|
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 ... 60 61 62 63 64 [65] 66 67 68 69 70 ... 73
1601
« on: May 20, 2007, 10:31 »
Wow, 9/10 is rude, but 1/10 is offensive.
Sorry to hear about your situation, GeoPappas. Hopefully it won't impact your sales too much.
1602
« on: May 20, 2007, 10:23 »
...
As well, my travels to Banff will hopefully (surely?) produce some photographs that will be more appropriate for Alamy than SS and IS.
...
The second reason, is that I'm sick and tired of the bad reasons for rejection.
I hate to rain on your parade, but of all the photography markets, landscape photography is the most flooded. Your images will have to be extremely exceptional in order for them to sell. Unless you are very lucky with light and weather, showing up at a location for only a few days will not yield the results you need. Success in landscape photography is also highly dependent upon on your name. Even if you make a better shot than say, Rowen/Briot/Reichmann/Adams, people will prefer to buy the work of a recognized/established artist for the cachet. A lot of landscape photographers market their work locally by making pretty postcards and greeting cards. With respect to your rejections, the easiest thing in the world to do is dismiss the reviewers as being unjust. It's much harder to accept and learn from their (commercially biased) opinions. Rejection is never easy to take, and you will doom yourself to enduring more of it by not adapting/changing the way you make images. ... good luck!
1603
« on: May 20, 2007, 09:53 »
/sigh/
... looks like the nefarious 9/10 critic is continuing to make the rounds.
1604
« on: May 19, 2007, 19:06 »
You guys are late ... no 10s for you!
1605
« on: May 19, 2007, 18:30 »
yeah i have seen that lens pen at bh photo but was hesitant to get it as it has some liquid in it, and imagined the liquid squirting all over the sensor.....
perhaps i should check it out a little more.
LensPen products use a patented powder, not a liquid - they do a fantastic job on my lenses!
1606
« on: May 19, 2007, 18:20 »
I'd give him 1/10 if I were you; I mean, he completely MISSED the alien spacecraft........
Yeah, I missed the UFO, but I did get the International Space Station!
1607
« on: May 19, 2007, 12:59 »
A nice clean site - way to go, leaf! My only negative comment would be that the text in the images doesn't change when I select english as the language - probably not a big issue given your location, but one that really stands out for those who don't speak Bokmål or Nynorsk. I currently use the Giotto big rocket as a blower along with the venerable Copper Hill stuff. I've also tried the Photographic Solutions Sensor Swab, which I found to be as effective as Cooper Hill, but much more expensive. I'm not too pleased with the sensor swipe method in general (takes too long, have to swipe many times, quite finicky), and have it on my list to try the LensPen solution, of which I've read a few favorable reviews. I like how it opens up the possibility of cleaning the sensor in the field, as opposed to the wet method (usually involving the kitchen table - grin). As chance would have it, LensPen HQ is only a few km from my place; it will be interesting to talk with the principals of the business.
1608
« on: May 19, 2007, 10:39 »
Thanks for visiting my image, everyone - it's now on page 2/54 in the "Popularity" rankings. Go "Planet Earth", Go!
I've got a beef to raise, though. Someone - and I won't say who - rated it only 9/10. Even though I've only been at this for 4.1/2 months, even I know that it is the accepted practice to leave only perfect marks.
The purpose of this exercise is to help each other promote ourselves - it is not for you to subjectively judge the work of others. I don't know what you were thinking by rating my image anything less than 10/10. I visited your image and rated it as high as possible. I view your failure to reciprocate as quite derogatory and lacking in etiquette.
You have made me feel slighted and shortchanged - I suggest that in the future you consider the impact your actions may have upon others.
End of rant.
1609
« on: May 19, 2007, 07:23 »
No - I mean making the image look as attractive as possible at preview and thumbnail sizes.
Given the overall fussiness of most reviewers, I no longer sharpen my images.
1610
« on: May 18, 2007, 17:29 »
Sorry, I don't track that statistic, either.
Apart from making larger images, a higher resolution camera also allows you to downsize, which can be a real bonus for noisy and blurry grab shots.
1611
« on: May 18, 2007, 17:19 »
Yeah, I just now saw that and was about to post a thread ... consider yourself patted on the back, hatman12 - well done!
1612
« on: May 18, 2007, 17:14 »
Just thought I'd share a quick tip: When cropping/composing an image in photoshop, zoom in and out between thumbnail and preview sizes (that the microstock sites show) so that you can optimize the 'curb appeal' of your images.
1613
« on: May 18, 2007, 16:45 »
It's a mash-up of a plain-jane crescent moon shot and a looking-out-of-the-airplane-window shot. Pretty easy to do, really - I've generated a whole series of them.
I'm peaved that IS won't accept it - they either complain about the (very minimal) banding, say it's not a suitable stock image, or politely decline to add it to their collection. I submit it every few weeks or so ... one of these days it'll make it in!
1614
« on: May 18, 2007, 15:05 »
I was assuming that she was using her own computer, and merely borrowing the internet connection.
Never do password-related or confidential stuff on a computer that you cannot control access to - hacking and snooping is altogether too easy.
1615
« on: May 18, 2007, 14:48 »
Okay, I'm in! I visited your images, rated them and left comments. Here's my shot:
1616
« on: May 18, 2007, 11:26 »
You're safe as long as the site you are logging on to is encrypted.
Paypal is encrypted, but none of the microstock sites are. I'd be very surprised if your online banking site wasn't encrypted.
1617
« on: May 17, 2007, 17:23 »
The entire trademark thing is awash with inconsistency: a teddy bear is not okay, but a cell phone is. It's okay to show an image of a Ferrari, but not to mention this iconic brand in the keywords. A baby sipping a bottle is okay, but a baby playing with a rattle isn't.
Perfectly senseless.
If you want to sell the image, they'll probably insist you get property releases - easy to do for the homemade blanket, but impossible for the teddy bear.
1618
« on: May 17, 2007, 16:26 »
One of the things I do with both FT and DT is to upload a bunch of stuff and forget about it for a few days, when they'll be close to or at the front of the queue. If DT is taking too long, I'll finish off one or two images as markers so that I'll know when it's time for me to get busy there.
Thanks for the heads up, chellyar!
1619
« on: May 17, 2007, 16:20 »
After taking a few cursory looks, I'd have to say that even though they use a lot of keywords, some rather obvious ones are missing. Take the pencil shot: we call them pencil crayons in North America, the shot is isolated on white, and the colours (British spelling) of the rainbow or spectrum are shown. One of the things that makes the image unique is that the pencils are ordered/arranged/sorted by length/height, forming a diagonal/slanted/sloping line.
The aircraft shot contains many inappropriate keywords: air,airfield,airline,airlines,left,modern,overhead,passengers,runway,tourists,travels.
Like the pencils, it is missing a few important ones: aeroplane,aviation,airbus,boeing,civil,flight,isolated,profile,silhouette,white.
Needless to say, I am not overly impressed with the 'keymasters' program. Keywording can be deceptively challenging - I recently uploaded a bunch of shots featuring a full moon and forgot to include the keywords "full" and "moon"!
1620
« on: May 17, 2007, 15:53 »
This happens not at all infrequently to me - when I notice that it's happening I jump right on it and finish off as many images as I can. I usually have 50+ images uploaded and ready to be categorized at any given time.
I always keep my email app open, and wait a few minutes after categorizing three or four images - if they are reviewed quicky and rejected I stop categorizing until a more favorable reviewer logs on.
1621
« on: May 17, 2007, 09:51 »
Freezingpics: I'm curious about the keymasters program. I cannot see your keywords - can you post a link to a few images along with the title, description, and keywords? How much does it cost? Can you elaborate a little about speed/accuracy/effectiveness/value?
1622
« on: May 17, 2007, 09:43 »
... seems like a waste of time to me - why are you bothering to post there? Perhaps you'd be better off spending that time 'schmoozing' with a better income source.
I (try to) regularly spend some spare time (yeah, right) at IS, revisiting the keywording on images that aren't selling well, and looking for trends in the stuff that sells.
1623
« on: May 16, 2007, 18:52 »
...
"Get the highest resolution camera you can (she uses 16mp) and ALWAYS upload the largest possible image size ...
Shooting with a 16MP camera also allows you to generously downsize, which significantly improves perceived sharpness and virtually eliminates noise on shots that would otherwise be commercially worthless. It probably affects how reviewers see the image as well, since only very serious (or well-heeled) photographers can afford one. I always upload a high res version of the shot first, then downsize to 8MP or 4MP if it gets rejected for technical reasons. I am also of the opinion that stock images have a different look than "regular" photography. Copy-space, angles, isolations.
Yeah, they sure do. My mother was recently looking at one of my portfolios and commented that most of the images don't look "real" or "normal". She can't believe that I earn my living doing this, and is concerned that I'll be left high and dry when "the bottom falls out".
1624
« on: May 16, 2007, 16:32 »
...
Remember, you are an amateur photographer. You have been taught to fill the frame with your subject. (if not you are now)
Composition, framing, and balance are our credos.
...
Please don't assume that all of us here are amateurs - I'm a bit put off by that. As far as framing/cropiing/whitespace goes, I think there are two distinct microstock buyers: those who want as close to a raw image as possible, and those who want a completely finished image. And thanks for sharing the hidesy advice, hatman12!
1625
« on: May 16, 2007, 12:11 »
Interesting that you should mention Corbis - they have yet to turn a profit in any quarter of their existance. The company was started by Bill Gates, who believed at the time (still does?) that prints will someday be supplanted by electronic picture viewers. I think they're about as likely to dominate this industry as LO. I'd like to see StockXpert doing better as well.
Pages: 1 ... 60 61 62 63 64 [65] 66 67 68 69 70 ... 73
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
