|
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 - ShadySue
Pages: 1 ... 616 617 618 619 620 [621] 622 623 624
15501
« on: August 28, 2009, 17:57 »
That's a great milestone.  Congrats!
15502
« on: August 27, 2009, 16:56 »
Hi dear fellow photogs
I am about to embark on an exciting journey for a month or so to Cape Town to produce a lot of images (hopefully:).
I want to ask what you would shoot if you had 4-5 weeks of shooting with a couple of friends, a stylist and a bunch of lamps, scrims and 4 terabytes of storage  I really could need some inspiration, so don't hesitate if you have some valuable insight on what would sell and perhaps is missing right now on iStock.com.
Kind regards,
laflor
If I had such a luxury, I'd ditch the friends, stylist, lamps and scrims and head off to Hluhluwe/Umfolozi and Addo. If money was no object, I'd also spend some time at Londolozi. OTOH, that's why my dl/ul ration isn't great.  Enjoy!
15503
« on: August 25, 2009, 14:38 »
Tx - I can see them now! 
15504
« on: August 23, 2009, 18:38 »
Hi Chris,
Six months is a long time to get some better stuff together though and you'll learn a lot in the meantime. If I were you I'd get out in the sunshine with a friend, ...
What's sunshine? (nobbut a distant memory  )
15505
« on: August 23, 2009, 05:20 »
Hmmm
95% recognition
56% temporal
That's a huge difference!
Maybe you often recognise people, but you often can't place where you know them from
That's true, especially if I see them in a different context.
15506
« on: August 23, 2009, 04:15 »
Hmmm 95% recognition 56% temporal That's a huge difference!
15507
« on: August 22, 2009, 04:47 »
How long does it take for images to show up in the lightboxes?
I added some yesterday afternoon, put the banners into the description, and they're showing up here as having been added, but the five I added to the Nature box aren't showing in there yet, nor do they show in my 'lightboxes' thingy in My Uploads on iStock.
Usually, if I add an image to an iStock lightbox, it works immediately.
15508
« on: August 22, 2009, 03:59 »
Over the past few days my monitor has started to act crazy. It will jerk horizontally, suddenly widening and then narrowing the screen and then going back to normal. The frequency seems to be increasing today. Needless to say, it's kinda difficult to work.
I had exactly that with an Iiyama monitor. I took it to the repairer who said it was a loose wire, but two repairs didn't seem to fix the trouble and I gave up on the monitor. Mind you, the computer more-or-less packed up not long afterwards, so I guess the jury is out. :-(
15509
« on: August 21, 2009, 16:57 »
The camel one is the only one I would go with. Did that get rejected?
Thanks.
Yup -Everything was rejected with the same old reason. Every time.
All of them with the same reason? Well, at least you're consistent. Care to share? And the other Good News is that you've maybe only got one problem to overcome. I also support the view that after getting feedback here, you should also submit to the iStock critique forum. There's a well-known denizen of the forums who posted many times before he was accepted, and several people on the critique group thought he should give up, and he's doing just fine now - well on his way to becoming Silver. PS: if you put your images up in the iStock critique forum, wear your strongest Big Boy/girl pants. In general, people won't be gentle and say "It's a great pic but if you could just ..." - they'll just tear right in and say what's wrong. This isn't rude: iStock isn't BetterPhoto. Some of the people who give advice are top sellers, so pay attention and don't get defensive (my mistake :-( )
15510
« on: August 20, 2009, 18:14 »
High school teacher. Never thought of that as 'consumer services and products' before! 
15511
« on: August 20, 2009, 13:58 »
I for one got the proof that istock editors are looking at the images at 200% zoom.
It goes like this: when I get a rejection from them (not very often I must say) it's usually related to keywords. They're right about this, almost every time. However, I got a rejection recently to a photo with my son reading a book while lying in a grassfield which said: "Readable words".
What the...
It's a full body portrait and yea I have a 5D and the shot was taken with a very sharp 100mm f/2.8 macro, but still... a full body shot?
When I looked at the photo, the words were not readable at 100%. However.... they were at 200%.
The photo is this: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-34501825.html
And I got these days again a rejection of some diggers and construction machinery because one of them had a note (big as a palm) sticked in the corner of the windshield. They wanted me to clone that writing out. The photo is this: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-34427362.html - Indeed, some text is visible at 200%.
I don't think that proves that they always check at 200%, but that if there's even the slightest hint of an IP/copyright issue, they will zoom in to see if it can be distinguished at any zoom (sometimes if you zoom in to writing, it becomes more unreadable). This is the same as if there's even a tiny person in silhouette, they'll crank up the exposure to see if the person could remotely be identified with a +4 exposure, or whatever.
15512
« on: August 19, 2009, 16:02 »
they can get an editor they like to work with
?
Yup, I agreed with Jonathan's post overall, but didn't understand this bit either.
15513
« on: August 16, 2009, 16:15 »
.Most blogs I have visited from friends and colleagues show their own material - personal photos/videos, some of commercial value like folks from here. I have however found images of mine at blogs, most of which watermarked.
And then there are the ones who blythely hotlink to images - I've had a lot of this from my personal website, which I used to pro-actively chase up, to little avail, then used to swap the images for one which just said the words "Hotlinking is theft". I changed the URI of one image five times, but the hotlinkers persisted in following it up and hotlinking to it.
That was before I was spending all my time shooting and pp-ing for agencies. Now I just leave the hotlinkers to it. My personal site images are scrunched way down, from when I was on wet-string dial-up for about five years after everyone else was on broadband, and no-one could possibly make any money out of them.
15514
« on: August 16, 2009, 03:25 »
15515
« on: August 12, 2009, 06:38 »
Would it not be better to ditch the name and come up with something original.
From my persective the similarity between the words vetta and betta within the same industry will always look like a cheap shot 'wannabe' imitation.
David
Agreed.
When I was a child, there was a product 'similar to' Lego called Betta Builda (or possibly Betta Builder).
Has anyone heard of it?
I rest my case.
Added - well, there you go. I Googled and it was made by Airfix and was called Betta Bilda. You can still buy boxes for it nowadays. (my Mum threw mine out because I was always leaving it lying about; nothing changes)
http://www.bettabilda.com
15516
« on: August 12, 2009, 06:10 »
People make this more complicated than it is, and I understand the terms are a bit confusing at first. Once you get it, there's no problem.
4) Alamy does not have an approved camera list and does not restrict images from any camera. If your photo passes, it passes. If it fails they may suggest that your camera is not suitable for Alamy, but they don't restrict by camera models. I can advise you that any P&S will probably fail, just because of the sensor size, noise and color distortion. I have had G6 photos pass this year. You don't need a 5D or equivalent Nikon. A 20D or other DSLR 8mp APS-C sensor camera, with a good lens, shot at a low ISO, properly exposed to start with, will pass just fine.
However, from the Alamy blog, there is a Recommended camera list. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "In order to help you weve compiled a list of cameras that we have found to produce images of an acceptable quality when used in varied conditions. Please note that any cameras included in this list need to be used at their optimum settings and the images carefully processed using a professional image software package such as Adobe Photoshop. This list will give you an idea of whether the camera that you are using is capable of producing the results required (when used correctly) to pass QC. Of course, even the best cameras on the market will only produce technically acceptable images in the hands of a knowledgeable operator. At present we recommend the following cameras for submissions to Alamy: Canon * Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III * Canon EOS 5D Mark II * Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II * Canon EOS 5D * Canon EOS-1D Mark III * Canon EOS-1D Mark II * Canon EOS-1Ds * Canon EOS 50D * Canon EOS 40D * Canon EOS 450D / Digital Rebel Xsi / EOS KISS X2 * Canon EOS 30D * Canon EOS 1000D / Digital Rebel XS * Canon EOS 400D / Digital Rebel XTi * Canon EOS 20D * Canon EOS 350D / Digital Rebel XT Contax * Contax N Digital Epson * Epson R-D1 Fuji * Fuji S5 Pro Leica * M8.2 * M8 Nikon * Nikon D3X * Nikon D3 * Nikon D700 * Nikon D300 * Nikon D2X/s * Nikon D90 * Nikon D200 * Nikon D60 * Nikon D80 * Nikon D40X Olympus * Olympus E620 * Olympus E-30 * Olympus E-520 * Olympus E-450 * Olympus E-410 * Olympus E-420 * Olympus E-3 * Olympus E-510 * Olympus E-410 * Olympus E-400 Panasonic * Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1 * Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 * Panasonic Lumix DMC-L10 Pentax * Pentax K20D * Pentax K200D * Pentax K10D / Grand Prix Samsung * Samsung GX-20 * Samsung GX-10 * Samsung GX-1s Sony * Sony DSLR A900 * Sony DSLR-A700 * Sony DSLR-A350 * Sony DSLR-A300 * Sony DSLR-A200 * Sony DSLR-A100 Please note there may be other digital cameras that can produce files which would also be acceptable to Alamy."
15517
« on: August 12, 2009, 05:35 »
Would it not be better to ditch the name and come up with something original.
From my persective the similarity between the words vetta and betta within the same industry will always look like a cheap shot 'wannabe' imitation.
David
Agreed. When I was a child, there was a product 'similar to' Lego called Betta Builda (or possibly Betta Builder). Has anyone heard of it? I rest my case.
15518
« on: August 10, 2009, 18:49 »
I guess if I was writing a blog, I'd have been there, and I'd have taken the photo.
However, usage of RF images has very few restrictions, and from discussions on the iStock forums are very subjective (I can't speak about other sites).
Editorial would have to be much stricter, and much more carefully monitored. I can easily see why an agency wouldn't want the hassle at microstock prices.
I do write a blog and I purchase RF licensed images from Istock because they are affordable, and many standard microstock images are used in blogs already, not everyone who writes a travel blog is confident with a camera, even if they are there could well be an image that they missed or did not turn out good enough.
Sorry, I was being a bit flip. There's an RBS within five minute's walk from my house, which of course isn't the case for everyone, so I found your scenario rather more amusing than was appropriate. In fact, I uploaded a photo of a double-ATM of Ulsterbank (same logo) to Alamy this past week.
You are correct that RF images have very few restrictions, but they do have restrictions on use I cannot use a $2 download in a web template for instance, RF just means one payment then free of ongoing royalties for the specified use, but not free of restrictions.
RM means a payment of royalties for a specific, use, time period, sector and territory, this means any additional or repeat use should be paid for, it does not grant exclusive sector and territory use as many believe, and a history of use should be offered if asked for.
Why would Editorial need to be any stricter, and more carefully monitored, if you have licensed the image for editorial web use then that is the usage the license was issued for, the same as if I licence and download an RF commercial image, I am not allowed to sell downloads, prints, tee-shirts or any other merchandise.
I'm only guessing here, but with the current model iStock (remember, it's the only micro I've had dealings with, I'm not singling them out) only has to bother with some image being discovered where an EL hasn't been purchased (and can take a long time to clear this up, according to a current thread over there), or a few cases where there is doubt about how an image has been used, where iStock's interpretation is 'looser' than mine and many others would have been.
However, I guess they'd be much more worried about the possiblity of some big company suing because a photo with someone's intellectual property decides to sue because of a usage of the image. I hear what you're saying about who is responsible if the image has been clearly marked as for editorial use only, and have mentioned this on iStock's forums more than once. The general feeling seems to be that iStock and, by dint of their contributer's agreement, would also be responsible, in some legislations. The fact that you, or I, can't believe this is neither here nor there. (A parallel situation would be if someone went in to a fruit shop and bought an apple which they hurled in such a way to injure or kill someone else. In which legislation could the fruiterer be sued?)
The debate about editorial has been rehearsed several times on iStock's forums. They must be aware of the potential of the market and presumably they have experts advising them on the potential/risk balance.
As for me, I'm submitting editorial as RM, which again, for the reasons I've already stated on this thread, makes far more sense for a contributer if the topic isn't likely to be a 'top seller'.
15519
« on: August 10, 2009, 11:03 »
Maybe I didn't make myself very clear for some people on this site.
Yes, I was trying to figure out how "every photographer has to draw their own philosophical line in the sand they will not cross over in producing images" applied to a discussion on buyers spending habits. It seemed like a gear switch in the middle.
Oh thank goodness. I thought I'd lost the plot!
15520
« on: August 10, 2009, 09:09 »
As for why a company may wish to stress white people in their advertising campaigns, that is an entirely different matter. But I don't think it's as sinister as race bigitry. They also don't usually feature overweight people, bald people, people with bad complexions, scares, etc.
That actually would be race bigotry, as their reasoning would be that the models aren't as 'attractive' or 'aspirational' to the target audience. However, whether in the cases you describe race bigotry is any worse than 'normal-looking' bigotry is one I'd leave to the lawyers. In UK law, discriminating against someone because of their race is a criminal offence, I'm not sure about discriminating against people because they aren't drop dead gorgeous. Flicking through UK women's magazines seems to show that it's mostly US companies which are still featuring ddg and 'improved' or 'highly improved' (look like plastic dolls) models in their ads, which IMO looks really dated. UK companies seem more to feature clean, healthy, girl-next-door types, still 'more than averagely attractive' (subjective judgement) though.
15521
« on: August 10, 2009, 08:30 »
From that list, you should be able to find easily on microstock: people and places, lifestyle, environment, flowers and plants, animals and sports, though not big-name athletes.
<...
>...
Im guessing that the reason that most micros haven't gone in for editorial is that hassle/time/expense which would be involved in monitoring usage. It's not as though it hasn't been begged for many times on the iStock forums, for one.
<...
>...
For an editorial blog I would want the holiday shots of large crowds of people on holiday or at events, a beach full of holiday makers, an airport queue, a festival or carnival, for lifestyle activities like a family vist to an event natural and 'wearing the Nike trainers', sports the same clothing and events, all these would not have a release for the people or property, so I would not find them on the microsites only empty places and small intimate groups of people released shots wearing plain cloths with no logo's.
Monitoring usage is a matter of license conditions, there are limitations on RF so what is the difference with RM, the onus is on the person using the image, providing it is clearly licensed for editorial use only, there should be no problem.
David
I guess if I was writing a blog, I'd have been there, and I'd have taken the photo. However, usage of RF images has very few restrictions, and from discussions on the iStock forums are very subjective (I can't speak about other sites). Editorial would have to be much stricter, and much more carefully monitored. I can easily see why an agency wouldn't want the hassle at microstock prices.
15522
« on: August 10, 2009, 07:34 »
Lets assume for a moment that instead of selling a product, we are selling a service and wish to expand our market?
If you are a world wide organization, would you not want to reach a new demographic? One that you had not targeted before? I suppose I should mention that one of the continents we have offices in is Africa.
Most stock images of African 'Americans' would not relate to the African market. Two recent spells of 6 and 8 hours hanging round Johannesburg airport with the wide variety of personal and business travellers that you would expect, showed that that was true even of the South African business market, which I might have prejudged to be nearest. Not at all.
15523
« on: August 10, 2009, 06:59 »
Travel blogs require images of people and places, airline companies, all the others like lifestyle, environment, flowers and plants, animals, sports, where independent people write very informative articles and blogs on almost every subject but quite often they are just flat text and lack an eye catching image to attract and hold the reader, Getty look to have seen the potential of this market, will the prices be attractive enough for information providers and non business writers, and where is the microstock alternative?.
From that list, you should be able to find easily on microstock: people and places, lifestyle, environment, flowers and plants, animals and sports, though not big-name athletes. Im guessing that the reason that most micros haven't gone in for editorial is that hassle/time/expense which would be involved in monitoring usage. It's not as though it hasn't been begged for many times on the iStock forums, for one. From a contributer's pov, I've noticed that it's really not worthwhile to upload unusual species or places on iStock (can't speak for anywhere else). You get one or two sales, maybe five at best. So now I'm uploading these to Macro, where just one sale might return more than the file would ever get on micro. Wearing my wildlife charity newsletter editor's hat, that's unfortunate, but that's the commercial truth. You see requests on iStock for e.g. an unusual breed of dog. Half a dozen people rush out and shoot said dog, one image may, or may not, be bought (sometimes I think these posts are just chain-pulls) and the other images usually languish forever.
15524
« on: August 10, 2009, 06:35 »
Hi All,
I have found that the African American model is the most accepted in the U.S. market. The Asian and European markets generally do not use African American models or show as high a sales percentage of that ethnicity in their image purchasing, not nearly as high a percentage as U.S. sales. Bigotry is unfortunately, alive all over the world. I bet there is a translation for the word in almost every dialect.
Given that there are very few African 'Americans' living in Europe, it perhaps isn't surprising - or bigotted - that there are fewer sales for that demographic than there are in the States. I'd imagine that the market for kilted Scotsmen isn't that big west of the Pond, and wouldn't presume to assume that was because of bigotry.
15525
« on: August 04, 2009, 17:32 »
Would it be fair to say , that you took around 1 hour per picture to prepare, touchup, scan and upload etc ?
I can't speak for Denis, but apart from a short time last year when I thought it might be a challenge to take photos specially for stock, I'm out there taking photos anyway. I'd guess I take on average 10 minutes to prepare and touch up the images I'm taking now, plus uploading and keywording, which I now find easy on micro (iStock), less so on macro. At the same time, I'm coding some of my images for Powerponts, school, camera club competitions, my private website, whatever. I'd be doing all that anyway. So I'm not spending that much time specially on stock. It's very stress relieving, as when I'm focussing on getting all the technical aspects right I can't think about work, so it's far better for my health than jogging or gardening which leaves my mind free to fret. And I can listen to whatever music or radio channel or audio recording I want, which I can't do in my day job, and I couldn't do in MacDonalds (I'm guessing, it's years since I've been inside one). BTW, since we're mostly digital now, we don't need to scan.
Pages: 1 ... 616 617 618 619 620 [621] 622 623 624
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
