|
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 - Seren
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14
176
« on: March 18, 2008, 11:21 »
The person in the photo could identify themselves. Therefore a model release needed. If you have pictures with people in that you do not have a model release for, you should sell them rights managed, not for advertising use.
177
« on: March 18, 2008, 10:06 »
Lucky Oliver!
iStock I find pretty easy and predictable now.
178
« on: March 17, 2008, 13:48 »
In fact, because it is an isolated image, composition plays no part in this scenario.
It is expected that a designer will take an isolated image and do one of two things:
1. Copy the image into another image.
2. increase or enlarge the canvas size (White Space) in order to place text, or another image in order to create a composite.
The MIZ
Exactly, which is why the rejections just don't make any sense to me! I don't understand how I can improve the composition of a single object isolated on white! I mean, I guess I could shoot the other side of the ball, but it would look pretty similar...
179
« on: March 17, 2008, 13:47 »
I also despise the reviews that say I've used noise reduction software. I've never used noise reduction software in my life!
I've gotten those kinds of rejections from just about every site on images that had zero noise reduction applied... it isn't just this one reviewer at LO.
I'm not trying to defend the rejection - just noting that it happens at all sites and i've just decided that i don't fret most rejections these days - after 2 years of them, i just shoot more and move on.
Yeah, hard to move on when they're rejecting almost your entire portfolio! And rejecting shots that have been selling well elsewhere. I never thought I'd moan about rejections. I've never had weird ones on IS or SS, but LO just has totally thrown me. It's like they don't want peoples pictures...
180
« on: March 17, 2008, 13:24 »
For me, it's more about consistency. I agree with Miz, if I didn't think it would pass, I wouldn't submit it, but I am often wrong about that. I've had what I thought were marginal images accepted across the board and seel great and images I thought were great concepts fall flat.
BUT... I don't think my quality or concepts vary that much from batch to batch. So when, as is the case at many sites, you get 90% acceptance one time and 90% rejection the other, there is some other variable at play here other than the photographer.
Sure, I agree with Miz too, but these images have been accepted at other sites. So they've been rejected at LO, I've got back and looked at them, and perhaps agreed that I could have improved on a few things. But I cannot see how a Canon 5D on ISO100 produces noise (what should I be shooting on? Medium format loaded with ASA25 and a drum scanner?) when I haven't played with the images. I also despise the reviews that say I've used noise reduction software. I've never used noise reduction software in my life! I don't shoot subjects for stock that need it! But someone please tell me, why should I add more white space and improve the composition of this image: 
181
« on: March 17, 2008, 10:48 »
Just had another 25 rejected. Ok, a few I can understand. I still don't understand how you can see noise in a 5D's image shot at ISO100 with no post processing, and then reject the next image for over processing with noise software set at the same settings. But hey, I can live with that. But I don't get these... ! SD_RF_MS_08_0043.jpg, Peat Plant Pots
Composition could be better. It's a stack of plant pots isolated on white... how much more composition do you need? ! SD_RF_MS_08_0045.jpg, Military Boots
Composition could be better.
Image is too clustered, try to concentrate more on one point It's a picture of boots isolated on white... how much composition do you need? What does "image is soo clustered" mean? ! SD_RF_MS_08_0046.jpg, Water Polo Ball
Composition could be better.
Please leave space, too centered It's a water polo ball, isolated on white. In the middle of a canvas cropped to remove excess space (but leaving a decent white border). How can you need more space? All a designer needs to flippin do is add more white space around the edge! ! SD_RF_MS_08_0006.jpg, Red Capsicum
Composition could be better. My composition skills are clearly really bad. Perhaps I should give up photography. Because I can't even get a flamin red pepper isolated on white correct in composition! I thought I'd post it here to get your thoughts guys, I'll stick some thumbs up later if you want them. They've all been accepted on various other sites, and I don't really get the rejection. I'm going to figure out if I can contact the person who rejected them so that I can contest most of the batch. What do you lot think? Do you find LO rejects alot of your images isolated on white for bad composition? Or am I just a crappy photographer...
182
« on: March 16, 2008, 11:43 »
Guys! This isn't about which company I'm going to use to print my books! Firstly I like the quality I've seen from Lulu, secondly, there is no point in recommending half of these because they don't ship to the UK, or they cost a fortune!
The post was to see if anyone was interested in the concept, and perhaps to discuss the idea.
183
« on: March 16, 2008, 01:58 »
I get that ALL the time at work. The Login page just won't load. No idea why, it just sits forever on a black page.
184
« on: March 15, 2008, 05:47 »
I've been leaving DT for last because of the need to keep acceptance high.
Why's that? My acceptance rate at DT is crappy, because that's one of the first places I started submitting to nearly two years ago, and got most of my early stuff rejected...
185
« on: March 15, 2008, 03:42 »
I'll get my CD in the post this weekend, we'll see how quickly it gets uploaded!
186
« on: March 14, 2008, 11:25 »
May I suggest MyPublisher instead of Lulu? I did test prints at both and there's a major difference in quality. lulu is color photocopy and MyPublisher is 4 color print process. Yes Lulu is slightly cheaper but ... you get what you pay for. 
Mypublisher only do photobooks, they don't appear to produce a soft cover perfect bound book, which is what I want. Plus with a base price of $30, plus whatever (if) to ship to the UK, you're looking at selling it for $50-$60 to get a half decent mark up. I'm planning on selling these for around $25 max.  CORRECTION: They do a soft cover book, but only 20 pages. And you have to use one of their template. The books I've seen from LuLu easily compare to books you would get in a shop. Perhaps I'm just not knowledgeable to tell the difference.
187
« on: March 14, 2008, 07:27 »
IS- Best reviewers easily. Never had a rejection that I've had to dispute, when I get a rejection I go back and look, and can usually see the reason and then wonder why I missed it. I don't like the overfiltered reason though, because my new camera/lens combo seems to produce this one alot on landscapes with no post processing!
SS - Again, pretty good. Seem less picky about noise than IS. Usually what gets accepted will sell.
LO - Seems the strangest to me. They seem to reject images that are technically good, and accept images that are extremely borderline!
FT - I really dislike their rejection that blahs about "our clients use the pictures in magazines" because theoretically ANY picture could be used in a magazine.
188
« on: March 14, 2008, 07:22 »
Yeah, I've seen results that a friend got with Lulu, pretty * good! That'll be the way to go I reckon, if I get as far as putting it in a book!
189
« on: March 14, 2008, 02:38 »
Just an idea too... A friend and I are shooting around where we live for the month. There has never been a book produced with shots of Maldon (my home town) and it's a touristy place in the summer. So we're looking to produce books, print on demand, and get a farmers market stall for a few weekends and see if we can flog our wares, along with some prints from the books. We're going to try and convince local shops to take the books, and even see if we can flog them on eBay. If it all goes arse over tit, we'll just be left with a few books and prints to give to family and friends for Christmas. I'm also looking into getting an exhibition space to show the prints. This can be used as a springboard for so many things. You just need your imagination. 
190
« on: March 14, 2008, 02:35 »
" Single Photographer Book Month"! Anyone want to join me on this? It's a challenge of making a photo book in a month, a bit like national writers month in the states. I think we're going to hit it up around about April/May but of course you can pick any month you like! I made a flickr group because if there's one thing I lack it's motivation, so come and join us! http://www.flickr.com/groups/717288@N22/You don't have to produce a printed book at the end of the month, it could just be a collection of 6x4 prints, or a pdf file, or even a blog or forum post! The idea is to create something tangible within the limitations of a month. We all plan projects, and we never get them done, so there is nothing like setting a date for finishing, sticking to it and completing the challenge!
191
« on: March 14, 2008, 02:16 »
Also, I agree I spam all my heart images with "Valentine". But if I don't, and people search for "valentine", mine won't show. So if everyone uses this stretch, I have to use it too, not to be left behind.
Now, I have seen spammed keywords that are just absolute pure spam, like "blue" in a red image, or "tropical" for a snowed mountain scene.
Regards,
Adelaide
Also totally agree with this. Why should we sacrifice sales on our newer images? For instance, for ages I was adding to the keyword problem with my London photos. When you searched for "London" the default was London, Ontario (wherever . that is), but most of the photos that displayed for that tag were pictures of London in the UK (as you would expect - a capital city to come before a town) so I bet no one ever bothered to refine that they wanted London, UK, since most of the results were already there. So for ages, people just kept adding "London, Ontario" to their tags to keep in the game. Fortunately now the "proper" default is checked (i.e. the most popular) although I think there should be nothing checked at all. The problem now is the irrelevent stuff - eg, the map of europe and the patch of grass in the top results...
192
« on: March 13, 2008, 02:04 »
I doubt that any designer would pursue a refund. The small amount of gain on the refund does not justify the time spent pursuing it. If a designer makes $20 per hour (probably $50 minimum if taxes and other overhead are included), even spending 10 minutes on the pursuit is nothing more than a waste of effort. I could understand if it was a more expensive RM image, but at a couple of bucks, what is the point. Generally business mistakes don't matter much unless they cost in the thousands unless it is an unusually regular occurance. In the design/construction industry if you haven't made a 10K mistake, you either work on little stuff, have little authority, or just started.
Actually, it's a well discussed topic at iStock. People often do see refunds. I've had a few where a designer has bought a S size, then upgraded to an L and had a refund of the S. Assuming they used it as a comp without a watermark. It happens alot more than you think. There have been several reports of iStock refunding videos and photos because the customer decided they didn't need it after all...
193
« on: March 12, 2008, 04:37 »
That's funny, because the Warrant Officer at his last training posting gave me permission to photograph pretty much anything I want! Shame he left a week later!
194
« on: March 12, 2008, 02:15 »
Sounds good to me! My fella is in the RAF and I'm just itching to get a chance to shoot all the military planes... I think I have a few Army training Gazelle heli's in my portfolio, but that's about it. Certain agencies rejected them because the paint scheme is apparently a trademark. No point in arguing that the navy blue is the "standard" colour and the yellow cap is to let people know they're not qualified!
195
« on: March 11, 2008, 04:26 »
To get the instant payout of $25 without shooting myself in the foot...
196
« on: March 11, 2008, 03:15 »
Just read the terms on the FAQ, and realized that in fact it's a complete copyright buy out. Thought it was just a rights buy out. I'm not giving up my copyright for such a paltry sum - it would have to be four figures in UK money!
Can anyone point me to the royalty structure break down on DT? So I can figure out what level four means? They didn't have levels when I was with them before!
197
« on: March 11, 2008, 03:05 »
you can choose to have the image start at level 2 earnings, or have dreamstime buy the rights to the image for $25. When dreamstime buys the rights for $25 that is all you get - just the one time fee and then they are allowed to sell it and keep the revenue.
So do you know what the criteria is for them paying out (and it's level four btw!). I.E. if you ask them to buy it out, will they always accept it so long as it passes the technical inspection?
198
« on: March 11, 2008, 02:43 »
I have generally figured that an average image will earn $50 during it's entire life... it is hard to say since microstock is so young, but that is my conservative guess.
So if you are willing to wait a little longer, you could get at least $50 for each image you produced - you would just have to wait for it. I think that would be a lot better than $25 now.
once you get your portfolio large enough, the income from stock WILL be reliable every month - and it will continue even if you don't produce any images that month.
Yeah, but I'm talking about producing very average looking images that are unlikely to sell. Sure an average image will earn $50, but most images will just sit an languish on the sites never to be looked at. And 125 is around 15% of what I earn in my day job, so it's a serious way to top up the earnings. In fact, it's two new tires for my car (which both have punctures at the moment!) so I might have to at least do it this month to get the extra instant money!
199
« on: March 11, 2008, 02:17 »
Ok, so I've been looking at the monthly contest thing.
And of course the offer the chance to do the $25 buyout thing. What's the terms governing this? Is there anything to stop you entering ten fairly average images every month and making yourself $250? Because I could sure do with that guaranteed money every month!
How similar do they have to be to be the same concept? For instance, if I photograph my mum hoovering one room, could I submit photos of my stepdad hoovering another room to a different site?
200
« on: March 10, 2008, 06:17 »
Again, it wasn't a complaint about a specific rejection. I could just have easily used several other files as examples.
However, perhaps I should not have tagged it "isolated on white" and just had the tag "white background". I add the former because it helps it to sell on other sites. Will remember that for the future.
It had provoked interesting thoughts to me though about how I percieve sites to be run, and perhaps if they are coming across as a professional place to sell work. After all, the goal is to become professional - am I shooting myself in the foot by using a site that projects itself with a less than professional attitude, both in design and by informality and choice of staff.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
