|
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 - donding
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... 70
1001
« on: March 20, 2010, 12:31 »
A few years back I had submitted my 10 three times before I was approved. One time they would ok a image then the next time around they would reject the same image. I ended up e-mailing support and telling them these same images were on iStock and were good sellers...after that they accepted them. Don't really know if my e-mail had anything to do with it or not.
1002
« on: March 20, 2010, 12:26 »
Whoops sorry guys....I was thinking of the3dstudio...I'm not even on graphic leftovers yet. One of those days
1003
« on: March 19, 2010, 23:14 »
I'm still getting paid for my uploads. I haven't noticed any photos being removed. I guess I ought to take a closer look. 
1004
« on: March 19, 2010, 23:08 »
I've had four sales....all of the same photo...but I am noticing the majority of sales everyone is having seem to be sub sales. My four were.
1005
« on: March 19, 2010, 18:19 »
Holy sh*t.
MAKE THAT A SECOND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1006
« on: March 12, 2010, 21:36 »
I'm surprised there's no angry mob with torches and pitchforks for this post.
I wonder which images they're offering for free. Especially when Getty is charging for small web usage.
I could use an angry mob torches-and-pitchforks image right now
I would assume it would be the ones that are in their free section.
1007
« on: March 10, 2010, 18:52 »
I finally got around to this weeks ten for SS. Just went to look for the payment data for the survey and they are already accepted.
This is to the point where it's not how many days anymore, it's how many hours. 
Maybe they hired all the out of work StockXpert reviewers and they helped lighten the load... 
1008
« on: March 10, 2010, 12:20 »
Back to the original topic -
I was in a doctors office with my son today and looking at the magazines.
I picked up a copy of Parenting (www.parenting.com)
In the March 2010 issue they use images from: Shutterstock, Getty Images, Corbis, Veer, Blend & Alamy.
So in this case I guess the answer is no, they shop around for the image that fits their need.
Do they actually credit the sites that they obtained the images from? Do they also give credit to the photographer?
1009
« on: March 10, 2010, 12:13 »
Either go with pure white (255,255,255) or light gray that can't be mistaken for white under any circumstances. Try to avoid anything between.
I agree with this. All or nothing when it comes to white background. Even if the images are accepted, they will have more "pop" in a thumbnail if they are pure white. The almost-white grayish images look a bit dingy in thumbnail.
Also, Vonkara is right, buyers want an image that's ready to use. With all the selection available in micro today they are unlikely to bother with any image they have to clean up.
I totally agree. When I first started doing microstock, I didn't totally understand the importance of pure white backgrounds so some of those ugly ones are in my portfolio, but they never sell, so it's better to go wit the pure white or gray
1010
« on: March 09, 2010, 20:46 »
Just in case, you have to be careful about the background not showing where it was shot. Also some animals - I don't know if rhinos are among them - have characteristic marks/patterns that identify them. You know, like those patches on a whale's tail.
What ShadySue said about photographing iconic animals being restricted makes sense, but I don't know if it is legally correct everywhere.
Here's the one that made it....the other one was a full view of the same rhino http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/12210765/2/istockphoto_12210765-rhinoceros.jpgThe name of the zoo isn't in the photo, but from the building behind you can tell it's not in the wild and the one they rejected had the same view of the building, but in my opinion was the better shot...oh well...win some lose some.
1011
« on: March 09, 2010, 20:37 »
Yeah I noticed that also...reviews times were about four days...there were a couple I submitted that were rather border line that I was surprised they accepted. But you never know. Next week may be totally different.
1012
« on: March 09, 2010, 13:07 »
I'm just glad they were all accepted at all the other stock sites.
1013
« on: March 09, 2010, 12:23 »
Had a rather strange reject from iStock yesterday. I submitted two photos of a rhinoceros. One was rejected because I didn't have a property release from a zoo. The other one was accepted. Two different angles, but in both you can still see the same background. I have other photos of wildlife from the same zoo and they accepted them. I guess it was a different reviewer than the other. Just thought that was funny. What zoo is going to give you a property release?
I know Fort Worth Zoo it states on their information pamphlet that you have to have permission to photograph, but no other zoo I've been to require permission. I don't know that Fort Worth Zoo would actually give you a property release though. I always ask if it's not posted before I photograph.
1014
« on: March 08, 2010, 18:56 »
I got my final payout today to....a wooping $31.70...woo hoo. I just ask them to close my account and they said the images would be deleted and the account closed on February 11th or 12th...don't remember the date, but from what I experienced then did it for me when I requested the account closure.
1015
« on: March 08, 2010, 11:10 »
I was only joking about the big tattoo  . If you notice the sunflower at the top of the page has a watermark at the bottom of the photo. I don't get enough traffic on that site to worry about it and most of the photos on there are old. They are also low resolution so that helps. You can right click and save as on all the stock sites to so it doesn't make any difference.
1016
« on: March 07, 2010, 21:10 »
Wow...loved the detail in all the buildings from that point of view...that was defiantly unique. Thanks for sharing
1017
« on: March 07, 2010, 18:46 »
I think next time I'll put a great big tattoo in the middle of it rather than at the bottom... That is a small file with low resolution...but I could see where someone would still be able to use it. Like you said Colette, the only way to prevent theft is don't put them on the internet. Thanks to these guys, I never realized the ease of copying them.
1018
« on: March 07, 2010, 14:34 »
We won't really know how DepositPhotos performs until the promotion is completely over with and their buyers promotion is over. Some sales there may have been generated by the trial offer for the buyers. Give it a couple of months, then I think you'll get more of an idea where they rank.
I didn't include the income I made off the contributors promotion in the poll results only the actual sales.
1019
« on: March 06, 2010, 10:49 »
Thanks cuppacoffee...I wasn't upset with you...just wished you'd chose a better image off that two year old site... That one is horrible... anyway I didn't even realize that you could do that. When I redo my website...hopefully within the next ten years....I'll look at the appearance of the skin, more than just the features. Thanks for letting me know that.
1020
« on: March 05, 2010, 22:39 »
You can use printscreen on your keyboard and paste it into a photo editor.
Thanks Brandon.....I didn't know that....see I learn something new everyday..
1021
« on: March 05, 2010, 22:28 »
Sorry, your images can be "borrowed" from any site, one way or the other.
Did you get that off my website? or somewhere else? I just went to my website and the only ones I can "save as" are the thumbnails. The main photos in the scroll you can't "save as" only "save link as" or "copy link location" with a right click. Maybe you know something I don't...can you explain?
1022
« on: March 05, 2010, 20:58 »
Don't want to dwell on the jalbum site that much, but the Chameleon skin that I used on my site...I believe at the time it was the only one that you could set the option of no "save as" on the photos. That way somebody can't go on there and right click and "borrow" your photos. They may have more skins that do that now, but at the time it was the only one, which was a feature I wanted.
1023
« on: March 05, 2010, 20:44 »
Must just be me then. I think maybe I'm tired and the old eyes are not in focus.
1024
« on: March 05, 2010, 20:32 »
Has any one noticed their images look like they have a soft focus since they have redone their site. I was just looking at my portfolio and noticed that. Any one else seeing this or is it just me??
1025
« on: March 05, 2010, 19:38 »
All three of mine have been for .30 each.
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... 70
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
