|
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 ... 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 ... 73
1126
« on: November 19, 2007, 19:44 »
... I've flipped them, I've removed outbuildings, I've put in trees, I've removed fences...windows, doors... even painted the stinken house... the point. The final image is light years from the original. Unfortunately... a reviewer doesn't know that. I can't get a property release for a 'fantasy' house. Techincally, that house doesn't exist anywhere.
If you're already going to those lengths to make the image, why not make up a phoney property release, complete with amusing names?
1127
« on: November 19, 2007, 19:40 »
... I don't know however how much is actually artifacting and how much is the orchid's texture ...
I frequently get "artifact" rejects from IS - I think in my case it's because I shoot with such a hi-res camera that reviewers aren't accustomed to seeing stuff so close up. I shrug it off and try again ... that's about all you can do, I suppose.
1128
« on: November 19, 2007, 19:23 »
Disambiguated? Do you mean tweaking your keywords?
No, he means adapting the keywords on his older images to the IS keywording dictionary: their so-called CV (Common Vocabulary). This was implemented about a year ago, and those with images online that predate it have to go through their images one at a time to change old keywords to the accepted new ones. Like you, I'm lucky enough to have joined IS after they implemented it. Or maybe I had one or two images online that I had to change ... I don't remember.
1129
« on: November 19, 2007, 19:16 »
Two weeks is very odd - you need to email them. My uploads are usually done within a few days at the very latest.
1130
« on: November 19, 2007, 15:47 »
There are a few areas that have a tiny bit of artifacting. I can see some along the edges of the flower - most noticeable where there is a thin purple line. I can also see some at the center of the flower, on the left and right sides on the yellowish white part. On the bright side, it should only take a few minutes to clone these out ... good luck!
1131
« on: November 18, 2007, 12:45 »
...By the way - I checked and found out that it is possible to put keywords to your images additionally on SX, so maybe this is how these people do it: ...
I regularly revisit the keywords of images that I consider to be underselling, and wish that every site allowed me this option. Of the sites I use, only IS, SS, DT, StockXpert, and 123 permit this.
1132
« on: November 18, 2007, 12:35 »
Way to go, Math, ... you've got some very nice shots, and I hope you sell a ton of them!
1133
« on: November 18, 2007, 12:25 »
I don't really "get" them either.
Why would someone looking for a particular image hunt around for a lightbox first? Does the lightbox owner/manager get a commission on the sale? If so, how much? If not, then why bother to make and manage them?
1134
« on: November 18, 2007, 12:18 »
I am sometimes amused, too, but not when the rejection is unreasonable and comes from a high earning site. I make my living doing this, and not having an image available for sale has deeper implications than it does for those who use microstock as supplemental income.
1135
« on: November 17, 2007, 15:47 »
You have to hit silver level on FT - 1000 DLs - before you can change your EL price to $100.
1136
« on: November 17, 2007, 15:44 »
There definitely aren't any artifacts present, but you're probably right about the red. I desaturated it a bit, then resubmitted. It was accepted everywhere else, and it even got a DL on Crestock today.
1137
« on: November 17, 2007, 12:27 »
Yes, we have very similar pictures.
So why is it that your yellow one was accepted, and my red one wasn't. A bias towards red, perhaps?
1138
« on: November 16, 2007, 22:26 »
Oh man, that's particularly horrible - what happened to its legs?
1139
« on: November 16, 2007, 22:24 »
T-shirts?
I'm all for that!
How can I get one?
1140
« on: November 16, 2007, 22:21 »
Speak of the devil ... I had my first $3 DL today.
May they all be $1+ from now on!
1141
« on: November 16, 2007, 21:02 »
This is a typical reject from IS for me: "over filtered". Sure it's a bit saturated, and there's added whitespace, but is it really under IS standards?
1142
« on: November 16, 2007, 19:54 »
Or type in the image url http://www.mywebsitename/mypicturename.jpgthen highlight the text and press the Insert Image button (which is directly beneath the Italicized button).
1143
« on: November 16, 2007, 14:10 »
Sales price fluctuates on IS because of how buyers purchase credits. Credits are are bought in bulk. As the number of purchased credits increases, the price per credit decreases, which in turn decreases the sales price, which lowers your commission. Go here to see what I mean. [Edit: I think currency plays a part in things as well. It certainly would explain some minute fluctuations.]
1144
« on: November 16, 2007, 12:50 »
I haven't seen an increase in earnings at all.
Both BigStock and 123 have a long way to go before I earn even $100 per month from them. For me it's almost a battle of "who cares?".
1145
« on: November 16, 2007, 12:44 »
Let's face it, assessing an image is a hugely subjective affair. Why don't these companies develop/use software to check the technical qualities of images? It can't be that difficult to remove the seemingly arbitrary nature of rejections due to noise, artifacts, haloing, CA, etc. I can accept a reviewer's ruling that my image isn't commercially viable on their site, but it drives me crazy when something is rejected for technical reasons when it is within accepted site and industry standards.
1146
« on: November 16, 2007, 12:27 »
$/DL stats for this month/this year, in order of total sales:
SS: $0.34 / $0.31
IS: $0.81 / $0.72
DT: $0.87 / $0.86
FT: $0.82 / $0.80
StockXpert: $0.87 / $1.04
BigStock: $0.92 / $0.83
123: $0.63 / $0.53
Overall: $0.57 / $0.48
1147
« on: November 15, 2007, 22:21 »
My rejection problems are only with IS - mostly for "over filtered" and "artifacts". It's very typical for me to have an image accepted everywhere - even Crestock - only to have IS reject it.
1148
« on: November 15, 2007, 20:49 »
Yes, uploading to IS can be very frustrating.
We all have this experience in common to one degree or another.
1149
« on: November 15, 2007, 17:03 »
A MONTH? I have been there for over an year and I still have only US$13.25!
Sorry to offend, but I don't think it's expecting too much to earn $50 per month from any one site.
1150
« on: November 15, 2007, 16:58 »
One odd thing about StockXpert is that I very rarely sell XXL images - only two or three out of 600+ sales. Things are much better in this regard on other sites.
Pages: 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 ... 73
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
