|
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 - disorderly
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 58
276
« on: March 06, 2014, 20:11 »
These As$_ho1es won't be satisfied until they've got the whole pie.
More likely they'll just poison the well. We'll all go together when we go, at least if Getty has their way.
277
« on: February 05, 2014, 12:05 »
Anyway, since this thread has been revived, it might be worth reiterating that simply deactivating a file from iStock does not automatically delete them from the PP, e.g. Thinkstockphotos and photos.com. You'd need to go through CR to get them off the PP, and that could take some time.
My experience is exactly the opposite. Images I've deactivated on iStock disappear from Thinkstock within a few days. On the other hand, removing images from StockXpert has no effect on Thinkstock, or at least it hasn't yet (more than two years later).
278
« on: February 04, 2014, 15:17 »
I'm sure they favor 25 images over 38 images *unless* the 38 images are downloaded so much more often they simply bring in more money overall, despite the difference in profit per download.
I'm just as sure (translation: not sure at all but with a strong belief based on the way SS runs its business) that they do no such thing. Penalizing suppliers who have made large numbers of sales over time would also penalize customers, since they'll have less opportunity to see and select content from experienced artists. I don't believe SS would sacrifice longer term service to their customers for a little short term financial benefit. Can't say the same for every agency, but I trust SS not to screw those of us who've been around a long time and made them so much money.
279
« on: January 31, 2014, 17:46 »
Make a real refreshing change from a site that rolls out half-baked idea after half-baked idea and does apply to the entire population.
I agree. I like how judiciously Shutterstock management makes and rolls out decisions. It gives me confidence and makes me more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when something doesn't sound entirely to my benefit.
280
« on: January 29, 2014, 19:44 »
The issue is checked vs. carry-on luggage and relates specifically to lithium ion batteries. If the connectors on two batteries touch it can start a fire. That's a particular danger in checked bags, since the extinguishers in the luggage compartment can't put it out and it's difficult or impossible for the crew to get down there during a flight. If a short happens in the passenger compartment, there's a much better chance of dealing with it before it puts anyone at risk.
281
« on: January 29, 2014, 00:51 »
To close the loop, I resubmitted the rejected batch with a reference to their earlier batch numbers and a request for a reevaluation or at least an explanation. Two hours later they were all accepted. I'd still like to know why they were rejected the first time, but this is still a good outcome.
282
« on: January 28, 2014, 23:51 »
For what it's worth, I keep four spare batteries in my carry-on camera bag plus the one in the camera. Never had a problem with Security.
283
« on: January 28, 2014, 22:34 »
there is purple fringing.
No, there isn't. Not in the full resolution images. In any event, that doesn't match the reason for the rejection. CA doesn't equate to poor lighting.
Ok its not purple fringing, its just a little backshine from the backdrop.
Which is normal, when you shoot on white. I have images with worse backshine online.
But it can be what they mean, that the background is too hot.
maybe.
The backdrop is solid white on both the accepted and rejected photos. The subject is isolated perfectly in both groups. There really is no difference between what was accepted and what wasn't.
Sure sure, but there can be surplus spill light from the background. Like if there is too much light on the background and if creeps around the edges of the subject. Im not saying it is a problem, I just noticed a little bit and mistook it for purple fringing.
Keep in mind that both the accepted and rejected images were taken with the same lighting and the model in the same position. All the images in the first batch were approved (also the second, third, fourth, and fifth); everything in the most recent batch was rejected. Probability suggests that something else has to be at work here. My guess is a different reviewer using different equipment who thought he or she saw something that no one else saw. I believe that reviewer was mistaken.
284
« on: January 28, 2014, 22:11 »
... I can't imaging what a reviewing application could have seen that would separate the good from the bad.
But isn't the idea that of overly-simplistic, half-baked 'automated reviewing' software actually easier to believe than the alternative - that some of the human reviewers are this disengaged, inexperienced or just plain 'weird" in some way?
What's your explanation?
It's speculation of course, but I suspect either malfeasance (easier to press a button to reject than to do your job properly) or incompetence (e.g. a misconfigured display or a computer that can't handle my large image files coupled with a scaling program that introduced artifacts). Once the batch I have in for review is done, I'll resubmit the one that was rejected with a note asking for a more detailed explanation. My guess is that they won't have one. Maybe they'll reject as too similar to previous submissions, but I can't see how the lighting rejection will stand.
285
« on: January 28, 2014, 21:52 »
there is purple fringing.
No, there isn't. Not in the full resolution images. In any event, that doesn't match the reason for the rejection. CA doesn't equate to poor lighting.
Ok its not purple fringing, its just a little backshine from the backdrop.
Which is normal, when you shoot on white. I have images with worse backshine online.
But it can be what they mean, that the background is too hot.
maybe.
The backdrop is solid white on both the accepted and rejected photos. The subject is isolated perfectly in both groups. There really is no difference between what was accepted and what wasn't.
286
« on: January 28, 2014, 21:50 »
This is only speculation, based on just these 2 photos.
Right. And the full batch of rejections included images with composition similar to the ones that were accepted. I chose those two as examples of exposure and white balance; there were plenty of closeups and longer shots in both accepted and rejected batches, so I can't imaging what a reviewing application could have seen that would separate the good from the bad.
287
« on: January 28, 2014, 13:02 »
there is purple fringing.
No, there isn't. Not in the full resolution images. In any event, that doesn't match the reason for the rejection. CA doesn't equate to poor lighting.
288
« on: January 28, 2014, 12:01 »
It's clear to me there's at least one reviewer with a bug up his butt. I've been submitting batches of 20 from a studio shoot. Same model, same lighting, same editing. And every batch up until yesterday was 100% accepted. Then I get a review with every single image rejected, all for the same reason: Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues and/or incorrect white balance. Anyone care to tell me what's wrong with the lighting on one of these that's acceptable on the other?
289
« on: January 24, 2014, 17:26 »
Agreed on 123rf; they're my 2nd best earner by a wide margin. I've had reasonable success with Deposit. I'd also consider Envato/PhotoDune; they're close behind Deposit and well ahead of the other small fry.
290
« on: January 24, 2014, 17:23 »
Don't buy cheap glass; eventually you'll realize what a waste of money it is and put it away where you never have to look at it. Good lenses are at least as important as your camera body in creating the best quality images. Get the best ones you can afford. Primes are far less expensive than zooms of equivalent focal length. I like zooms because they're convenient, and because sometimes you can't move closer or further away. But for the cost you can't beat primes; I keep a 50mm F/1.4 and 85mm F/1.8 in my bag. My other go-to lenses are 105mm F/2.8 macro (amazing for head shots), 16-35mm F/4 for landscapes, 24-70mm F/2.8 for general use, and 70-200mm F/4 for studio and sometimes wildlife. The 24-70 is expensive, the 70-200 less so, and the other two are under $1000 and well worth the money.
Oh, and you can never make an image sharper after the fact. What you can do is either reduce resolution or increase edge contrast. Both will give the appearance of a sharper image, but at some cost. Get the sharpness right in camera.
291
« on: January 24, 2014, 14:58 »
I haven't had that problem, and I've submitted a batch most every day. Have you tried using a different web browser for your submissions? That may get you past an error which may be related to browser incompatibility, and at the very least will eliminate one set of variables (including errors in cookies stored on your computer).
As a separate issue, I'm guessing you don't edit keywords and descriptions in your files before you upload them. That's a very bad idea. Get some software that will let you insert them directly into the file, so each agency will retrieve them automatically. That will at least speed up and simplify the process of resubmission if it proves necessary.
Also, have to tried the Save button before you hit Submit? If that works, it will save all your keywords, description, categories and release information. Makes retrying the submit much faster.
292
« on: January 21, 2014, 16:26 »
Color me unconvinced. My sales have slowed down quite a bit, and I'm in the US. Keep in mind that yesterday was a holiday here, and today there are chunks of the country under challenging weather conditions. That could explain slow sales.
293
« on: January 19, 2014, 12:39 »
It's called a tripod and ISO 100 setting- now noise is gone 
Try telling that to any moving subject.
Or an indoor setting with low light and Security that won't let you bring a tripod in. I use Neat Image, but that's because I made my choice when there were fewer options than there are now. Don't know what I'd choose if I was making the decision now.
294
« on: January 18, 2014, 11:31 »
I had the same problem with Safari. I'll disagree with you about the cause, though. I'm sure it's a bug at DP's end. It worked last night and suddenly it doesn't. That suggests a change in their coding that broke various browsers.
Update: and now it's working with Safari again. Hope it doesn't recur.
295
« on: January 13, 2014, 11:04 »
Risky to read too much into this, but I just got paid for the request I made just after midnight on January 1st. I'm surprised, since it sounded like payments would be delayed while they sorted out October's PP royalties.
296
« on: January 09, 2014, 17:13 »
I don't fill in the description of the shoot. Aside from iStock (where I haven't submitted model photos in a couple of years), none of the agencies have objected, nor do they require that I submit a new release for each shoot. In fact some agencies insist on one release for a model, no matter how many times you shoot with him or her.
I scan my releases; it's easier to get a consistently good quality image that way.
297
« on: January 08, 2014, 10:30 »
down still for me- west coast of USA. Wonder if Europe part is up only?
And yet I just got in with no problem from Northern California.
298
« on: January 07, 2014, 13:38 »
Feel however you want to feel, but asking for a CC# for a free offer isn't at all unusual. I assume you have to cancel before the end of the free period to avoid getting charged for additional months. It's why I don't take advantage of those free offers; they hope you'll either be so happy with their offerings that you'll keep paying, or you'll just forget and accept the charges. Reminds me of all those book-of-the-month clubs of my youth. You always had the option of sending back any book you didn't want, but how many people bothered?
299
« on: January 02, 2014, 11:04 »
I expect sales to get closer to normal levels on Monday. Some people took the whole week off, so while today is already an improvement over the 1st, we're not at full strength yet.
300
« on: January 02, 2014, 11:01 »
Since never. This balance business has happened a couple of times before and in those cases was corrected within a day or so. My guess is that it's some monthly processing that didn't get done because of the holiday. Too much merry-making in New York?
I might note that my 123rf revenues were misreported yesterday, with the rate based on level 1 (I'm level 5) and the credit total still showing December's figure. Both were fixed when I checked this morning. Annoying but not harmful, as is the problem at Shutterstock.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
