|
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 - click_click
Pages: 1 ... 80 81 82 83 84 [85] 86 87 88 89 90 ... 119
2101
« on: October 24, 2010, 19:20 »
It will be interesting to see how many of these go to non exclusives. I'm guessing.....errr.....zero ?
Nah __ they'll be at least one token independent chosen as a newbie who they're pretty sure will go exclusive as soon as able. Same thing happens on the 'Hot Shots' thingy they send out. It's a painfully predictable formula that they work to.
+1
2102
« on: October 24, 2010, 11:07 »
..."On December 15 we will award 10 Stockys to iStock artists in categories like Artistic Vision, Technical Achievement, and Most Useful. Each award comes with a fancy icon, pride, and $2000 cash."
Yes, I read it the same way.
2103
« on: October 23, 2010, 23:02 »
Added expense? I registered my first 1500 images for $35. Any amount of images can be registered for $35 (if they price hasn't gone up in the meantime).
Yes, it's a nominal fee to register a completed collection. But as an illustrator who is not churning out generic icon sets, would you recommend that I register each one individually as they are completed?
As a response that makes most sense I'd recommend to collect a number of finished illustrations without publishing them first. Once you have a set of 10,20 or 50 register them and then upload them. Sure it doesn't make sense to register every illustration individually - for microstock that is.
2104
« on: October 23, 2010, 10:30 »
It's my understanding that the extra amount awarded from registration will actually give you a reason pursue and be awarded reasonable damages. Might or may not - depends on the individual case. And the more word gets around that the average person or company can be hit in the wallet the less infringers there will be.
I doubt that. ...Since the likelihood of that happening in microstock is pretty much slim to none, I'm guessing few probably are willing to go to the added expense of formal registration.
Added expense? I registered my first 1500 images for $35. Any amount of images can be registered for $35 (if they price hasn't gone up in the meantime).
2105
« on: October 23, 2010, 09:53 »
I voted yes as my previous experience shows that IP lawyers feel a lot more confident to succeed in case of litigation if the claim goes to court.
For out of court settlements it may not be really necessary. It's just another piece in the puzzle that protects my rights.
2106
« on: October 22, 2010, 10:31 »
...That's our money they're spending on this contest.
This was exactly my initial point when starting this post. I think it's disgusting to cut our commissions and turn around and throw away money (out of their unsustainable cut) for some really useless "awards". No wonder their business is unsustainable when tossing the cash out of the window like that. Use your brains! 
2107
« on: October 21, 2010, 19:30 »
Oh goody another brown-nosing popularity s*cking-up contest.
yawn.
I don't care - they can have contests until their lights go out - fine with me, really. But $2,000 prize money just after the disgusting news about paycuts? Come on. Does an agent have to blow the money amongst all its signed artists? Can you imagine what Johny Depp would tell his agent if they started handing out parts of their cuts to other actors? Danged, $2,000 each - 10 times. Bah.
2109
« on: October 19, 2010, 12:44 »
It's beyond me why any agency would want to actually "design" the photographer's back-end. Why do we have to look at a pretty site? We just upload and organize our content, no need for "fancy" designs. Completely useless and a waste of bandwidth. Same with Veer and those letters on the right... 
2110
« on: October 19, 2010, 12:01 »
As much as I don't want to defend iStock, I believe they had more important things to "fix" than some back-end CSS...
2111
« on: October 19, 2010, 12:00 »
by the way, what else we need to do once a rank change? other than able to change the EL credits..what else contributors may not be awared?
I just learnt today the credit we earn is also affected by what currency the customers had paid..and i am not sure how much we really get after all.
All you can do is to check if your images are set to the highest credit pricing according to your rank. I'm not aware that you can influence anything else regarding buying currencies etc.
2112
« on: October 19, 2010, 10:56 »
Log into your Fotolia account and select "My Files"Then, below click on "Uploaded files". Now you see the list of all pending, accepted and rejected images. You cannot make price changes to pending images. You have to wait until they are accepted. On the right of each row of an accepted image click on "Edit data", which takes you to the image's details. Here you can change the importance of keywords by moving them up and down AND you can change the base price for your image (only worth mentioning for higher level contributors, Emerald and up for non-exclusives) as well as your EL pricing. As Bronze you are able to set all your EL prices to 50 credits max. You can see this information here on the Fotolia web site, posted in their FAQ section: http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors#item_8Hope this helps.
2113
« on: October 19, 2010, 09:55 »
Something is weird there with the EL's at Fotolia. I sold an EL for 20 credits today and my share was only 5.6$.
What commission level are you at Fotolia? And why is your EL price set to 20? I thought the lowest max amount you could chose was 50.
2114
« on: October 19, 2010, 09:50 »
hello everybody,
thank you all for your help! I wrote to support and they told me just the same as you all.
I forgot only to ask...maybe you can help me and here...
if I made photo manipulation from the stock background, stock woman, stock vector swirls and some of my personal photos, do I really need to write under my image "name/shutterstock" ? I mean, to write (credit) to stock agency and author of the image? It would be very big job - sometimes I use 30 objects from stock in my manipulations... it would be 30 authors...
I'd say technically yes but I'm also quite sure no one is going to sue you if you don't. How is the image going to be used for if I may ask? Print ad, personal web site, commercial web site, TV commercial, appearance in a feature film...  If it's a "big" job I'd try to name the copyright holders of the elements you used.
2115
« on: October 19, 2010, 09:47 »
1 hier - Deutsch und deutschsprachig, nicht in Deutschland 
2116
« on: October 19, 2010, 07:44 »
I wouldn't know, could be that Click_Click is a she, but whatever it's not the same person as CClapper. 
I'm a "he".
2117
« on: October 18, 2010, 20:32 »
Also I suspect that Alamy tags people according to accepted photos vs rejections. So if you have problems, they will look closer than someone who has 2000 images accepted and one rejection two years ago for uploading some really bad photoshop work. ...
That is correct. Alamy was very frank with everyone in the past about that. If a contributor had a "high" rejection rate the reviewers would look closely at more images. If one had 100% approval rate the batches just sail through. I cannot vouch though if that policy is still in place like that. Although it might not be "smart" to upload single image batches I'm still doing it because I have very bad experiences with their upload system (even the new beta one) if I upload more than 2 images. Processing could take almost a week sometimes longer. If I upload single image batches one after another the images pass the next day.
2118
« on: October 18, 2010, 08:52 »
hi all, i know in alamy the QC is one failed and the rest of batches in queue will be rejected too.
But the failed one can be in any batches or just the first batch?
will it has the situation that the first batch image is perfect, and some of the images in subsequent batches are not okay but all passed because off the first batch is observed as okay?
thank you.
You got it right! Alamy will check randomly to see if an image looks good. If it passes (or the images they chose to look at) all other images will pass also. It's possible that they look at a "good" image and will automatically accept "bad" images in the batch - if you are lucky. But I don't think you're doing yourself a favor. Only upload your best work so the buyers will be happy.
2119
« on: October 15, 2010, 13:30 »
I'm not an intellectual property lawyer.
I think you are fine. I even believe you are fine if a car owner had that specific tag.
Since the original tag has been modified to a fictional order of letters and a number, I think the tag owner would have to prove you actually took a picture of their tag.
Since you can prove that you didn't take that image and by keeping the Photoshop file showing all layers of editing including the fact that these letters are your fiance's initials I'd say it's a far stretch to get sued over this.
You aren't spelling out a name, brand or other copyrighted words and I also assume that any major advertising agency's ads that contain vehicles with tags are fictional but could be found somewhere in real life also. I'd say this would be without intention. License plates add to the realism of an image and I doubt courts could sue over fictional license plates.
I'm not an intellectual property lawyer.
2120
« on: October 14, 2010, 20:05 »
Let me assume you are talking about iStock? If not feel free to name the agency.
For iStock it's absolutely normal to approve your application based on images that they will not accept for their collection.
I know it sounds like it doesn't make any sense but that's how they are. Once you figure out what they accept it's a piece of cake.
2121
« on: October 14, 2010, 08:40 »
I just came across this little thing: http://www.hipixpro.com/index.htmlIt's a compression software and image viewer that easily cuts JPG storage in half. I did a quick test and it looks pretty * good. Test it for yourself, it's free and no I'm not affiliated with them in any way.
2122
« on: October 12, 2010, 10:57 »
Use Quicktime .MOV as container and Photo-JPG as codec for computer animated clips and "Motion-JPG" for filmed clips.
Just submit Full HD 1920*1080 at 29.97 fps.
2123
« on: October 12, 2010, 10:32 »
Don't bash other people's work if you are not willing to show yours.
What do you expect from this forum by simply picking a portfolio that you believe is inferior compared to yours without showing it?
Waste of time.
2124
« on: October 09, 2010, 09:02 »
hi click_click, so u think there is a certain amount of noise/artifacts? I thought since i shoot at iso200 and raw to jpg, with outdoor light..even there is noise or artifacts in shadow area, it will be acceptable.
The sharpening i think is by default of raw converter, quantity is 25, but i hardly think a 25 sharpening may introduce artifacts.
actually this results are the best my camera can produce, i google internet of artifacts..i see maze like, i check out some samples of artifacts, i didn't really see mine is as worse as.
maybe i should try to train my eyes more! but one thing i notice that it is always the bokeh will make artifacts obvious.
A low ISO doesn't automatically mean you cannot "create" plenty of noise. In general we could claim that ISO 200 wouldn't cause enough noise in an image to be rejected. At iStock the super artsy images have noise added to the shot to give it a certain look and they're also accepted. Your shot may be on the verge of what an inspector/reviewer is allowed to pass. Some might pass it, some might reject it. The bokeh (or out of focus areas), especially when they consist of brighter colors you would immediately see artifacts or noise. Those areas are supposed to be nice and smooth and not gritty looking with grains and dots of course. Those blurred areas are a perfect area to use a blur filter or noise reduction to make them look nice and smooth. No fear of losing detail.
2125
« on: October 09, 2010, 08:55 »
what about animations? can anyone comment about how well there animations do?
If you look on iStock you can see that some very good animations have 1000, 2000 or more downloads each. It depends on your concept and the execution of your animation. There are plenty of animations that never sold so it's just up to your skills to see if it will work or not. Filming with a real camera however, as Sean mentioned, is a different ball game.
Pages: 1 ... 80 81 82 83 84 [85] 86 87 88 89 90 ... 119
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
