|
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 - Fran
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11
151
« on: August 27, 2009, 11:18 »
I truly envy you. Good luck 
152
« on: August 25, 2009, 09:19 »
Tell the truth, always the best service. I get the same question about videogames: "How do I become a videogame programmer?" Well, if you are ready to be underpaid, work long hours and long weeks for months, be stressed all the time and see very stiff competition in front of you... go ahead, but you do it for passion, not for money. People just run off to send their CV to a bank afterwards
153
« on: August 25, 2009, 07:18 »
Ah, it's copy-space I was already wandering in the realm of composition, balancing, and bla bla bla. Thanks guys.
154
« on: August 24, 2009, 15:19 »
I totally agree Gostwyk,
It has a great deal to do with the composition and the negative space supporting as well as the subject matter or location. This can't be used on every image but some images do offer this and especially if you are thinking of it when composing your shots.
Best,
Jonathan
Jon, can you please explain me the concept of "negative space"?
155
« on: August 21, 2009, 07:54 »
I'm considering going exclusive with DT cause it's by far the best agency I'm with, although ISP in my opinion offers better overall return to exclusives (for example Getty). Problem is, my account on DT has just been suspended Since I've never had any problem with any agency I'm sure it's just a mistake, mine or by DT. I contacted support and wait... Hope everything goes well, or my choice about exclusivity will be much easier. Unfortunately.
156
« on: August 21, 2009, 07:48 »
I see the psychological reason behind this: a designer looks at an horizontal image and immediately things "no, it won't work for my vertical space", while a square image will give him more options but at the cost of resolution I guess.
What about the sell opportunities you lose by the part of the image that you have to crop out to make it square and _might_ be needed by another designer? Is it counted in your statement "it doesnt work for all images"?
157
« on: August 21, 2009, 07:43 »
There's also some technology, though not robust yet, to avoid the use of glasses. There's research going on in this field, I expect that within 10 years we'll all look at 'stuff' in 3D. At least that's the push I see in the industry.
158
« on: August 21, 2009, 03:52 »
That was fun and it wasn't too hard to make the "3d" image, although now I'm trying to readjust.
I dunno. It's a lot of concentration to make it work, and most stock is meant to be quickly viewed and digested. We won't be walking around with just our eyes trying to make it work, or 3d glasses all the time.
Yes, it's definitely not something for today and surely not for by crossing eyes. But _if_ the technology is well spread, and nearly everyone will have a Stereo 3D device at home, we might see more website supporting it (so more needs for stereo images), more presentation in 3d (more stereo images). I know the TV manufacturer are pushing hard on this cause they need something new to sell their hardware They estimate that by the end of 2010 all new TVs will support Stereo 3D. Jonathan, you should see what I'm working on now: same thing as Avatar in 3D but you can play it in the cinema
159
« on: August 20, 2009, 11:00 »
I'm researching Stereo 3D technology for work these days and finding more and more pushing towards Stereo 3D technology by the Movie and Gaming industry. It basically means that within 5 years the vast majority of the market will see some kind of Stereo 3D ready device capable of displaying Stereo 3D content. Here's Stereo 3D applied to photography: http://www.weatherscapes.com/techniques.php?cat=miscellaneous&page=stereoIt can be especially effective for landscape and architecture. The first stereo cameras are getting into the market. Do you think there could be a future in Stock as well? I would like to try to submit a few Stereo Images and see how they are received.
160
« on: August 20, 2009, 07:14 »
I'm Technical Director in a videogame company.
161
« on: August 13, 2009, 04:47 »
Naturally, I make sure the gallery prints will never get into my micro portfolio, as that would make your buyers pretty irate when they find that your prints are going at sub prices as well.
I see the point but I don't fully agree with it, since you are really selling a different product at different price point cause you are providing a different value. In the first case you are selling a physical object, where you put your expertise into making a fine print, and this object is "unique" (let me use this term improperly) and can be hung on the wall to decorate a house, for example. In the second case you are selling a digital file, that cannot be printed at high quality, and has very limited usage rights granted, thus the lower price. I don't see any problem in selling the image in both places, since you are effectively selling a wildly different product. Surely, perception can be damaged though.
162
« on: July 23, 2009, 04:17 »
thankyou for the advice
I guess I should go for 32bit.
I'd definitely go for Vista 64 and upgrade to Seven 64 as soon as it's available.
163
« on: July 22, 2009, 12:33 »
Si'
164
« on: July 22, 2009, 06:09 »
Thanks, very appreciated by a total beginner like me.
165
« on: May 04, 2009, 05:25 »
Do you guys still have mad rejections? I just got an entire batch of 24 rejected for uneven lighting. The probability that all of them are lit incorrectly are pretty slim (my acceptance is around 80%), so I'm curious to know if I just met Attila the reviewer.
Should I resubmit? Or wait a week and resubmit? Or not bother? (There are a couple of images I think will do well in there).
166
« on: April 26, 2009, 06:26 »
I shoot with a Sony A900 that I'm totally in love with, with a couple of old Minolta primes and a CZ85. Totally beautiful system and not that expensive after all... The only problem is lens lust 
167
« on: January 23, 2009, 03:48 »
Got that too. Love is only a shot away
168
« on: January 15, 2009, 05:07 »
169
« on: January 14, 2009, 10:23 »
Unlikely as IS only draws from its exclusive contributors for the inspector pool. I think another explanation should be considered - what's that scientific principle that says the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one?
I agree. The simplest explanation is that they are tightening the QA and I need to improve to keep my 70%. As simple as that, not a big deal really.
170
« on: January 14, 2009, 09:41 »
DT completely dead for me.
Has also anyone noticed a pretty sharp raise of the quality bar on DT? My AR went down to 40% from 70% average per month and, worst, I can't understand some rejections. I must say they are always quick at answering my emails, but a couple of suggestions on how to improve a shot were quiet weird to understand.
I'm not against higher quality bar at all, cause it pushes me to increase quality, I'm just curious to understand if it's the case.
171
« on: January 13, 2009, 10:16 »
And if I may add: take any rejection and any criticism as a very important chance to improve. What we do will probably never be perfect so there's always room for improvement.
172
« on: January 13, 2009, 06:10 »
I take it back: 14 out of 24 rejected, but it was mostly my fault. I still close too much on the subject and they reject for cropping.
173
« on: January 09, 2009, 08:58 »
I think they were referring to spending many sleepless nights to come up with the name, not the program. 
Even worse! *ranting*
174
« on: January 09, 2009, 08:32 »
This is how 'Dexter' was born (Dexter was our code-name for the project: a 'killer new interface' don't laugh, it took many sleepless nights to come up with that ). For the past 3 months, we've been developing this stand-alone app that allows customers to rapidly find and download iStock content. Here at Macworld, we were finally ready to show it to the world.For the love of anything that is holy and italian, please don't program at night and try to pass it as a good thing. It's evil. It makes worst software. It slows you down. It generates more bugs. It makes you look unprofessional. *End of my geeky rant* 
175
« on: January 08, 2009, 06:53 »
My last batch was 11 out 16 accepted, the rejections were absolutely reasonable. This submission was better than my normal standard, but I'm also starting to upload people shots in controlled light, which I think are easier to get accepted (I have 100% on those so far).
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
