|
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 - sharply_done
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... 73
1001
« on: January 26, 2008, 16:55 »
... I guess the overprocessed unnatural images are accepted if coming from an exclusive?
Regards,
Adelaide
I sometimes think that to be true, particularly when they spotlight an image that I just know would be rejected as "over processed" if I submitted it.
1002
« on: January 26, 2008, 11:28 »
There's nothing that I hate, but ...
A white background would make the image more versatile for a designer. Adding a prop or two (briefcase, newspaper, lollipop, lunchbox, ...) would certainly enhance what you are trying to say - I'm guessing that you're going for some sort of "businesswoman feeling out of place" theme. It might be better if she wasn't smiling - perhaps an expression of exasperation or frustration might work.
1003
« on: January 26, 2008, 09:56 »
Same as leaf.
1004
« on: January 25, 2008, 11:09 »
...
1.00 EUR = 1.47629 USD
Ouch ... Europeople must cringe at payment time - 30% of your earnings vanish!
1005
« on: January 25, 2008, 10:45 »
No complaints here. I requested my StockXpert payment late Wednesday night and received it early Friday morning. I request payments (via PayPal) from all sites at the same time - FT is usually the first to respond, but StockXpert beat them to it this month.
1006
« on: January 24, 2008, 15:50 »
Sorry about that, I didn't look at the date ... dunno why redhat dug up and responded to such an old thread.
Did you manage to get the images accepted?
1007
« on: January 24, 2008, 14:46 »
... although I agree in principal about micro being pretty much a rip off for the photographer (sell 4000 images get 1000 bucks) income is income. and I am not getting any from PD
Dunno where you're selling, but it's more like sell 4000 images get 2800 bucks from my vantage point.
1008
« on: January 24, 2008, 14:15 »
You shouldn't get discouraged. IS has its own way of doing things, and it's quite normal to have a high rejection rate if you submit the same photos there as the other agencies.
IS seems to prefer images with a "natural" feel - you may want to change your post processing a bit to use less contrast and saturation.
1009
« on: January 24, 2008, 04:26 »
Both rejections are saying that your images lack contrast - this is what will make them "pop" off the screen.
An easy fix might be to flatten the image, then copy the remaining layer twice. Switch the blending mode to "Screen" on the top layer and "Multiply" on the middle layer, then play around with the opacity of each layer until you're happy.
... good luck!
1010
« on: January 21, 2008, 20:16 »
Hmmm, I had two batches of 15 go through today with only one reject between them ... perhaps you should send them an email.
1011
« on: January 21, 2008, 14:43 »
Your "number" is a measure of how commercially viable your images are - nothing more, nothing less.
1012
« on: January 19, 2008, 22:52 »
Yes, the Flash Uploader is the best way to get images on FT.
1013
« on: January 19, 2008, 08:02 »
.
1014
« on: January 19, 2008, 07:46 »
Do you manage your portfolio or other functions I missed on the site to promote your images?
Trust me, if you saw his/her portfolio, you would know why she/he sells so well.
1015
« on: January 19, 2008, 07:17 »
...
Back to microstock, I'm enjoying the new hike in prices at iStock. Big-ups to management and I am seriously starting to consider an exclusiveness there once I go silver. Hip hip houray!
Hmmm ... wasn't it hatman who said that exclusives at IS would enjoy the biggest gains in 2008? I think he was called crazy for that opinion, too. I'm getting very tired of submitting to multiple sites that provide low returns, and SS - the only other site that provides high return - has lately been giving me all sorts of crazy rejections. I originally planned to go exclusive at IS after I hit diamond, but I'm now considering making the jump when I hit gold next month. If the current prices keep up, I'll be averaging $1.90+ per DL ... can't beat that!
1016
« on: January 19, 2008, 07:07 »
Shutterstock lists their minimum size as 2400 x 1600 = 3.8mp so all you have to do is make the long side 2400 and make sure the short side is at least 1600, and you have it.
Hope that makes all the math easier? 
Nope, it's 4.0 MP. Says so right on their upload page. Also, his camera gives 4:3 images, not 3:2 ones.
1017
« on: January 19, 2008, 02:54 »
For 4:3 images you need an image that measures 1734 x 2312.
For normal 3:2 images I use 1640 x 2460.
This is very basic algebra:
4:3 images - shortest side = sqrt(750,000*megapixels)
3:2 images - shortest side = sqrt(666,666*megapixels)
16:9 images - shortest side = sqrt(562,500*megapixels)
2:1 images - shortest side = sqrt(500,000*megapixels)
If you upload to IS you should consider downsizing according to their price structure.
1018
« on: January 15, 2008, 12:37 »
X-small and small images are 72 dpi. All other sizes are 300 dpi.''
I never understood this type of information. Does dpi make any difference? Is a 800x600 72dpi different from a 800x600 300dpi?
Regards,
Adelaide
The only difference dpi (dots per inch) makes is in printing. An 800x600 image will always display as 800x600 on a web page, but will print at 11.1" X 8.3" at 72dpi (newspapers, large banners) and 2.7" x 2" at 300 dpi (magazines, brochures, fine art).
1019
« on: January 15, 2008, 12:25 »
Large is a bit smaller than what IS quotes it as - it's actually 1820 x 2730 (or 2220 x 2220 for squares).
1020
« on: January 15, 2008, 10:15 »
The coast is clear ... upload away!
1021
« on: January 14, 2008, 12:05 »
Bryan: I'm looking at this from an outsider's perspective. You published a list entitled "Most Viewed Portfolios", and when I visited these portfolios I was expecting to be impressed by an excellent and diverse sampling of images available for purchase on your website. I didn't come away with that impression.
1022
« on: January 14, 2008, 10:10 »
Then you have to ask the question: why don't they sell well. If the reason is lack of marketing, and I believe in my portfolio, I should invest all I have in marketing my portfolio at the agency that pays the highest percentage. That will give maximum return on my investment... From what I've read on this forum, it seems that FP is charging a 30% commission for doing nothing other than maintaining a commercial website. This doesn't sound like such a good deal to me ... I do all the work, they get 30% for hosting my files and managing the payments. Geez, you'd be further ahead by selling on eBay.
1023
« on: January 14, 2008, 08:55 »
Wow, is that 'Most Viewed Portfolios' list ever wacked: the number two spot only has 27 images! Not very impressive ...
1024
« on: January 11, 2008, 12:19 »
Nice shots indeed, Gregor909!
I feel compelled to say that the reason you aren't selling them is that your keywording is remarkably lacking.
1025
« on: January 09, 2008, 21:24 »
Geez, I hate to say it, but those big blue balls may make your pictures a hard sell ...
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... 73
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
