Quote from: pancaketom on December 02, 2011, 13:19

My first photo (which was part of my initial 10 too) got rejected because it would be more suitable on graphicriver - but I was under the impression that was for vector art - although looking at it it appears that they also include vector photo composites.

Has anyone else uploaded straight photos to graphicriver?

you can see the image in question here:

http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-fireball-image993876

I got an e-mail about this image, but I couldn't find this image on the site anywhere - where are the results of image reviews displayed?

Hi pancaketom!  This can be a tricky one.  Can you tell me, is this file simply a jpeg or is there psd/AI file available?  The answer will help me determine where it should reside

This file is just a simple jpeg - a slightly photoshopped photo (I made the background truly black and removed a few distracting foreground elements).

edit - maybe it went through the wrong review channels since I think I tried to ftp it before I discovered I had to .zip the first submission (so it didn't go into a sub folder).

Quote from: MatHayward on December 02, 2011, 11:32

Can someone point me in the direction of the file size requirements?  I just had my first image approved there but it appears a full resolution download from my 1D Mark III is only going to be worthy of a "Large" sale at $5.

Is this accurate? 

Mat

Hi MatHayward!  Hopefully this answers your question.

Extra Small
387 x 516 (0.2MP)   $1
Small
671 x 894 (0.6MP)   $2
Medium
1225 x 1633 (2.0MP)   $3
Large
2121 x 2828 (6.0MP)   $5
Extra Large
3000 x 4000 (12.0MP)   $7
Extra Extra Large
5412 x 7216 (39.1MP)   $9

That is sort of an odd distribution, and the jumps from 6 to 12  and then to 39 MP are rather drastic but without a corresponding drastic increase in price. Perhaps it is based more on the sizes needed for specific uses than on what cameras produce images of those sizes.

@pancaketom: i'm not claiming objectivity. I don't think anyone invested could. We are discussing November sales. Not the big picture. Concerning big picture, I've regularly criticized istock for making company benefitting decisions at the expense of contributors. What makes you think I don't have my finger at the ready over the crown eject button? You're reading what you want to as much as anyone else is. I don't think your comments are fair or accurate. I don't passionately defend istock. I do sometimes defend individuals who are being personally attacked by sophomoric twits. There are real people at work, good people. And fwiw I can't scroll easily only iPhone. I'm currently sitting in a cessna 4000 ft above Georgian bay. I wasn't intentionally inflating monthly reports. I was simply stating that there are some diamonds doing well and there are reasons why some contributors don't appear to be doing well. I don't know why
Contributors compare this year to x year. Those numbers only matter if ports are growing at the same rate as the collection. Obviously not possible for any of us

Um, I don't think I directed anything at you personally (or in any other fashion really). From time to time I make comments to myself when I read your posts - especially when you tout the superiority of IS search, but you seem to continue to do well there so why shouldn't you mention what you like about them. Despite the fact that I often disagree with you I think you get more than your share of ad hominem atttacks which I think is unfortunate and uncalled for.

In any case I think you are confusing me with someone else but if it was something I said you felt was directed at you I do apologize, that was not at all my intent I was merely stating that IS did VERY poorly for me this last month, but that isn't a big surprise, I deactivated about 95% of my portfolio rather than accept the new TOS for those images.

they will probably double vetta RC or something to help out the chosen few.

When the house was on fire, IS threw a lifebuoy now that there is a flood, they will hit us with a fire-extinguisher.

anybody want to take odds on when the next site outage will be?

Anyone want to send some twitter messages mentioning some other sites like DT or SS or any others that are still up and running?

I was trying to add up my totals for the month and I realized I have no clue what the pathetic IS contribution actually is - and that was before the icky monsters got into the basement and reset the servers back to 1979 or whatever happened.

Quote from: lagereek on November 30, 2011, 09:31

You might all wanna go back to the drawingboard and try to get it right in-camera and from the very start. There are photo-schools and colleges, something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy. Spending thousands of bucks on high-res cams, just to downsize to a point/shoot cam is not to recommend.
Take the rough with the smooth boys. Tisk, tisk, tisk.

Camera, tripod - Ah now I see, I was using my phone sellotaped to a table 

sellotape and table = genius. That should work a lot better than using gum to stick it to my dog

perhaps the IS sales are mostly migrating to TS - keeping it in the Getty family so to speak. If they really do port all the independent content there but not most of the exclusive that means high $ IS exclusive sales are being turned into low $ indy PP sales. YAY.

I don't think the level you are at effects your search placement, but SS has been taking off this year with a number of BMEs.

"There SHOULD NOT!  be any room for diletants in todays stock-files. This is not a charity organization where some poor young photographer should be given chances, etc, this is a cut-throat business and all of us here in this forum are in serious competition with each other, no matter how friendly we, here, in postings, etc.

Stock photography is the same as anything else. You have to EARN your place, earn your position and rights,  end of story. Thats what IS, forget all the time and right now you have rookie-files way up front in everyone of their searches. "

Well said Christian.

I have to disagree here a bit. It shouldn't be about someone earning their place. It should be about the image. If the image is good enough it should have a chance to go in front of the buyers. If they want it, it should sell.

Now I can see why a site would prefer someone who consistently produces good selling images over someone who only rarely produces one and sends lots of losers too, but they should weed them out with upload limits based on rejections or a hard initial application, not by shooting down the few good images they might produce.

In general I would say that the micro inspection process has a fairly high degree of chance and that images are screened too tightly on pixel peeping quality and that the search engine should help determine what ends up on the front page and if something doesn't sell after a year or 2 or 4 it can be culled. I also think that there is value for the collection in obscure subjects that might only rarely be searched for and bought - but if they aren't in the collection then the buyer goes looking elsewhere and maybe will stay there for the rest of their image needs too.

I slogged through the legal stuff over at PhotoDune and it still says 25% everywhere I saw a percentage for independents,  When is this going to change? (or is it actually at 33% now but all of the text still just says 25%?

It always annoyed me when they have some downtime and offer discounts because of it and it comes out of our percentage too.

Another note on the views and zooms at Alamy. I think that only certain registered buyers count towards these views and zooms - so it is technically possible to have a sale without any zooms or views (This could have changed or maybe I heard wrong).

for the last 2 years or so I seem to be at the ratio of 1 sale to 10 zooms to a bit under 1,000 views. I did get quite a bit more than 10 zooms before my first sale though, so there might be a big lag or maybe I was statistically unlucky at first.