Quote from: melastmohican on January 08, 2010, 20:24
in 99% of cases user is a problem not a computer :-)

Well said

  This is quickly becoming yet another mac vs. PC debate.

We all have our own likes and dislikes, and it all simply boils down to what we're used to and what we feel comfortable maintaining. For microstock, the OS doesn't matter as long as the photos come out looking good at the end of post-processing 

I have to use both platforms for work (unrelated to microstock), and truly Mac OS X freezes and crashes just like the rest of them. As for a little awkward user interface, eventually you get accustomed to it. It's simply a little different from a PC.

Wish you best of luck in the New Year, whether a Mac or a PC!


P.S.: I am a PC-user for microstock and can't see any advantages to using a Mac so far

Hi Johnathan,

That's very interesting that Micro has tighter rules than Macro. Could it be because most images are destined to end up in print?

I don't really understand why someone would pay for the images (or steal them somehow) and then display them on Flickr just like that. What could they possibly stand to gain? Thanx for letting us know, Elenathewise

Wow, Macro definitely sounds alot more hardcore. I can sort-of understand if it is some prize-winning horse, a celebrity of sorts, then the release makes sense. But for other general pictures of animals a release seems to be a bit overboard in my opinion.

I have definitely heard about the Las Vegas Strip photos though. Sorry to hear about them being deleted from your port, Tom. But I know for a fact that some of those are available as editorial on DT.

The Eiffel Tower's copyright really is funny.

Quote from: floridaphotog on July 28, 2009, 16:27
example cn tower in toronto. 

Yeah, I have read about that one, and apparently it's ok as long as it's not isolated. So it can be part of Toronto skyline and be suitable for commercial RF.

The question is: now that Fotolia has done it, can we expect other agencies implementing similar tactics in order to keep up the competition?

That's a fun site. Thanks for sharing, madelaide! Kind of funny seeing different businesses using the images from the same batch.

Thank you very much for you input cascoly and holgs. The logos are definitely a pain to remove, especially when there's so many of them.

PS: those are very cool panoramic shots, cascoly!

I have noticed that some of city skylines are sold as editorial, while most others are sold as general stock. What exactly is the rule for such photographs? I know some landmarks are copyrighted (i.e. Sydney Opera House), but I've read before that as long as it isn't the main subject of your photo, it is allowed for commercial RF. Am I wrong about that? Please share your experiences with such photographs.

I have just two memory cards. One of them is 1GB Sandisk and the other is a 2GB generic brand. Both have worked well for over a year. I don't usually do any action or sports photography, so I haven't really assessed the speed of either.

QuoteNo but the design and form of the duck are done by a toy company, and it might be recognizable as such. Many sites are getting very strict on this lately, even too strict, especially since the duck has the main focus in the photo. They would most probably let it go when the main focus was a kid holding the duck as a side element. You can read about copyrights and cars for instance on iStock: they have a very informative article about it.

Yeah, I've read their article on cars. It is definitely informative and makes sense since cars are full of design elements and are recognizable on their looks as much as the brand logo on the hood. Since the agencies are getting very strict with that sort of stuff, what about such things as computer peripherals? A lot of brands have unique design elements for those as well.

Interesting, thanx for the info madelaide!

I echo the comments posted by cevapcici and madelaide, but I have a question about why would the toy duck have a copyright issue? It seems pretty generic to me with no visible trademarks or logos. I haven't had any experience shooting toys yet, so I'm just curious.

Is there a review process on this site? I'm rather curious if there are any other similar sites, because microstock is definitely not the best of places to sell editorial photographs.

I am definitely hooked on using "clarify", but I would steer away from sliding it to very high values. Depending on the image and composition of light sometimes you can get away with it. However, I've noticed when it comes to backlit subjects, a darker halo appears around the edges when "clarify" values are nearing maximum.

What are your thoughts on Nikon D40 compared to other entry-level cameras?

Don't get discouraged wins75. You have to keep trying.

You can easily make something similar yourself. There are several good tutorials online for constructing your own lightbox (a.k.a. light tent). And it'll be ALOT cheaper. It may not look pretty from the outside, but it's good enough to take decent isolation pictures, if that's what you're after.

Quote from: StephLuba on February 19, 2009, 16:56
Forgot to add: did not make it in at StockXpert yet.  I can try again in a couple of weeks.

It's so odd that StockXpert would be rejecting people who got into SS and IS, especially considering the fact that it doesn't offer much earnings compared to SS and IS. Good luck on getting accepted though! I got rejected first time as well and I'll try to re-apply once I've diversified my portfolio more.

Could it be just some sort of a banner ad network? So maybe DT isn't even aware that it is being advertised on that site.

I haven't tried SS or IS yet, but I've had a tough time getting accepted at DT. I've finally managed to get a few photos accepted there recently, but that made my acceptance ratio really bad. I definitely think that DT is easier than SS or IS because as epantha pointed out, there's no initial review. It's definitely worth a try.

Good luck with BigStockPhoto. That's the first agency that gave me a sale, but I see a much slower traffic compared to Fotolia and DT.

DT's "Download free stock photos" ads are all over that site. However, DT offers some free stock, so I guess the ad placement is understandable. Afterall, free stuff at DT is of much better quality compared to freephoto.com. But I don't think that people looking for free photos are likely to start purchasing through DT.

  Too bad not all of the profs ask those kinds of bonus questions.

I totally agree with Vista being a major flop. I'm definitely not updating my XP until they come out with a new OS.

Personally, I really like your Finnieston Crane/Quay pictures. I'm not sure if they are particularly geared towards microstock though, because they lack a central message. Culzean Castle is a good travel photograph. But for IMG_0536, the sky is a little bit too dull IMO.

You can try BigStockPhoto, they have a places/travel category. Good luck!