|
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 - Tomboy2290
26
« on: March 29, 2011, 21:44 »
Banana Split 
27
« on: March 26, 2011, 16:12 »
Pretty sad. 95,138 likes, 797,137 dislikes. To me this song is really no different than the other gazillion template teen songs. Unfortunately the millions of mindless sheeple have decided to follow each other in thinking it's cool to trash this song. I feel sorry for this girl. We'll be reading pretty soon how she OD'd at 15. Hope you're all proud of yourselves.
+ 1
28
« on: March 23, 2011, 02:57 »
I think I am still left with my original question as to what the word "Rough" actually means in their standard rejection on isolation issues. Does too rough mean soft edged pixels which look over feathered or an edge that is too hard and definitive and just drops right off?
Who knows 
29
« on: March 21, 2011, 15:16 »
I used to get this rejection reason a lot and found it was mainly because of a: jaggy artifacts that are the result of jpeg compression (which are unavoidable) and b: reviewers who are inexperienced/uninformed and don't understand that it is unavoidable.
Scout usually sorts it out but it is annoying.
Interesting. What types of subjects are you having this problem with mainly? Again, my problem is pretty much limited to hair on the heads of people.
I found that any object that is light coloured against white background (ie: yellow - I had trouble with isolated Lemons for example) when jpeg-ed resulted in gradient errors where the algorithm tries to fill in the "missing" colours. I think that's how to describe what's going on. You would have to understand exactly how the compression works and my knowledge is limited. All I know is that I would isolate an object perfectly with pen tool and then when I saved as a j-peg and re-opened the isolation would not be perfect anymore. It took me a while to figure out why I was getting the rejects as I was sure the isolations were flawless before uploading, but that's what was happening in my case.
Is the hair your having trouble with blonde / fair ?
Cheers
That sounds strange to me. Paths and selections never change from opening and closing a file. I generally only work in layered PSD files though. On a JPG you can't save selection's, only paths. I am still a bit fuzzy on what your problem is and I don't mean to sound judgmental, but it sounds like an error somewhere in your workflow that is causing the issue.
As for backgrounds, you can get posterization, banding and artifacts occurring on solid color backgrounds when using a spot strobe on the background, but I don't see how that can happen on white. In addition, you can just fill the white area with white to make is continuous. The softness on the edge of the lemons might also be occurring from light bounce back from your white background. The more reflective the background and the closer your object is to the background the greater the potential problem. The softness could also be coming from a bit of lens flare from bounce back of light into the lens as well. There are various possible issues I am afraid if your light source is not flagged properly.
In regards to my hair issue, I am only shooting black hair, but I just realized when looking at some of my rejections closely that there were some loose hair remnants around the head. What was happening was on the model's thin strands of hair that parts of the hair would get blown out in the middle sections of the hair strands. This gave the appearance of loose hair separated from the head. I have removed that now and resubmitted, but still awaiting reinspection to see if that was the issue with these photos.
In regards to the composited image on the dark background being rejected, that one is still a mystery.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I probably didn't explain well. Many people have had this problem. See here: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=186131
30
« on: March 20, 2011, 02:05 »
I used to get this rejection reason a lot and found it was mainly because of a: jaggy artifacts that are the result of jpeg compression (which are unavoidable) and b: reviewers who are inexperienced/uninformed and don't understand that it is unavoidable.
Scout usually sorts it out but it is annoying.
Interesting. What types of subjects are you having this problem with mainly? Again, my problem is pretty much limited to hair on the heads of people.
I found that any object that is light coloured against white background (ie: yellow - I had trouble with isolated Lemons for example) when jpeg-ed resulted in gradient errors where the algorithm tries to fill in the "missing" colours. I think that's how to describe what's going on. You would have to understand exactly how the compression works and my knowledge is limited. All I know is that I would isolate an object perfectly with pen tool and then when I saved as a j-peg and re-opened the isolation would not be perfect anymore. It took me a while to figure out why I was getting the rejects as I was sure the isolations were flawless before uploading, but that's what was happening in my case. Is the hair your having trouble with blonde / fair ? Cheers
31
« on: March 19, 2011, 15:58 »
I used to get this rejection reason a lot and found it was mainly because of a: jaggy artifacts that are the result of jpeg compression (which are unavoidable) and b: reviewers who are inexperienced/uninformed and don't understand that it is unavoidable.
Scout usually sorts it out but it is annoying.
32
« on: March 17, 2011, 15:37 »
Simply put, yes. Somedays I just can't be bothered going to the trouble of even logging in at all just to see the disappointing download stats . . . well no, not really
33
« on: February 04, 2011, 00:13 »
You other guys who had just one photo nicked - was it your best seller?
I had 8 images taken, all of them orange flamers. But my three very best sellers weren't targeted.
34
« on: February 02, 2011, 19:33 »
Anyway it's an interesting idea to take back the money from the constributors. They take 84% of the salesincome for taking care of the whole businessexecution....if someone robs my bank, the bank wouldn't come to the idea to cut my money from the savings.
Now there's an interesting idea. Shouldn't they have insurance to protect them from theft/fraud like a bank would so that we don't have to pay?
35
« on: February 02, 2011, 19:00 »
If you can't get back the files, why should you take the money back? Maybe, all this money they are stealing back should actually go to something useful like fraud prevention or shutting down the pirate site that is now stocked full of everyone's images.
I got an email as well, $17.50 deducted, and I totally agree with you. Why should we give back the pittance we were paid when someone now has free use of our images. Disgusted 
36
« on: January 20, 2011, 15:06 »
My fellow Aussies will know what I mean when I say "Not happy JAN !"
37
« on: January 19, 2011, 15:21 »
Ya I am waiting for my payout again this month
Mine came through two days ago. So it took a little over three weeks this time I think. I hope this is not the new norm 
38
« on: January 15, 2011, 15:47 »
Have you contacted their customer service? This sounds like an unusually long time.
Not yet, not this time Lisa. I did contact support last month after waiting three weeks and the reply was that they were very busy processing payouts prior to the holidays. Some others received the same reply. Eventually we were paid after waiting four weeks. Seems like we are going to get the same deal this time round. Having to wait a month is really quite rude, especially since other people are getting paid in good time . . .
39
« on: January 15, 2011, 00:51 »
grrrrrr . . . STILL waiting for my money requested 26 Dec.
Surely they can't use the 'holiday rush' as an excuse for the delay this time. Maybe it's a little over dramatic of me but I feel as though my trust is being abused here especially as some people are apparently being paid quite quickly. Come on FT. What's the deal?
40
« on: January 12, 2011, 15:42 »
I just have to repost this immortal quote from that gorgeous "contact sheet":
"And I must say, thank you to everyone for helping iStock with an exceptional year. With your hard work, we continue to meet and exceed our goals."
Hell will freeze, and thaw, and go through countless more climate cycles before these people get another photo from me based on the commission structure listed in that document.
+ 1
41
« on: January 10, 2011, 18:48 »
Yep I requested again on the 26th December . . . two weeks ago . . . nothing yet. Last time it took almost 4 weeks, I don't understand how some people can get their money in 24 hrs while others wait a month. Very unfair. Heh, in the end I suppose we just have to be grateful we get paid at all 
42
« on: January 09, 2011, 17:17 »
Big crash for me this month, after a bumper Nov-Dec. I hope it picks up again. DT is my favourite site  
43
« on: December 25, 2010, 22:33 »
Requested another payout. Let's see how long this one takes
44
« on: December 24, 2010, 03:32 »
My payment has come through at last, hope everyone else got theirs, Happy Christmas!
45
« on: December 23, 2010, 17:57 »
I have contacted suport and they said: (Translated from spain by me)
We apologize for the dalate. Unfortunately because to the grat volume of petitions with the chrismas nearby our payment dept. is quite busy but making all they can to finish them as soon as possible. We ask you for a little more time please. Your payment will be made ASAP.
That's the same reply I got but going by what others are saying (that they got paid as normal) that excuse doesn't stand up . . .
46
« on: December 22, 2010, 15:11 »
Still nothing . . . 
47
« on: December 21, 2010, 19:39 »
Peace and joy to all!
48
« on: December 21, 2010, 19:02 »
Well I am feeling a little better not to be the only one . . . but not much!
I'm pretty annoyed because I suspect this might be a tactic to manage their cash flow? Because if you are still waiting for a payout you are locked out of requesting anymore money until you are paid . . . sales are booming and my money is piling up untouchable.
49
« on: December 21, 2010, 15:04 »
Weird...I've already received two payments this month.
I'm in the US, too. However, I went through the very same delayed payment issue for several months earlier this year when no one else seemed to be having a problem. Am I now one of only a handful getting paid on time?
Several months Karimala? You weren't paid for several months?
50
« on: December 21, 2010, 00:44 »
Yep.
Great for you, sux for us
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
