|
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 - MichaelJay
26
« on: January 18, 2010, 15:41 »
Once you go exclusive with iStock...can you decide it doesn't work for you then change it with a new portfolio or are you locked into it forever?
You can decide to retreat from exclusivity anytime with 30 days notice. So if you decide exclusivity is not the right thing for you, you can change your mind. And iStock will even take you back as exclusive if you decide 3 months later that the experience wasn't worth it. ;-)
27
« on: January 18, 2010, 12:49 »
i have a question. can one choose an image to be free image of the week or is it chosen by istock? You have to submit your proposals to http://www.istockphoto.com/Sirimo. Read his blog page on iStock for details.
28
« on: January 18, 2010, 12:42 »
And the paperwork you submit to IS by Jan. 31 is only to hold your current canister level, should you decide to go exclusive, which must take place by Aug. I think it is. No. Everybody keeps their CURRENT canister. The exclusives (and those who apply for exclusivity before the deadlines) will also be grandfathered into the NEXT canister level. So someone at bronze will stay bronze. And an exclusive bronze member will turn silver at 2500 downloads, even if the new requirement will be 5000.
29
« on: January 18, 2010, 05:57 »
(I already missed the deadline for requesting an extension to the February 24th cutoff) No, the deadline was extended to January 31. See Rob Sylvan's post in this thread: http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/is-canister-grandfathering-requires-exclusivity-commitment/50With regards to the raster illustrations question: So why is it that you wouldn't do some in a vector software? I can see some of your illustrations on other sites that could be done as vector. And as a vector image offers better value to the customer, why not do it?
30
« on: January 17, 2010, 11:59 »
- i also have been getting whatever resubmittable rejections approved
how does RESUBMIT approval figure in approval ratio ?
is it one reject, one approval ? or one approval?
It's one reject, one approval. Missing MR don't count as rejections.
31
« on: January 17, 2010, 02:48 »
I had contributed to a mid-stock agency for 4 years as an amateur. Made a few sales and was excited each time someone paid for one of my images. And it was quite decent money. But when I submitted images, they either accepted or rejected them. Never a word about WHY. No community to exchange thoughts and learn.
I started with iStock in early 2007. I also signed up for Shutterstock at the same time. iStock accepted 2 of my 3 application images, so I had to come up with only one new image and after I did, they accepted me within 24 hours. Shutterstock rejected 5 of my initial 10, so I would have to invest more time to learn first. I never found the time to do so. After joining iStock it took me about three months to realise THAT I have to change things and WHAT I have to change to become more successful. Partly because they gave rejection reasons, sometimes even attached an area of the image pointing out the problems. Partly because there was a great community to learn from and the Critique Request forum.
It took me 9 months to become exclusive - I was lucky because at that time they reduced the requirement to 250 downloads and 50% acceptance rate when I just had hit slightly more than 300. But otherwise it would have taken me maybe two months longer because my images started selling far better than I ever imagined.
Could I have had the same experience with another microstock agency? Most likely yes. But I didn't have the time to improve my skills in different places for different agencies. That's why I stick with iStock. Now I can submit RF images to iStock, three different Getty collections and with the Partner Program to subscription sites. I see less and less reason why I would go non-exclusive because I have all the options I need.
Regrets? Yes, once or twice I was seriously reconsidering exclusivity. But mostly from reading in this forum and an independent German forum I realised that other agencies may be different but not really better. They all have different reasons why contributors get angry about them.
Being exclusive at iStock allows me to plan, shoot and process for the needs of one agency. More time for my images (the fun stuff), less time for administration (the boring stuff). And it meant going to places, getting to great shootings, meeting nice people and having a lot of fun which I probably wouldn't have done if iStock was just one of the ten agencies I submitted to.
32
« on: January 16, 2010, 13:05 »
Remember, I'm a newbie... so please be kind!  ... but don't be afraid to be honest. 
Is this an image the would be BEST to demonstrate your technical abilities? Would you submit it to a photo contest? Would this be part of a portfolio you would present to a customer? Would you apply for a photography job with this image? I think those questions are what needs to be asked when you are applying to any agency. It's not about "just any image", it's about the best you can deliver. The same as with any application to a job: You present your BEST skills in the interviews, everybody knowing that your day-by-day routine will not always require those skills.
33
« on: January 14, 2010, 07:13 »
I used that a lot in vain. Last time I checked, "real" wasn't yet Brazilian currency.
Actually it is - admittedly only, if you search in Brazilian Portuguese, "real" will translate to "Moeda Brasileira" which is "Brazilian Currency". Most people searching for "real" in English will probably NOT mean the Brazilian currency - and they can still search for "Brazilian Currency" or "Brazilian money", not a far fetch. So I assume, for most of the real-life cases, it works this way.
34
« on: January 14, 2010, 07:10 »
What they really need is, obviously, a way for us to suggest new keywords when we submit images. Why would they not want that? Wouldn't we just be giving them exactly what they need?
iStock now supports 12 search languages, so any keyword added needs to be translated properly and put into the right context for each language. It's not just an easy addition. The good news is that about 2 billion people around the world can search in their native language.
35
« on: January 09, 2010, 17:15 »
Interesting comparison.
Just a question: A "large" images about the same resolution at all agencies or do some sell the max resolution at the "large" price?
36
« on: January 08, 2010, 04:58 »
Maybe you should re-read the rejection: It was NOT about a tattoo in general, it was about identifiable letters and numbers. As far as I know, tattoos in general are acceptable as long as they are not trademarked items. My opinion is based on a statement made by one of the admins in this thread: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=82978
37
« on: December 29, 2009, 05:30 »
I've always thought this is something Istock should change. Contributors SHOULD NEVER be editors. Otherwise, sometimes the reason by which editors accept or refuse an image could be biased, unreasonable, and unfair.
Well, this can be argued both ways. Personally, I always found that iStock inspectors have the advantage that they have gone through the same process as we do - I doubt I would have learned so much about phography from people who are not photographers having to deal with thie same problems all the time. I also doubt anyone abusing the system for personal reasons will be found by the admins and the Scout system, so I have no worries about that. By the way, there are far more than 100 inspectors around the world nowadays, so any hope of one inspector to be able to limit competition to their own portfolio would be a waste of time since they won't be able to control 99% of the incoming images anyway.
38
« on: December 29, 2009, 05:22 »
Yap that caught my attention too. As or now, iStock exclusives have no outlet at all for their RF Editorial. Some people here don't think high of Editorial (thinking it's sloppiness about asking releases) but it's a fun way to shoot. I can't get most of my Editorial into microstock, but when it happens, it's amongst my best sellers. I didn't talk about "sloppiness" if you refer to my post... it's just that ANY commercial image can be used in an editorial context anytime as well even if it has all the releases needed. The point I was trying to make is: There are no "editorial images", there are just "editorial uses". Some images can be very valuable for "editorial uses" while they can't be sold as commercial images - mostly due to lack of releases. But a lot of "editorial needs" can be filled with released, commercial images as well. The question what is valuable or quality is not limited to "editorial" either. There are excellent unreleased images while there are lots of very boring and low quality images with releases. I very much like editorial images and I have high respect for photographers who can capture the essence of different cultures by taking images of people in their regular life without caring about releases. But it still remains the same that "editorial" is not a license type. "Editorial" images can be sold under RM or RF licenses or can be given away for free just like commercial images.
39
« on: December 26, 2009, 02:34 »
Currently, iStock has no Editorial. Could you offer Editorial then as RF, or should it be RM? "Editorial" is no license type, it's just what people call images that they have no releases for. iStock exclusivity means you can not sell RF licenses, no matter what image.
40
« on: December 24, 2009, 16:34 »
To summarize: sharing is still possible, as long as you disable downloads. Just to get this "sharing" thing clear: I meant you are allowed to make people look at and comment on your images. You just need to make it in a way that doesn't allow them to use the image. And yes, asking iStock Contributor Relations first is always the best choice in case of doubts.
41
« on: December 22, 2009, 04:18 »
iStock's "Member since November 2007" refers to date I first creating an account with them. That date goes back to when I first started researching stock photography. I was approved at IS April 2009 and have achieved 38 approvals and 40 downloads ... Yeah, alright. Im happy you dont take it personal. My point was that "limited by the upload restrictions" is not fully true. You could have uploaded much more images. Its a decisions you took how to spend your time and thats totally within your rights, of course. 
42
« on: December 22, 2009, 04:13 »
It has been said that an exclusive is an employee of iStock, but it's worse. This employee can't even shoot in his free time and share his work. In fact, it's serfdom. Actually the limitation is only for giving out royalty free licenses - either for payment or for free. There is no objection with "sharing" images, for example on Flickr, as long as you disable downloads, so nobody can use the images for free... There is also no limitation to work with other agencies for RM images. You can also still do work for hire. You can still sell prints. You can sell products (T-Shirts etc.) with your own images, as long as you dont work with sites requiring unlimited licenses for the images you upload. And by the way: You are not bound to deliver anything if you dont want to. You can spend as much time as you want. You can spend money on equipment as you like or not. I dont think "serfdom" nor "employment" would allow you to do all that. If you have any specific questions what is allowed or not, you can contact Contributor Relations people, they are kind and as helpful as they can be.
43
« on: December 21, 2009, 14:39 »
The images on the site are around 9-10 mega pixels so I cropped them to around half size, but they aren't reduced or downsampled. Yes but for the end use it's important which size the user can start with. If you only upload 10 megapixels, any noisy pixel will make a bigger part of the image rather than in a 22 megapixel image. So an M size image derived from 22 megapixels will hide the noise much more than an M derived from 10 megapixels. I hope I made this clear, at least that's how the content team has explained things several times at iStockalypses. wow, i'm really surprised you find that much noise in the sky acceptable. Beware that I'm not an inspector and I have had my share of rejections (and still getting some...). But I have found that inspectors are much more lenient on noise if it's in a 22 megapixel image rather than the 10 megapixel I had with my old camera. And believe me, I was exclusive at that time already, so this is not "because it's easier for me as an exclusive to get images through inspection". In case of questions or problems with iStock acceptances, I really recommend iStock's Critique Request forum since there are quite a few inspectors around who are willing to help out finding issues and pointing how they can be solved.
44
« on: December 21, 2009, 10:28 »
You have to be really careful about sharpening any photo, sharpening adds noise. Also, try always to shoot at ISO 100. I have never been able to get anything approved at ISO400. I know some people have, and I guess it would depend on the photo. Skies are typically noisy as well as dark areas. Those are two places to look for noise (artifacts) right off the bat.
No, sorry but wrong: Noise and artifacts are two completely different things. As a matter of fact, areas with large artifacting can be saved by adding some noise, it makes in image look more natural and reduces the harsh squared artifacts in many cases. Sharpening is one option to create ugly artifacts. But basically they are generated when the digital image is processed, either during the compressing that happens when you save it as JPG (even at largest quality JPG is a compressing file format) or already during taking the picture when you work on the edge of the dynamic range of the camera sensors. Some degree of noise is totally acceptable if it fits the image and the base image is large enough - at 21 megapixels from the 5DII, I wouldn't consider the noise in the sky a big problem. Question is why is the image shown here so small? Too much cropping?
45
« on: December 21, 2009, 06:44 »
last year my graphs hit a high spot on the 22nd so I wouldn't be suprised if there will be a few more sales today and tomorrow. My saturday was pretty good but yesterday was just a few crumbs.
Yeah, last year I had still good sales even on 23rd. Also Dec 29 & 30 were down but far from dead. With the holidays directly before the weekend I wouldn't expect these weeks to be too bad either. But anyway happy holidays everyone.
46
« on: December 20, 2009, 06:07 »
If they thought 'more content' was a successful business strategy they would increase the upload limits on istock. I have also heard Kelly say in a panel that content is no an issue - they have enough content. This seems quite apparent when you compare their database size to Fotolia or Shutterstock. They are obviously not afraid of have a smaller, tighter edited database. Yes, Kelly said the same in August at the iStockalypse. Let the others fight for the numbers, iStock will continue focusing on quality. And that's why I don't see it happen that ANY content rejected by iStock inspection process will show up anywhere... there is no reason to show this content to customers when you have 5 million+ exclusive and non-exclusive images that passed the same inspection process.
47
« on: December 20, 2009, 03:58 »
I am also on iStock but with a much smaller portfolio due to upload limits ...[/url] LOL, you're one of those guys who think repeating the same thing often enough eventually makes it true?
48
« on: December 19, 2009, 07:11 »
Not sure if a handful out of 50,000 images is a good sample. Sure you will have hard times finding an apple isolated on white in Vetta. But there are many different styles in there. I don't have many Vetta images but none of them are with a black background.
49
« on: December 18, 2009, 05:51 »
As leaf mentioned above, there may not even be a need to login to get the large enough thumbnails for the TinEye.
I'll take a look at it and will keep you posted.
Let me give you some history on eyemypics. It started as quick and dirty python script, automating the search through TinEye. Clicking each photo one by one is no fun. The easiest way to access the portfolio were to login to the website and get it there, so here it goes. If there is an easier way to do that, that's where the community help gets appreciated.
For iStock the script now goes through the "MyUploads" page after login. I'd prefer if it goes via my public portfolio, e.g. http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=1537218I have looked through the source code yesterday and couldn't see anything harmful at first sight. But I'd still feel more comfortable if I don't need to give passwords for features that don't actually require them. PS: Forgot to mention that I'd love this tool if you can adapt it to work without passwords. Looks like a cool way to find more images in Action.
50
« on: December 17, 2009, 11:03 »
primarily to their upload restrictions? Member since November 2007... that's about 106 weeks... 15 uploads per week... let's see... LOL (sorry, couldn't resist  )
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
