|
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 - Perry
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 48 ... 57
1051
« on: March 10, 2010, 10:39 »
I'd say that images that are have backgrounds close to pure white and images that contain both pure white (255,255,255) and light gray areas in the background may get rejected often.
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.
Then there is always the question about natural shadows. I like natural shadows if they look reasonably good, so I often leave them in the image (they are very hard to duplicate in a convincing way afterwards)
If lit correctly there isn't very much post-processing needed to get the background pure white.
And last: It depends on the use of the image if the layout person wants pure white or not-quite-white background.
1052
« on: March 10, 2010, 05:45 »
I did an update from the old version to the new and I think it was definitely worth it.
The difference in image quality isn't that great, but the IS is.
With the old non-IS one I would struggle to get sharp images at 1/125 seconds, with IS I get good results at 1/15 seconds, that's three stops longer shutter speed. With good luck I have managed to get sharp results at 1/8 seconds.
Remember that IS doesn't stop moving objects/people so it's not a solution for every problem. Remember also that IS doesn't work very well att macro/closeup distances.
While the image quality difference isn't great, I still notice more "punch" in colors and better performance at large apertures (larger than 4)
1053
« on: March 01, 2010, 10:58 »
We really need an option to flag the people who flag for the wrong keywords!
1054
« on: March 01, 2010, 10:52 »
I just got my first flagged keywords. A Blue grunge background for words "blue", "grunge" and "background" and then a bucket of potatoes for the word "potato". This seems to start off nicely... 
1055
« on: February 26, 2010, 13:30 »
I think we should have "Big 4". (SS, IS, FT, DT). The rest is far behind.
1056
« on: February 24, 2010, 16:37 »
I really think some people that come here and say "I just bought my first SLR yesterday and I thought I could make money by selling my snapshots" need some honest paternal guidance, even if the advice may sound a bit harsh.
1057
« on: February 16, 2010, 18:41 »
FD-amateur, I'd like to know too!
1058
« on: February 16, 2010, 09:57 »
You should better post your own rejected images here for evaluation.
I Agree. Why not show your stuff and let us tell if we think your work is okay.
1059
« on: February 13, 2010, 10:29 »
Reminds me of clustershot's pro account, small fee with your own store front. Small commission to process sales.
Where are you pulling the comparison from ? Other than the 'coming soon' page is there further information available somewhere else ?
Well if the site doesn't have any "middlemen", it sure needs to be financed in some other way. I can't figure out any other way than the photographer paying for the service (or maybe advertising).
1061
« on: February 11, 2010, 14:54 »
I tried to upload some images to deposit photos to get my $.20's
First 100 or so got all accepted. From the next 300 or so, I got about 50 rejections. What I learned: Any studio background other than white (for example green, blue or yellow) gets rejected with note "improper background".
I also got a bunch rejected for "improper isolation" (those images were not meant to be isolated in any way...)
Okay, I'll just send them 150 of my boring "isolated on white" stuff and collect my $100.
1062
« on: February 10, 2010, 20:53 »
The only way they can sell their subscriptions that cheap is by not paying their photographers...
1063
« on: February 10, 2010, 08:40 »
I think video is a big thing, but still I don't want every image to blink and move.
Still images are somehow more "economical" than video. A Great photo can sometimes tell a story in just two seconds, a video wastes much more viewer's time.
I think there is room for both still and video imagery.
1064
« on: February 09, 2010, 17:16 »
Partner sales are probably added later this week. Thanks... I just have to sit and wait for that nice bump in earnings...
1065
« on: February 09, 2010, 13:12 »
This has nothing to do with the original question, but the topic is right on...  : Have you gotten partner sales in january? My doesn't show up at all...
1067
« on: February 08, 2010, 09:39 »
I was just thinking about uploading all my images to DepositPhotos and then I read here that they have CATEGORIES!? Why can't all these startup sites listen to contributors? We want easy uploads like 123r of canstock...
1068
« on: February 02, 2010, 13:13 »
Now it finally happened... I'm feeling a bit sad because I always liked the site; good royalty rate (other than subscriptions) and easy going image reviews. And in the good ol' times nice earnings too, not excellent, but nice.
The question on everybody's mind is: how to get paid for the last time? Should I request a payment instantly or wait for a few days (are the JIU/Photos royalties real-time or will they keep dripping in for some time?)
1069
« on: February 01, 2010, 19:13 »
I had a surprising BME in january, even if I uploaded only a few images. (Numerous ELs helped!)
1070
« on: January 30, 2010, 09:29 »
I just can't understand why the subscription sites can't have different prices for different sizes?
Instead of "25 images a day" they could have "50 credits a day". 50 credits could for example mean 50 tiny web images or 5 XL images.
The current situation where a thumbnail costs the same as 20 megapixel image is just insane.
1071
« on: January 25, 2010, 11:15 »
Isn't it about time you climbed back in your time machine and joined us in the present? 
But I just (that is 2010, not 2004) sold an RF image at Alamy for $317 (my share $190). I haven't sold ANYTHING at microstock sites for a comparable price tag. Maybe in one case the price tag was the same, but due to crappy 20% royalty rate I got much less... I just had a sale at DT. Electronic products for resale, my share was $17.50. That's not quite $190 either. I'm also a believer that microstock images are very often used in a way that would require an extended licence, but a such licence is never purchased. Either they don't care or are too lazy to read the terms. And it's easy to get the image, just need to spend a few bucks and you have it.
1072
« on: January 25, 2010, 10:17 »
snappyhappy, you really need to study the basic principles of photography like aperture, shutter speed, depth of field and so on. Study them hard so you can everything.
1073
« on: January 25, 2010, 10:12 »
sljocke, please tell me exactly when are images bought from Alamy cheaper than microstock images? (Maybe some web-sized images for resale?) I think it's very obvious that Alamy images are more expensive in 99% of cases, even if you can't see it
1074
« on: January 25, 2010, 10:03 »
Legally this is OK. Morally it's very dubious to sell the same images at very different price points. I think selling same images at Alamy and micro sites is very bad for the whole stock business because it devalues the Alamy(/macrostock) collection.
Not really.
http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/the-right-value-for-your-money/
I still disagree with you. It's only a very small number of uses that would require an EL, and the EL's are also cheaper than Alamy pricing. I agree but alamy allow it, so people will do it. They should of started their own microstock site years ago, I think this has damaged them and I have never understood why they allow it. Some people argue that their license is more like an EL, so the prices aren't so different but I don't go with that. Buyers don't need an EL every time they buy an image, some of the microstock sites allow all sorts of uses without an EL. If a buyer finds the same image on a microstock site, they will probably save themselves lots of money.
I'm thinking the same way. I just sold a RF image at Alamy, and my share was about $190. I don't ever remember getting such sales at any microstock site. (The closest one is something like $90 at iStock, and that was in 2006-ish, nowdays propably something in the $20...$30 area)
1075
« on: January 25, 2010, 08:27 »
Legally this is OK. Morally it's very dubious to sell the same images at very different price points. I think selling same images at Alamy and micro sites is very bad for the whole stock business because it devalues the Alamy(/macrostock) collection.
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 48 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
