|
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 - suwanneeredhead
26
« on: July 24, 2016, 14:12 »
First, check the libraries... there are gazillions of maps online at microstock agencies, excellent quality down to just silhouettes.
Second, I have maps in my port, they still sell, but are definitely not the biggest-selling niche in my port due to the competition.. I had to prove to the agencies that each map was drawn from a public domain source, or they reject them for Intellectual Property. Be sure your maps are traced from public domain maps, because the agencies are pretty sure you are not the original cartographer.
Did you mean to say "free to download," are you wishing to give these maps away to the artists here, or do you wish to upload them to microstock agencies to sell?
Good luck.
27
« on: July 23, 2016, 14:15 »
Good luck, I'm not sure I know of any way to do that, other than hiring out a submission service that writes your metadata and is responsible to upload to each service. I don't make enough images to hire that out, so I have to meticulously cross-type them to see which are uploaded/approved and which are not. I keep an Excel spreadsheet because none of the old 'digital asset management' systems work (CushyStock, ProstockMaster) anymore for me.
It would be great if someone could write a new CushyStock, it was amazing when it worked right.
28
« on: June 15, 2016, 11:58 »
Just make it a little smaller in Photoshop, decrease the image size 10%, you won't lose quality. The quality loss happens when enlarging more than about 5% on a JPG.
29
« on: June 15, 2016, 11:55 »
I really understand it and I don't mind to wait even two weeks as long I am sure they are not stucked. For me the most strange is that editorial review also stopped. Two different review lines in the same moment. Somehow it gives me a strange feeling.
But perhaps everything is really allright and just coincidence.
Thanks!!!
The site was down for hours today, maybe that's why... it seems to be coming back up now.
30
« on: June 15, 2016, 11:43 »
Web and mobile apps are down, check FB/T for status updates.
31
« on: May 02, 2016, 12:12 »
My latest batch to them was reviewed after two weeks
Mine too, all rejected as usual. They always reject everything of mine, content that is accepted at the other agencies and sell well. Seems like these microstocks are on a self-destruct path, DT isn't the only one.
32
« on: March 25, 2016, 12:06 »
Dashes - these are what is causing mayhem in the system, I have heard. Try captioning without any dashes.
33
« on: March 21, 2016, 13:22 »
Feel the Bern!
Feel the Bread Line!
34
« on: March 06, 2016, 20:58 »
That just happened to me, I figured it would resolve and so far it has resolved, about an hour later. It was all wonky before that, showing 'waiting to be submitted' when there wasn't anything there, etc., after making me submit the page twice... very odd.
I got some images rejected for "glitch" too, might have something to do with the uploading.
35
« on: February 29, 2016, 13:12 »
They rarely approve any of my stuff, for bizarro reasons, best-selling vectors which could make them bank, but they refuse. I don't have any use for idiocy like this.
36
« on: February 19, 2016, 16:35 »
Don't use Filezilla.
I don't have any trouble with the FTP. I'm using FireFTP through the Firefox browser, works beautifully.
37
« on: February 19, 2016, 16:31 »
Please add the ability to do EPS files, there are a lot of vector illustrators here!
38
« on: December 11, 2014, 16:36 »
Gee, maybe I can use my payout to pay that insane Cloud subscription I am FORCED to buy (unless of course I want to stop working completely or use Inkscape or iView to do my professional work)... greed knows no bounds.
39
« on: October 10, 2014, 15:13 »
Be sure to check the most popular agencies' sites to see what is being submitted ("New"), and what is selling ("Most Popular"). Do your market research. As a buyer, lately I am seeing a LOT of "buttons" and "icons" flooding the market, of very poor quality, making it about impossible to find anything good or original, it's making me tend to not want to buy icons or buttons, to find an alternative graphic for my use.
As an artist my vectors do make more money than my photographs, however I have been doing this a long time, I have a degree in commercial art, and I don't pander to the "quantity over quality" debate, I just do quality, no kind of quantity. My port is active and my images sell well after careful consideration as to what to submit. I wouldn't want my stuff to sit there and get moldy because it's just like everybody else's.
I don't recommend just opening Illustrator or Inkscape and doing a tutorial and submitting whatever it is you made from that. Practice before you submit or you will be sorely disappointed, this isn't an amateur's game.
Good luck and be sure to ask questions from the seasoned professionals here before you go it alone!
Stacey
40
« on: August 24, 2013, 13:22 »
Thanks. I've seen that some maps have been accepted on Shutterstock as editorial now. Way Forward?
If you're speaking of illustrations, that cannot be true as Shutterstock does not accept any drawings/illustrations marked as "editorial." No exceptions. If you've seen maps marked "editorial," then they are photographs of printed maps. I have maps in my port, they required me to cite a public domain source of the maps (federal highway maps) and leave off any key or legend as elements of those are often copyrighted separately. So, if you want them approved, cite your public domain source, and don't mark them Editorial.
41
« on: August 19, 2013, 16:51 »
i'm not sure why you think airports are public spaces? they most certainly are not! the land may be govt owned but the whole thing is usually leased out to private corporations.
You can still shoot them but the selling part is where the law takes over.
Permissible Subjects
Despite misconceptions to the contrary, the following subjects can
almost always be photographed lawfully from public places:
accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers
ROFL, try THAT in the United States these days! HA HA HA, I wouldn't try it for a billion bucks.
42
« on: August 15, 2013, 15:47 »
To get images taken in decent light AND edited in Lightroom 4 to be rejected on the basis of poor lighting is quite ridiculous. ROFL, that statement is quite ridiculous. It's the camera and Lightroom that make the image, huh?! Reminds me of that cartoon where the bird says to the photographer bird, "Your camera takes nice pictures" and the photographer bird says, "Your mouth makes really nice compliments."
43
« on: February 23, 2013, 13:31 »
Great game, so good there's also another game almost like it out there with uncredited photos (with the same name). The only issue I have with the game is, if you need a hint, it uses a LOT of "points," so after you need a few hints (for some words that you can never figure out), you need to actually pay the developer for more "points," forget it! Once you get down to zero on your "points," you're out, so it was uninstalled on my phone pretty fast.
44
« on: January 31, 2013, 19:00 »
Thanks for the redirect, I had not seen that!
45
« on: January 31, 2013, 18:32 »
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.ca/2013/01/faster-image-search.htmlPLEASE correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that ALL of my images are now appearing on the Google Images search AT FULL RESOLUTION without watermarks, for ANYONE to right-click and steal! The blog post above says "you can view exif data" -- well most of mine have had their exif data stripped out -- doesn't that render the images "orphans" for anyone to use with abandon? What are we to do about this? I realize everyone's minds are on iStock and its Google escapades, but this is WAY worse if they do it to ALL of us regardless of agency! And why are the images showing up without watermarks or exif data? Search your name, you'll find them. I am extremely distressed, please someone, put my mind at ease and tell me this is not so. Stacey
46
« on: September 22, 2012, 16:23 »
My intention was not to imply any form of conspiracy but merely to highlight the technological inadequacy of whatever algorithm they're using.
Exactly. Basically, these new, unproven and imperfect software screening technologies will cost us (contributors) money while reducing costs at the agencies.
Maybe ... but doesn't that contradict the argument that costing the contributor money is costing the agency money?
Yes, Warren, and also could you answer me this, why are we conjuring up these wild theories? Because of "reviewer inconsistency" ? Don't you think that if the images were reviewed by "software" or "artificial intelligence," that the reviews would be 100% consistent? Rock-solid consistency is what I think we'd get with artificial intelligence reviews, because the software would only understand objectivity and would do the same thing every time. It's the reviewer inconsistency (at ALL stock sites) that PROVES human eyes do this work.
Amazing ... seems to me some here would be better served learning their craft, than bitching and inventing wild conspiracy theories.
So tell me, how is this AI going to check for composition and uneven lighting and commercial value and white balance and copyright violations?
It'll do what it's programmed to do in each situation, according to what the software design team decides in terms of assigning objectivity to an inherently subjective topic. Thus the consistency would be 100% -- and I'm sure it'd be dead wrong 99% of the time as well. Sorry Warren, what I meant was, could SOMEBODY answer my question... you were right!
47
« on: September 20, 2012, 14:23 »
My intention was not to imply any form of conspiracy but merely to highlight the technological inadequacy of whatever algorithm they're using.
Exactly. Basically, these new, unproven and imperfect software screening technologies will cost us (contributors) money while reducing costs at the agencies.
Maybe ... but doesn't that contradict the argument that costing the contributor money is costing the agency money?
Yes, Warren, and also could you answer me this, why are we conjuring up these wild theories? Because of "reviewer inconsistency" ? Don't you think that if the images were reviewed by "software" or "artificial intelligence," that the reviews would be 100% consistent? Rock-solid consistency is what I think we'd get with artificial intelligence reviews, because the software would only understand objectivity and would do the same thing every time. It's the reviewer inconsistency (at ALL stock sites) that PROVES human eyes do this work. Amazing ... seems to me some here would be better served learning their craft, than bitching and inventing wild conspiracy theories.
48
« on: September 13, 2012, 10:57 »
49
« on: July 28, 2012, 10:05 »
Wim, where are your port links?
50
« on: March 24, 2012, 10:21 »
I just watch it on the Picniche toolbar, no need to check it on the site. It updates frequently, automatically.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
