MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Photo Critique => Topic started by: Waldo4 on February 13, 2008, 12:41
-
I am wondering if anybody thinks that this shot could ever have a possibility of being accepted anywhere. Blur goes with the territory with motion, though I think I did a great job with his face. It is just such a unique photo, I have never seen anything close to it, anywhere. Motion shots, yes, but not like this. Though this one does have a special place in my heart (it is the first shot that I took that I am truly proud of). The face gets sharper as the viewed file gets bigger (this one does not take to sharpening at all, and every preview size, either on a MS site or on Flickr, that is smaller than the original, has sharpening applied. I have several images where this is very obvious).
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1368/700659413_de17f45f8d_m.jpg)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo4/700659413/in/set-72157602934433556/
-
Really nice image! I would give it a try, you have nothing to loose. Maybe they will take it if you submit it without the frame.
-
Oh of course, frames are a must for Flickr though IMO, if you don't put watermarks on the images themselves. According to copyright law, your name on a digital frame is no different than a copyright on the image itself, and the harshest penalties are levied upon those that remove copyrights from images. Plus every time somebody blogs your images without citation (quite an often occurrence), it is on the frame anyway.
-
Really nice image! I would give it a try, you have nothing to loose. Maybe they will take it if you submit it without the frame.
On some sites there is a penalty for rejections. For example, on DT, placement in the Best Match results is partly a function of acceptance rate. So submitting experimental shots can have a negative aspect to it on some sites.
-
I like that shot a lot, but woudn't it be a better for Alamay or Photoshelter than micro? Micro is so non-artistic.... if the tiger isn't isolated on white ... kinda thing, it may be overlooked.
-
very nice shot! feel free to submit it everywhere. I would have removed the frame. this way
the attention will be solely on the tiger.
-
I would never submit a framed image to a micro site (I'm pretty sure they'll just reject them for that), likewise I'd never put a shot on Flickr without a frame, where the shot currently resides.
-
I agree with some of the posters. That is a great shot but I think it doesn't belong to the micro market, if I were you I'd keep that shot for some macro like Alamy or Photoshelter (I think the latter would love it).
I learnt it seeing how in microagencies "simple and stupid" isolated food (which can be used in a gazillion different ways) sell a lot more than nice but specific table setups (usable just for some specific projects).
-
I like that shot a lot, but woudn't it be a better for Alamay or Photoshelter than micro? Micro is so non-artistic.... if the tiger isn't isolated on white ... kinda thing, it may be overlooked.
I agree with Pixart!
-
I think your image is grrreeaat. (As Tony the Tiger would say.) I would upload it to every site you can find that sells stock images or prints. If the reviewers don't like that image, in my opinion, they should be fired! My question is: If you think it is good then why do you care what we think about it? Make your own decisions that way the mistakes you make will be yours. Your mistakes and your successes will give you the personal knowledge to know what to do in the future.
-
Oh of course, frames are a must for Flickr though IMO, if you don't put watermarks on the images themselves. According to copyright law, your name on a digital frame is no different than a copyright on the image itself, and the harshest penalties are levied upon those that remove copyrights from images. Plus every time somebody blogs your images without citation (quite an often occurrence), it is on the frame anyway.
Please, before talking about copyright law, learn the law. The harshest penalties are for those that violate copyrights that have, infact, been filed.
That being said, submit that image to any microstock you wish. All of them would admit it (minus the frame).
-
Correct that the copyright must in fact be registered. Violating the copyright of a registered image is bad. Altering the image to remove any watermarks is extremely bad as it shows intent to circumvent the copyright. A non-registered image really isn't copyrighted under the protection of the law.
The only reason I asked what people here would think is because motion shots to me are a mystery with stock, and I am still formulating "what is stock" in my mind, I know what photos I like to look at, but that does not agree with what stock buyers like to buy. I love taking motion shots and seeing well done ones, but the technical perfection typically required by stock is something that really isn't possible with an average motion shot. If I had a absolutely technically perfect motion shot, there is no way I would sell it via micros, it is worth much more than that (except possibly race cars which are more common (and much easier to capture)).
-
A non-registered image really isn't copyrighted under the protection of the law.
Actually, at least in the U.S., even if you don't register the image, it is still protected, but by registering you gain additional advantages. First - it is easier to prove who owns the images. Second - Without registering, you can sue only for actual damages whereas if it is registered, you can also add in such wonderful things as court costs and lawyer fees and potential earnings that may have been lost and compensation for the general headache of having to jump through hoops to protect your property, etc.
Of course, collecting on damages is a whole different matter, especially if the perpetrator lives in a different country.
Jeff
-
A non-registered image really isn't copyrighted under the protection of the law.
Actually, at least in the U.S., even if you don't register the image, it is still protected, but by registering you gain additional advantages. First - it is easier to prove who owns the images. Second - Without registering, you can sue only for actual damages whereas if it is registered, you can also add in such wonderful things as court costs and lawyer fees and potential earnings that may have been lost and compensation for the general headache of having to jump through hoops to protect your property, etc.
If you keep the RAW files, proof of ownership isn't that difficult to maintain, however, unless the actual damages amount to something very significant, there really isn't much point in suing as chances are you'll lose money, especially if your time is worth more than $0.00/hour. Hence, though it technically is copyrighted, the chance of anything bad actually happening to the thief for a non-registered image is minimal.
-
Sometimes blur can be a good thing - in this case it's a great shot. I hope the reviewers think the same :)
-
to me, there's no definition of "stock" any more - other than to say it isn't a snapshot (tho i've seen a lot of those lately). There's all sorts of stuff selling on MS sites - i don't know if you can just say they only accept isolated on white (tho those do sell the best).
i'd submit it - it looks wonderful at this small size.