|
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 - heywoody
Pages: 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 [56] 57 58
1376
« on: June 12, 2011, 17:00 »
You know what? We are actually in agreement  Don't get me wrong, I never said it was right or fair to the folks who made this business model work but corporations really don't care about fairness and this won't hurt them. * sure you can compete with the deluge but that won't make more sales, just different sales.
1377
« on: June 12, 2011, 14:48 »
gbalex,
Try searching for "Robin Hood" on the big 4 then try "girl telephone". There must be tons of examples like this where Shutterstock is providing some product and IS really aren't.
"Generally speaking" the need for Robinhood sales, should rank right up there with a speck of a dog flying around the moon sales. The micros may fill out their sites with obscure, not often sold content. However the people who use their time and resources to produce that content will not see much in the way of sales. Once again a win win for who?
I wouldnt argue with that. However, between the speck of dog and the archetypical stock shot there is a whole raft of subject matter that is covered to a greater or lesser extent. If these sales didnt add significantly to the income of the site they wouldnt have 300,000 contributors, there would be just the few (relatively speaking) pros and semi-pros involved. The point remains that the better a subject is covered, the more picky the vendor can be about what he accepts without hurting his sales. HCV for the contributor does not mean that its the same for the vendor. The people who produce this content may not see much in the way of sales but possibly more than they would for more mainstream images that are rejected. 
1378
« on: June 12, 2011, 10:16 »
gbalex,
Try searching for "Robin Hood" on the big 4 then try "girl telephone". There must be tons of examples like this where SS is providing some product and IS really aren't.
1379
« on: June 11, 2011, 17:45 »
I dont know if he is or isnt a poster boy but if its not his fault he shouldnt be singled out.
Anyway back to the substantive point about how the site is losing money by rejecting high quality content where the subject matter is well covered. The simple fact is they arent. Consider, a designer is looking for a shot of a pretty girl on a telephone isolated on white and your absolutely brilliant interpretation of just this has just been rejected. What happens? The designer just buys another from the thousands of quality examples already there and the site still makes a sale. On the other hand I submit a reasonably adequate Robin Hood that is nowhere near the technical standard you have set mine is accepted because the buyer looking for a full length Robin Hood isolated on white would have to go elsewhere and they would lose a sale. What they are doing makes perfect commercial sense.
1380
« on: June 11, 2011, 14:24 »
There is one guy on Shutterstock who claims to be the king of stock and he is the worst photographer in general I can think of, yet Shutterstock continues to reject good images and accept his junk. There is, in my opinion, a double standard over there. Not a variance in inspectors for him, but favoritism for him. When I look at the crap he gets accepted and the excellent images that get rejected I can only conclude that there is a different set of rules for some photographers. This isn't just one or two images I disagree with. It's been that way for years, that's why he has 10,000 images on line THERE. He can't get accepted anywhere else. If I have 10,000 GOOD images I would certainly take the time to upload on all sites I could. He doesn't.
I don't personally know the guy nor do I blame him. I blame Shutterstock for creating that unfair rift and showing clear favoritism.
Is it acceptable to pick on an identifiable individual (hell, even I know who you're talking about) like this using a cloak of anomynity?
1381
« on: June 11, 2011, 14:19 »
no
1382
« on: June 10, 2011, 07:36 »
@smthore
There is always a degree of personal judgement and there is inconsistency on all sites, I just don't buy the conspiracy theory. Id lay odds though that your transsexual dancers stand a better chance of acceptance on SS than equal (or even better) quality girl with nice teeth speaking on telephone :-D
@biketourist
I wouldnt argue with any of that...
1383
« on: June 10, 2011, 05:49 »
Seems simple enough. IS want pixel perfection no matter how hackneyed, sterile and boring. Dreamstime dont want what they regard as similars and Shutterstock are looking for something a bit different. If you submit same old same old I suspect the review process is tougher than for subject matter thats not already well covered. These guys are not stupid and pretty sure they have a good idea what they can sell which, at the end of the day, is the whole point regardless of what individual contributors think of what is and isnt accepted. Its a matter of tailoring your submissions to what each site is looking for because supply is far greater than demand and they can afford to be picky.
The argument that higher end contributors are discriminated against makes no sense. Even if the margin per sale for the site is less, it is additional, not instead of, the higher margins from newbies. Also, even newbies get payouts. BTW I think its pretty uncool to criticise other peoples work when ones own is invisible.
1384
« on: May 30, 2011, 03:58 »
In the meantime getting the payout in euro is nice 
1385
« on: May 25, 2011, 07:40 »
to:Suljo
So, why in my portfolio in DS the pictures with the Maximum size, for example: 8000x5000px (7279 KB) are not with TIFF license ?
It may have something to do with the resolutions of the images you are submitting - the TIFFS are generally the result of DT's upsizing and you may be at the upper end already. I have a vague recollection of a thread on this......
1386
« on: May 18, 2011, 09:54 »
Unless the rejected files were good catholics....
1387
« on: May 18, 2011, 09:53 »
I am frightened by the lack of solidarity of the community.
Oh don't be such a big girl's blouse. This is a discussion forum and 'the community' is discussing the merits or otherwise of the case. We only know one side of the story and even then it is hardly black or white. By his own admission the OP clearly broke the 'Submission Guidlelines' and Shutterstock have terminated his account. Those are the only known facts.
Seems from the following there has been no breach even of submission guidelines, nevemind the law Doesn't this sentence say that it is allowed to use these filters? I'm afraid that my English is not good enough for understanding of these "slight differences"
e. if the Submitted Content consists in whole or in part of design elements, fonts, clipart, sprites, vectors, brush tools and the like that are included in design programs (e.g., Photoshop, Daz, Illustrator) by uploading such Submitted Content to Shutterstock, you warrant and represent that the end user license agreement, terms of service or the equivalent license held by you does allow you to incorporate such elements in Submitted Content created by you, and to license such Submitted Content to Shutterstock for the purposes set forth herein;
Yup, 100% I would agree this means use of Filter Forge is okay if you check that it's legally above board. But again, I'm beginning to doubt that the Filter Forge controversy of last year could have been the main reason for the OP's account suspension.
1388
« on: May 17, 2011, 17:15 »
If the software license says you can use it for commercial use, then Shutterstock is in the wrong to suspend this guy. They could reject the image as a matter of editing policy (but they should be consistent which they obviously aren't) but they shouldnt suspend him.
You can't argue with this statement - this is the legal position regardless what anyone thinks of the originality of the result. If we get really basic, the vast majority of stock images are the result of pointing a tool at something not created by the photographer. Was this situation due to someone, having produced images using the same 3rd party tool, complaining that the OP had ripped off his work - or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
1389
« on: May 17, 2011, 12:05 »
there are (were???) little tick boxes associated with the various fields to be populated - sometimes if these aren't ticked, the data in the field is ignored
1390
« on: May 16, 2011, 18:58 »
2 Els and some credit sales today, $75. A good day at Shutterstock :-) Been with them for years, they are still my best and fav site.
$75 would be a good MONTH for me  but got my 1st EL there today and pleased with that
1391
« on: May 13, 2011, 18:04 »
Paypal make a small charge to your bank or credit card to to verify the account is valid and get a registration PIN but this is refunded immediately once the account is set up - perhaps this is what they mean?
1392
« on: May 12, 2011, 17:24 »
Ah... the perils of forum participation following a glass or 2 of a nice vino 
1393
« on: May 11, 2011, 17:32 »
From the link you provided, Jesus and the cross look really flat compared to the rest of the scene. The sharp difference in the lighting in the sky also throws me off.
Jaysus (seems like an appropriate expletive in the circumstances) Maybe it is, maybe it isnt, I dont know but IM happy with it and willing to stand over it. More importantly, no buyer has requested a refund (yet). Again, and apologies for shouting, THIS IMAGE IS NOT THE POINT HERE!! As an aside, why are most people hiding in the long grass? An anonymous opinion isnt worth a whole lot. You may be a Salvador Dali or a Leonardo Da Vinci or, simply, a tool with an opinion, how can I know? I may not like Seans comments but its arrogance based on achievement and, therefore, valid.
1394
« on: May 11, 2011, 15:49 »
So..
The answer to the actual question appears to be yes, IS are the only reviewers who know what they are talking about and all the other big sites reviewers are idiots
Lets examine this. The vast majority of stock images (note: I say the vast majority, there are millions of exceptions) are technically excellent but aesthetically sterile and boring with zero artistic value but very commercial and, like top 40 music, they are simply product. Therefore the role of the reviewer is to select product that is likely to sell. If that product sells, the reviewer got it right, otherwise not. On that basis, SS, DT, FT appear to have the edge.
Im quite aware of my limitations at this game but in terms of the image, which was just an example, not a request for criticism, the thinking was as follows (readily accept that if it needs explaining it has failed):
I wanted a low light, sunset situation with a beam of heavenly light illuminating the figure. The bushes are actually backlit by the setting sun and the shadows on the figure are caused by a gel on the volumetric spotlight (velocicarpo, close but not quite) to produce shadows as if this beam of light is coming through clouds. The face is important but the chest isnt, hence the effect. Didnt want to go very strongly on the volume as this would be interpreted as banding. In other words, this is what I was going for.
Microbius, yours is the only comment to which I take exception as nothing gets up my nose quite like condescension. Can you post a links to some of your ports on some of the sites so that I can see your credentials. Dated and middle of the road in comparison to what? Ball headed stick figures? Youre obviously pretty successful but Id like to form an opinion on your creativity and quite prepared to eat humble pie if you are producing something more than the ubiquitous visual muzak. My middle of the road crap is at least a little different and in page 1 (mostly) on SS by most popular searches by subject matter.
1395
« on: May 10, 2011, 13:42 »
Guessing YOU don't get too many rejects In my vast experience in these things they tend to flag execution problems and allow resubmit where they feel it salvageable seems like the equivalent of the SS LCV or DT Not quite what were looking for... . In any case, this image isn't the point of the post. It seems strange that the #2 site has such different criteria for 3d than sites 1, 3 & 4 where the criteria for photos and vector stuff seems similar (to judge from the number of threads on the subject especially in relation to SS). So is it the case that IS is the ONLY site that does this properly?
1396
« on: May 09, 2011, 18:07 »
True but it wasn't rejected for technical issues but for composition and (presumably) marketability.
1398
« on: April 28, 2011, 17:30 »
If it was my kids would be eating grass
1399
« on: April 28, 2011, 07:19 »
SadStock
They used 3 words to search for the image.
--------------------------------------------
Which three words?
"central", "park" and "central park"?
So the search that somebody actually entered was "central, park, 'central park'"? And they had to put "central park" in quotes. I'm thinking its far more likely that somebody searched on "central park".
I think this is the correct explanation. I have similar results on Robin Hood sales - nobody, but nobody, would use the single word robin or hood.
1400
« on: April 27, 2011, 04:10 »
Ah interesting - I just assumed folks were using PS. Must have a look at that.
I don't know about automated but, if 4 are approved in the time it takes to paste keywords on 1, it can't be a very detailed review.
Pages: 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 [56] 57 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
