|
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 - gillian vann
Pages: 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 [53] 54 55 56
1301
« on: June 22, 2012, 21:29 »
i think I read somewhere that identical keywords and image title will get you into that situation at DT. It doesn't seem to matter how many you upload; if I only upload 5 from a series (that I've chosen as the best out of a bigger batch) DT will still - on principle - reject a few under that "too similar" ruling.
1302
« on: June 22, 2012, 20:42 »
. Perhaps what Pinterest should do during the 'pinning' process is have some text box pop up asking the user to mark one of two check boxes. For instance:
- I am {the creators name} and am the rightful owner of this image; or
- I have obtained permission from {the creators name} to use the image.
that is a good start.
1303
« on: June 22, 2012, 20:39 »
Did he make them each work 24 hours straight ?
Isn't it illegal to make someone work more than 16 hours straight ?
Depends on the country, I guess.
I sure hope he pays them good overtime and gives them time off in lieu.
I'm not sure of the IR laws in Sth Africa, but given they have a massive population I'd say they aren't as pro-employee as they are here in Australia. As a business owner I'd also say that when you launch a business it's just work work work and more work, the concept of "overtime" is redundant. Being part of his launch would have been amazing and I'd say all of the retouchers were keen on the 24hr challenge just to be a part of something bigger than them.
1304
« on: June 22, 2012, 20:27 »
this needs to be shown to magazine editors, restaurant owners and other non-photographers, so they can see how long it takes to make a truly professional food image. The magazine I work for expect this type of result, but of course think it only take 5mins to snap a pic.
1305
« on: June 20, 2012, 01:52 »
why don't they call it what it is: the digital negative. That's a very easy concept to grasp: photographers don't give away their negs.
Your analogue is faulty. If you give the negative away, then you don't have the negative any more. If you give away a raw-file, you still have the file.
Well, it's an analogy that's commonly made, whether or not it's a perfect fit. And it IS the negative in the sense that it is a way we can categorically prove we took an original image, if the copyright or ownership is ever in question.
thanks, it's not perfect but most people seem to get the point... I often use the term 'digital negative' with customers, rather than 'file', so they understand why it costs more to "own" a copy.
1306
« on: June 18, 2012, 19:40 »
I Don't want go off-topic here but I'll leave it for the record..
Dreamstime is the most *** stock agency ever, it doesn't even worth the upload so imagine giving them something exclusive..
their upload process is bloody annoying..
their inspectors are very amateurs..
they know sh*** about vector too..
this site will be in the bottom in no time
well, one year on they're still in the top 4.
1307
« on: June 18, 2012, 19:19 »
I agree that helping the FB crowd understand that good images should be paid for is a step in the right direction. People aren't necessarily going to share images; surely the point of your own profile is its individuality? Pinterest is another can of worms altogether.
that guy making those cover images is doing them for $20? surely by the time you've emailed your client, explained what you do, got their pic, added in text and other info, it's been an hour? $20/hour is not good money in my 1st world overpriced nation. He probably can't afford to pay for images too. he's selling a lot of branded stuff too, are there issues with that I wonder?
1308
« on: June 18, 2012, 19:12 »
why don't they call it what it is: the digital negative. That's a very easy concept to grasp: photographers don't give away their negs.
1309
« on: June 17, 2012, 04:58 »
Request a free copy 
so it seems this advice is the best; pity about the topic as it may have made a good xmas re-gift. (still, you never know..... gift it to a school or your local public library)
1310
« on: June 17, 2012, 04:44 »
no, I don't use DeepMeta, I use Bridge/ACR. so far I'm happy with it. I've spent some time on the keyword forum and there is much to be learnt there *sigh* like I want to spend more time in forums. I've email IS with a bunch of kw changes/suggestions and to my surprise have received replies in under 24hours. It does seem that regular checking and tweaking will be required; what a pain!
1311
« on: June 17, 2012, 04:38 »
on principle I don't get involved with any who: a) uses bold text randomly b) underlines words in sentences c) uses fluro yellow/red on their site d) use exclamation points and most importantly  e) highlights text in yellow
1312
« on: June 14, 2012, 04:16 »
good idea, i'll go and search. (I don't spend any time there, i don't have enough time in my life for more than one stock forum commitment!:)
I've just spent some hours going through my images and found some more changes, plus new terms added, and empty checkboxes, even though when I upload of course i go through the very laborious process of checking each term. I am wondering as they improve their search function how it will effect our images; will it make them have incorrect keywords which somehow disadvantages us?
1313
« on: June 14, 2012, 03:22 »
the magazine I work for is using one of my images for the cover this month, not sure how much they're paying me but I shall take a guilty pleasure in knowing it's more than what they could buy it for off iStock. Makes up for the lousy pay all round.
1314
« on: June 14, 2012, 01:39 »
It appears that some of my images have been messed with - do they have some kind of auto keyword fixer device that is causing more harm than good? An image of mine, smoked salmon with poached eggs on sourdough toast contains neither salmon nor eggs in the keywords. Fairly sure i would have thought to include those  (yes, i checked in Bridge, my list of keywords is long, and the list in iStock was slashed down to about 9 terms). Next question: will it just keep happening automatically?
1315
« on: June 13, 2012, 23:37 »
Hope it's not JUST on Twitter so us less tekkie people have a chance of getting this info too....
?
and ugh, for those of us who find twitter to be cringeworthy narcissism... *sigh* so I'm now the 203rd follower.
1316
« on: May 18, 2012, 04:16 »
send them a long lengthy letter in English via that 3rd link : Kontavctktivos just keep putting the word PEAR in caps and maybe STOCK or the name of the stock agency you think its from. they'll get the idea. plus, we can all translate text thanks to google.
1317
« on: May 18, 2012, 04:10 »
how about this, we all head over and start commenting on pics we find with something like this:
"This is a stunning photo of Sean's, who is an amazing stock photographer. Did you know I can't take a photo of you or your property and use it without your permission? Yet here I find Sean's pic on your board.......... this photo is FOR SALE on iStock, you may purchase it for use."
1318
« on: May 13, 2012, 07:48 »
and now for some perspective:
OMG, wow, you can shoot on Harvard campus??? pretty sure you've not heard of my city's university...
1319
« on: May 13, 2012, 07:41 »
Yes indeed. I'm surprised that certain 24/7 operations don't seem to have fully grasped 'shift work'.
It's not even necessary to call it "shift work". Hire someone in Australia/Japan, someone in Europe/Sth Africa/UK, someone in USA/Canada/Brazil. you've got most time zones/hemispheres covered and it'll get you through week ends and those pesky religious/public holiday situations.
1320
« on: May 13, 2012, 04:04 »
Do simple isolated objects still sell? Or even get accepted? Seems like this sort of stuff would very likely get a "too many on site" type of rejection.
I'm not shooting isolated shots of common objects any more. The sites are already full of them. It's really difficult to generate decent sales with such generic isolations. It makes no sense to dilute the sales more. So stop shooting those red apples on white!
BUT, if you have some niche objects or shoot "still lifes" you can get some success. Or if you are certain you can shoot a CLEARLY BETTER image than those that are already on sale.
I've never wished I had less choices when looking for stock photos. No stock agency brags about how few choices they offer.
except for maybe DT......... ok, they don't brag, but their last standard rejection spouted something about "more images just competes with your own port and dilutes your sales" so in effect, they kinda were saying "fewer is better".
1321
« on: May 13, 2012, 03:50 »
I've been playing the SIMs on Facebook - you remember it from the 90s? I was so addicted - and now my girls play it too and it's a bit of fun for us. There are a bunch of quests to complete to move up and the one I'm currently in has instructed me to "steal images off the web for my blog". Ha! At least in a way they are acknowledging the concept that stealing images is theft, rather than "take/borrow images"... (please note it's just a game, no one is actually stealing real images in this game)
1322
« on: May 08, 2012, 01:06 »
@rimglow: The focus stack technique is excellent, do you do the stack first? then do the isolation? I do product shoots for a mag and I just don't have time to go to that much effort, from arriving to a room full of boxed up stock (12~15 items) I get the evil eye if I take longer than 2 hours to do the whole shoot incl post.
1323
« on: May 07, 2012, 22:39 »
usually in the morning, so I can see what I sold while I slept, it's a lovely way to start the day. then last thing at night I update my spreadsheet. I would prefer to reduce this to once every few days but it is nice to pop in and see what I've sold. It makes me happy... except on those mornings when I've sold nothing, or I've got rejected files, then it's a yucky way to start the day. So if I can drop one it's going to be the morning check-in.
the only other one I check daily is iStock.
1324
« on: May 07, 2012, 06:34 »
i use lightroom for raw to jpg.. and use adobe bridge to edit keywords.
I wonder is lightroom works perfectly for keywords and possible to dump the adobe bridge totally? one thing i like lightroom is the zoom feature is really good to check the quality of image, the zoom in bridge is not really helpful.
Why don't you use Adobe Camera Raw, which in integrated in Bridge?
1325
« on: May 07, 2012, 03:57 »
In the past, I think many new posters here were discouraged by a couple of blowhard "pros" who loved to jump in and tell people how naive, unskilled and clueless they were. Thankfully at least a couple of those jerks seem to have lost interest and don't pontificate as often.
LOL
but when they do..... OUCHIE.
Pages: 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 [53] 54 55 56
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
