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.
Quote from: qwerty on November 12, 2009, 08:25Quote from: leaf on November 11, 2009, 15:12
boy, you guys are making me self conscious about my quality 11 jpgs.
I deleted my test images but I couldn't tell any difference .. so I am not sure there would be a point in posting them - unless of course it was just me.
How did you know which one to delete ?
Quote from: leaf on November 11, 2009, 14:52
So which is it?
When I edit and save the file I save it as a TIFF so it isn't compressed. When I upload to a stock site I save a JPG version. In photoshop you are asked at which quality level you want to save the JPG file. Some microstock sites say to save it at the highest level (12), others say quality level 10 is good enough.
Which do you use? The difference in file size on the disk is significant. For a regular file from the Canon 5D mark II the sizes are
Quality 12 : 10.5 MB
Quality 11 : 5.5 MB
Quality 10 : 3.5 MB
So in regards to storage and FTP uploading it is tempting not to use quality 12. There is obviously a lot more information in the Quality 12 file size but can you really see a difference? When opening the JPG files up in photoshop, putting them on top of each other as layers and clicking the hide/view button to toggle I really can't see a different. Not even with the Quality 10 file. If you were to save and open and save and open the file numerous times I could see a potential problem, but for a one time save perhaps Quality 11 is an OK middle ground?
Quote from: leaf on November 02, 2009, 20:16
I just got a message that Shutterstock has taken a few of my images out of their collection.
This is what the email says.QuoteWe have removed the following images that you uploaded.
An old car sitting on the prairie forgotten and overgrown with bushes.
(795088) deleted because: Quality Control - Deleted per Legal, do not resubmit An old car sitting on the prairie forgotten and overgrown with bushes.
(795100) deleted because: Quality Control - Deleted per Legal, do not resubmit An old car sitting on the prairie forgotten and overgrown with bushes.
(795220) deleted because: Quality Control - Deleted per Legal, do not resubmit Regards, ShutterStock Support
It is a little cryptic (perhaps due to the unfortunate formatting) - with no real way of know what the images were other than their description. When I look at the image numbers on Shutterstock, the image is blank.
It looks however like they were deleted due to legal concerns. Fair enough - perhaps it has something to do with their recent guaranteeing of images.
Quote from: lisafx on October 27, 2009, 18:51
Thanks Richard and Gostwyck. Very good advice about the RAW file of the model signing the release. Wish I had been doing this all along.
The issue just came up yesterday, but with istock's compliance dept in possession of the the signed release, and also with my friend who knows the model giving him a call to explain where the picture came from and remind him of the photo shoot, hopefully it will be resolved.
The "model" is a PT musician who doesn't have much money so I think when he saw himself on a cereal box and couldn't remember why, he figured it was worth big bucks. He probably can't afford a lawyer, and even if he can, I wouldn't bet on his winning against Post Cereal. Still, this is definitely a wake up call...
Quote from: leaf on October 27, 2009, 15:29Quote from: GeoPappas on October 27, 2009, 15:24
Can someone please tell me the criteria for the database cleaning?
For example, how old does the image need to be?
What other criteria are there?
And where are you receiving the notification? In your email account, or in your DT account?
Notification was both on Dreamstime and personal email.
The images must be 3 years old or more and have 0 sales.
Quote from: astrocady on October 25, 2009, 19:22
Here is what I do to keep sharpness when I use Portraiture...]
There is a setting within the filter that places all the corrections it makes on a separate, transparent layer above the one your are applying the filter to. I make sure that box is checked.
Then the filter is done, I select that layer and turn off all the others. Then I use the eraser to delete everything but the skin areas. I set then set the brush hardness to 0 (very soft) and delete the very edges of the skin.
This keeps the rest of the picture sharp.
Quote from: Vonkara on October 25, 2009, 22:58
I sell exactly or more than 60% subscription everywhere except at Istock. Seeing my incomes goes from 27.15 to 30.15 with 10 (XXL or XXXL) sales at StockXpert for example, is just too absurd to me. Even worst if they are downloaded from photos.com where they can use my images as extended licence for that price.
Quote from: Albert Martin on October 25, 2009, 12:33
Just read this and stop further whining about someone didn't wrote something correctly:
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch out of Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod apeapr. The olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a tatol mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Quote from: gostwyck on October 21, 2009, 20:10Quote from: fotografer on October 21, 2009, 20:01
I'm currently emerald at Fotolia. I have over 70000 sales at SS and over 30000 at IStock, so would anybody that wants to join now with the same sales as me go in as a sapphire. If that is the case then it is grossly unfair to people that have supported them for years.
Tell me about it. Qualified for Sapphire on earnings according to the spiel but had Emerald snatched from my grasp when I was weeks away from it. Put me down on the SOL list!
Quote from: PowerDroid on August 18, 2009, 18:55
Seems like no one has been talking about Veer lately, maybe for good reason, but... I think it's time for another look, since it's been up a while.
Quote from: gostwyck on October 16, 2009, 19:33Quote from: MatHayward on October 16, 2009, 19:27
Plus I am exclusive which jacks it up even higher. My rank has actually been slipping though. I was in the top 100 for quite a while. I don't think the rank is based solely on sales though. I've been trying to figure it out for a while but it's still a mystery.
I thought it was entirely based on credits earned, in total for 'Absolute' and over the last 7 days for 'Relative'?
Quote from: MatHayward on October 16, 2009, 19:27Quote from: patrick1958 on October 16, 2009, 18:23Quote from: MatHayward on October 16, 2009, 17:28
Overall: 110
7 Days: 258
Given the fact you are emerald and earn more per download it's no surprise your ranking is high.
Patrick H.
Plus I am exclusive which jacks it up even higher. My rank has actually been slipping though. I was in the top 100 for quite a while. I don't think the rank is based solely on sales though. I've been trying to figure it out for a while but it's still a mystery.
Mat
Quote from: MatHayward on October 16, 2009, 17:28
Overall: 110
7 Days: 258
Quote from: leaf on October 13, 2009, 21:49Quote from: anonymous on October 13, 2009, 21:30
Scanstock is not resolving when I go there...anybody else unable to hit it?
www.scanstockphoto.com
Thx
strange. the first time I clicked i got a blank page, then tried again and it came up fine.
Quote from: cclapper on October 12, 2009, 19:19
If you want to be an everyday person shooting everyday photos, don't try to earn money from them - someday the paperwork will catch up with you!
If professional photographers have always done this, why didn't istockphoto do this from the very beginning?
I am in no way saying it's wrong or a bad thing to have model releases for every shoot. I'm down with that. What I am saying is the company started out as one thing with one set of rules and now that they have built up their library on the backs of the everyday folks who have earned money from them all this time, they are changing the rules.
You can see why some people are angry and confused. istock didn't ASK professional photographers to upload photos four or five years ago...they asked everyday people to submit photos and build up their library. NOW they are asking for professional photographers and expecting the everyday shooters to instantly transform into pros.
Just sayin...
Quote from: gostwyck on October 09, 2009, 18:50
^^^ Yes, I'll be using it for my food images. It'll be handy to see how the images appear as I'm shooting. What works and what does not is often difficult to see clearly through the viewfinder and also unwanted reflections, etc.
Quote from: gostwyck on October 09, 2009, 18:17
Thanks for the info Patrick. I didn't know such devices existed but I'll be getting one as soon as they're available in the UK.
There are some good reviews of the cards in use on Amazon.com;
http://www.amazon.com/Eye-Fi-Wi-Fi-Flash-Memory-EYE-FI-4PC/product-reviews/B002C1B3OC/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
Quote from: goldenangel on October 07, 2009, 10:12
I can't imagine a morning without a double espresso (or two) made from my favorite Lavazza. I even bring a little espresso pot to camping trips
I think getting a beans to coffee machine is a good idea. I have only tried Senseo once in a store that sells espresso machines and it was quite good. However, getting a "real" machine probably provides for more flexibility when it comes to trying different coffee beans. Prepare for the mess though.I'm sure these machines are much more messy than Senseo.
