SS's review process is or why they do what they do.
I sometimes resubmit with a note - recently pointed out that a shot was pre-sunrise, hence the color and they accepted it. But it wasn't any sort of mystery that required an explanation.
I don't complain because they don't seem to have any interest in changing anything they do.
L glasses means nothing, they have chromatic aberrations and distortion as every normal lenses, overall if you consider lens like the 16-35 or the 17-40... Consider polarizers destroy a lot of good pictures.
14
« on: May 03, 2014, 10:17 »
To Opt OUT of DPC:
In Fotolia website: My Account > My Profile > Contributor Parameters > Sell my files on DPC - Modify (Make sure the text now reads "Don't sell my files on DPC) and Save parameters
I don't believe that setting "don't sell my files on DPC" will really prevent them to sell the files elsewhere. They are only a bunch of scammers happy to earn with the work of others.
15
« on: April 23, 2014, 08:30 »
Considering you don't have the right on the 3d models you risk someone will ask to block your account.
16
« on: April 02, 2014, 20:35 »
Another ridiculous contest made by fotolia...
17
« on: March 06, 2014, 08:40 »
Kings of scammers... Soon they will give our ass for free too.
18
« on: February 27, 2014, 04:09 »
After this kind of new i have a very weird boost in my sales, probably they are helping my sales to pay my debt...
19
« on: February 25, 2014, 16:12 »
Has any of the European Istockers received his/her e-mail yet? I haven't got mine yet, and I don't believe for a second they'll forget me (my October PP was more than double of September).
And me from Italy too.. We are the first when someone has to pay...
20
« on: February 25, 2014, 14:31 »
I think the thing to be constructively asking for is a better system of reporting from now on. That makes much more sense than people venting. A constructive conversation is better than an angry stand off.
Yeah, asking for better reporting and constructive conversations have worked so well in the past there.
Leeches can't speak, they need only to be smashed, microstockers need a labor union...
21
« on: February 24, 2014, 21:35 »
Guys, i told you, It's a * legalized scam. They have no idea how many "wrong sales" they had and they are letting paid us a random forfeiture mainly based on few weird calculus.
22
« on: February 24, 2014, 20:02 »
Time ago there was an option to opt-out PP, where is it now?
23
« on: February 24, 2014, 19:42 »
wrong post
24
« on: February 24, 2014, 18:07 »
They can't told us only "you have to refund us". I want a * detailed explanation with every detail, every partner involved with this, it's to easy to say we had problems last years now we want YOUR money back!
25
« on: February 24, 2014, 17:59 »
Are the * crazy? During November-December 2013 i earned 160$ less than other months and now they want more than 140$. Are they * kidding? this is not funny, they are a only bunch of legalized scammers.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
