|
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 ... 94 95 96 97 98 [99] 100 101 102 103 104 ... 119
2451
« on: May 17, 2010, 20:21 »
Well naturally the agency will let you download the image which is all you pretty much get, besides a receipt for your purchase of credits/a subscription.
Don't tell me there is no "paper trail" to confirm that a buyer actually registered, paid and downloaded the image.
That would be more than concerning...
2452
« on: May 17, 2010, 18:41 »
Well, what do you think about this: I keep seeing my best seller all over the internet being abused for things I never received the royalties for. Do you think it's ok for me to post screen shots of companies using my image without a license on my blog to show everyone online (possibly their clients) their business ethics? Of course I would only do so after the respective web hosting company has determined that the company in question has indeed violated their terms of services by not presenting a usage license (which I always demand even BEFORE contacting the web host!). The last 3 times the company owners/admins didn't even bother to reply to my emails. 
2453
« on: May 12, 2010, 08:50 »
I recently had an image rejected as "too filtered", appealed to Scout, and was told that "renders should have a photo-realistic appearance".
This was in fact a photo, not a rendering. But I guess it wasn't 'real' enough. Maybe I should have added some noise 
It happened to me the other way around.  I rendered an image and added the keyword "illustration" for which the image got rejected. The inspector wrote that I cannot add the keyword "illustration" for a photo.  Lately it appears that inspectors are slacking a bit when it comes to differentiating between photos and renders...
2454
« on: May 12, 2010, 08:43 »
The worst part about those values, is the license associated with them. None of the micro licenses allow for so much even with all the EL's. And alamy is licensing images for $1 that allow everything except resale.
That's not good at all! If the NU license is virtually unlimited then I will have to opt out.
I realize cheapo images is a new area for Alamy, but they have to protect their sellers better than that if they expect us to participate in their offerings.
I had a load of NU sales as well - surprisingly despite being opted-out since April 2009 :O I contacted member services and they said that my sales (that were reported yesterday) occurred before April 2009. That is just weird.
2455
« on: May 10, 2010, 09:38 »
If you want to try video - do it and don't listen to anybody else.
Too many people think they can give you advice without knowing who you are, your circumstances, location, resources etc. so just ignore them.
Also many of these people might fear the competition despite participating on a forum to "help each other".
I started with a $400 SD Panasonic camcorder, recording straight to HD using a terrible codec with very high compression. The footage looks terrible and yet got approved (wouldn't dare uploading it to IS of course but still). It sold many times and never had one refund on the clips from that camera.
Those were outdoor shots nothing fancy. Now, with the video feature on DSLRs you're way ahead in terms of quality, compared to my Panasonic handycam.
I feel video is a very exciting and great thing to try out. Just give it a shot.
And yeah, you can spend $3000 on a full HD Canon or $50.000 on a RED rig but in the end it's still not the quality of a Panavision camera with a $250.000 master prime lens on it either. So quality is ALWAYS relative. Just make the best out of it with what you have. As long as it's fun (and make still some $$$ off your pics).
Good luck!
2456
« on: May 06, 2010, 11:48 »
The reason the ring flash creates a different look than a speedlight or on camera flash is because it is all around the lens. A speedlight creates a very hard dark shadow on one the side of the object which is not flattering. A ringflash would also create this hard dark shadow because of it's small size, but there is light on every side of the lens so it fills in the shadow with more flash. It creates shadows and fills in the shadow on all sides.
I get the point of having light from all sides around the lens which is a great benefit when shooting close-ups. I couldn't wrap my mind around this guy's tutorial, using a flashring from such a big distance. He has to pump quite some light out of that flash to expose the model properly. At the distance he used the flash ring will also create a rather harsh light compared to using it 1 or 2 feet away from the model's face with way less power to get a more even lighting, which will be worlds better than a speedlight of ocurse. Just my 2 cents.
2457
« on: May 05, 2010, 19:09 »
Thanks for your responses.
No surprise that in this day and age it doesn't necessarily mean that you know what you're talking about just because you can upload a video on youtube...
Off topic: Why did the woman speak Spanish all the time in between? And what does she say? Was her appearance only supposed to keep the attention of the audience? Weird stuff...
2458
« on: May 05, 2010, 18:39 »
There is a difference, especially between built-in flash and this ring flash adapter. There is a slight difference between my SB 800 and this kind of ring adapter too, but it's not so significant. Ring flash still IS bigger and makes softer shadows than regular flash, if regular flash is pointed directly to the subject. (I'm talking about flash without softbox)
I assume that there IS a difference. My question is if that difference is worth the money specifically in this case when shooting from so far away? No doubt that the closer you get, the more distinct ringflash-look will appear - I just don't get why this guy decided to compare this type of flash from such a big distance  The size of the light source becomes so small relatively to the subject, so what's the point of using that instead of a beauty dish or even a soft box maybe?
2459
« on: May 05, 2010, 17:45 »
Let me get this straight:
For the record: I have never shot with a ring flash before and I have the following question.
When you take the set-up like in the youtube video posted by Leaf above and you're approx. 12-15 feet away from the model using a flash that has a 15 inch diameter with a hole in the middle, don't you always get nearly the same result as shooting with a regular flash?
My point is, that at this distance, how is it possible for the light (being such a "small" light source) to illumante the model any different than using a speed light mounted on the top of the camera?
Of course the speed light is even a smaller light source but that could be compensated with some MacGyver tricks or using one of those inflatable "softboxes" for the speedlight in order to diffuse it some more/create a larger light source.
I originally though that a ring flash only really shows its characteristics when shooting close-ups and where you can actually see that distinct ring reflection in the eyes or (sun)glasses of the model.
Other than that I wonder how the ring flash makes this shoot or this kind of lighting so special when we consider the distance to the model and the relative size of the light source.
Can anyone chime in on this?
2460
« on: May 01, 2010, 07:04 »
Congrats. Where did you sell it?
I hope you got more than 25 cents at Shutterstock for this one. Would be a shame if you spent all the money on the magazines...
2461
« on: April 30, 2010, 08:47 »
I just wanted to let people who opted into Thinkstock know that the royalties have been posted - since it took so long.
It was selfish of me to add that I'm happy about the Thinkstock development in my specific case. Please forgive me.
I wasn't prepared to unintentionally insult people because I decided to sell my images on Thinkstock.
I never claimed or said that everyone should do that or that it works for every single contributor.
In any business you will find a majority of people complaining while a few shut up and just do it.
2462
« on: April 29, 2010, 09:47 »
I'm happy because they are in AND because I made more than I anticipated 
If I made a million dollars with Thinkstock that would mean I'd make 10 million with Shutterstock - then I would not be here posting this...
Most likely some of your sales at SS (or elsewhere) got transferred to TS where they earned a much lower commission. Does volunteering your portfolio for lower commissions make you happy too?
FYI - last month I had a BME at SS, FT and IS - probably you would argue that all the remaining sub buyers came from DT. That's fine, because my loss there is less than the gain from Thinkstock. As long as I make more money every month, I won't complain. So far this works for me. If it changes I'll pull the plug on Thinkstock.
2463
« on: April 29, 2010, 08:46 »
You're happy because the results are in, or you're happy because you made a million dollars with Thinkstock? 
I'm happy because they are in AND because I made more than I anticipated If I made a million dollars with Thinkstock that would mean I'd make 10 million with Shutterstock - then I would not be here posting this...
2464
« on: April 29, 2010, 07:12 »
Just saw the partner program earnings have been computed.
I'm happy.
2465
« on: April 29, 2010, 07:09 »
hello, do you mind sharing more of that mail?
Just curious because there are references to the term "World Cup".
I am very curious because I'm working on a web project and i would like to know if I am allowed to use in the website, the terms "World Cup". E.g. Come find out more about your favorite World Cup players.
Honestly, I'd recommend to contact FIFA directly to ask about that or talk to a lawyer. I'm absolutely unable to give you any recommendation if you can use the term or not. I just wanted to let everyone here know what happened to me and not what they can do.
2466
« on: April 27, 2010, 15:20 »
Well, I know for sure that I wouldn't want to be the partner. It's not very encouraging to know that I'd only make money when a sale occurs.
Not only that I needed a lot of trust (if not even access to the account myself) but also the time involved may be a very risky venture.
If I'd be a college kid with all my bills being paid maybe, but only then.
From your side as the photographer I wouldn't "outsource" anything. Sure you have a lot of images but Alamy doesn't require a lot of post processing to be accepted, unless your images require major retouching to get through QC.
If it's mostly just a matter of of color/exposure correcting and upsizing I'd try to upload 10 images a day, that's one hour a day, I think that's reasonable for someone who had the time to take "tens of thousands" of images before...
2467
« on: April 27, 2010, 08:33 »
Cracks me up: ... After 1 year and over 900 pictures submitted I was making over $23,000 a month from my pictures... People obviously believe anything.
2468
« on: April 27, 2010, 08:30 »
So no one noticed the unique DSLR on the page??? It is now available with left handed shutter release
It actually looks like that the SLR was photoshopped into that image. It appears the guy was using a P&S camera.
2469
« on: April 26, 2010, 16:29 »
I think we have to get used to this macro stock world system where everything is responding much slower than in microstock world. Statistics, payouts, getting online, everything.
Sad enough, considering that we have now technology that assists us... 
2470
« on: April 26, 2010, 10:53 »
Got 4 clips and 1 sale.I had problem with ftp upload, reviews take for ages so I stopped uploading
Hmm - I joined because of their affiliation with footage.net and thought this would mean major exposure but I have to admit that Canstock is doing a much better job at that with fotosearch than AlwayHD.
2471
« on: April 26, 2010, 10:09 »
Have been with them for over a year now - no sales.
Anybody having regular sales? If so what's your portfolio size.
Thanks in advance.
2472
« on: April 23, 2010, 18:51 »
...Then it really isn't an issue of copycatting, is it? It's more an issue of outright theft/copyright infringement, right?
Yep, pretty hard to spot as well but the OP did a good job finding this stuff.
2473
« on: April 23, 2010, 09:11 »
I really don't see your point here. They are both images of water like 1000's of other similars. Nothing new or original in either and they aren't even very alike..
I completely agree^^. There is nothing original about either your image or the other one, and they don't look alike.
Lisa I think you misunderstood. X-tera used parts of the original image for their own work. It's like using your hubbie in a pic with another person (and reselling it). That's not right.
2474
« on: April 23, 2010, 07:39 »
i wonder if that's the reason big guns stopped the uploads. anyway since my sales are still ok i don't mind it. 
My sales stink. I don't know what happened but sales volume is just a fraction. Just the increase in commission is making it almost bearable.
2475
« on: April 23, 2010, 07:22 »
These DT "similars" are starting to get really ridiculous...
Soon if an image buyer needs a horizontal version of a vertical photo he/she needs to shop it elsewhere.
DT is acting as if they can't afford anymore storage space anymore...
Pages: 1 ... 94 95 96 97 98 [99] 100 101 102 103 104 ... 119
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
