2776
Stocksy / Re: Stocksy submission critique please
« on: November 26, 2013, 12:50 »
I'm not digging the girl on the grey background, but the rest look like they would fit fine into the collection.
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. 2776
Stocksy / Re: Stocksy submission critique please« on: November 26, 2013, 12:50 »
I'm not digging the girl on the grey background, but the rest look like they would fit fine into the collection.
2777
General Stock Discussion / Re: Getty Images Moments« on: November 25, 2013, 20:44 »
What kind of "mobile image" is it that is selling? What defines it as a "mobile image" apart from being shot on a phone? Is it something you couldn't do with an SLR? Is it released?
2778
General Stock Discussion / Re: Your first year - How was it?« on: November 25, 2013, 07:40 »Hi folks, I think it would be a great share for a lot of people interested starting microstock life. I'm not sure it would be useful, actually. 2779
Site Related / Re: Is anyone else having issues with the forum?« on: November 22, 2013, 12:23 »
Yep. 2780
Site Related / Re: Is anyone else having issues with the forum?« on: November 22, 2013, 11:31 »Yes it is not going to the new post and skipping my read posts most of the time. Goes to the top and I scroll to find where I left off. Yep, same here. Desktop and mobile. 2781
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock evaluation :)« on: November 21, 2013, 14:02 »
I'm going to say iStock will say they are too simple - just my guess.
In the last, it bothers me that the only connection between the chair/sled and the reindeer is the reins. I'd expect him to pitch forward! 2782
Photo Critique / Re: Advice« on: November 21, 2013, 10:11 »
I don't see anything about that image that would make a good stock photo. Overall, the tones and colors are the same across the entire image. We can't really see his eyes. You're shooting from regular person eye level.
2783
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Wishing to get accepted on Istock« on: November 19, 2013, 10:08 »"do not waste your time on Istock...." Depends what a BME really is. Going from $10 to $12 extra or something, isn't that impressive. 2784
iStockPhoto.com / Re: New keywording guide« on: November 18, 2013, 20:30 »
Import a new image - any image. Put "nobody" as a keyword. Then copy N paste that image (just keywords, no overwriting) to every image you want the word on. Be careful. There's no going back! Well, you can retrieve info back from iStock if you screw up, but once it's uploaded, you'd have to individually go in and remove. 2785
iStockPhoto.com / Re: New keywording guide« on: November 18, 2013, 20:11 »For me to go back to put "nobody" into a thousand images will not happen. I think I recall many years ago the community asked for a tool to do such. The tool was promised and then dropped because of fear of to many people would use it for spam instead of doing good. Well, you can do it in Deep Meta in about 3 clicks. 2786
iStockPhoto.com / Re: New keywording guide« on: November 18, 2013, 19:59 »Announced here and in the newsletter: It's too much information for too many people, and there's no interface to implement it. First off, meta-data about people should be derived from the model releases attached to the image, or in the case of editorial, some sort of click. Relying on 200,000 people to remember the difference between mid-adult and mature-adult, is crazy, let alone imagine the buyer has knowledge of these terms. Buyers don't search on "small group of objects" - ever. Nor "large group of people". But they might use a slider or other interface to indicate the number of whatevers they are looking for. Buyers don't know "directly below", "focus on the foreground", etc. And contributors around the world aren't going to be able to indicate that kind of meta without a consistent visual interface. "Day In The Life Series" ? They're still using keywording for something it isn't meant or able to do, across "the crowd". 2787
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock RC's grandfathered at your current rate?« on: November 18, 2013, 18:57 »
Sounds like they admit that their projections from last year were terribly off, but they're desperate to keep contributors.
2788
Microstock GTG / Workshops / Events / Re: 2013 MEXPO (Microstock Expo) Live Thread« on: November 17, 2013, 12:45 »
"If you like your own photography, you are not a good photographer"
What? Weird comment. This one too: "your image must be perfect to be bought" - unless "perfect" just means "perfect for the person buying it"/. 2789
General Stock Discussion / Re: Keywording Gold from StockPerformer« on: November 16, 2013, 09:38 »
One question is, which 250,000/100,000 images were analyzed?
The collection is thick with students, laptops, education, food, family. In a random selection of 250k images, I can't imagine these would be low in supply, although I am sure they do sell well in the aggregate as popular topics. Are people not using the proper keywords? Is that the problem? Likewise, dog, baby, eating, do not seem to be particularly niche themes. I can understand male and female not being highly used, as they are really modifiers for "adult" or "child", which you can achieve in one word with "man" or "girl". It's also hard to really know how the system works. I would think a buyer might search on "jogging, health" initially, but would try to narrow things down later with "woman" and "shoes". Does the latter affect the order? Interesting read though. 2790
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Some questions from a fresher« on: November 16, 2013, 07:29 »3、If the theme of my files are belong to those who are hardly to be sold. If there are any problems of my files? Yep. Plan ahead, not just walk around. 2791
General Stock Discussion / Re: Yuri Arcurs shoots 30000W Flash and lights up a Fighter Jet« on: November 15, 2013, 11:33 »PetaPixel just posted about this, Yuri Yuri Yuri, the guy that gets what he wants, a true professional http://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/1qmmp5/yuri_acurs_uses_30kw_of_fillflash_to_light_up_a/ 2792
iStockPhoto.com / Re: PP Sales October 2013 started« on: November 13, 2013, 16:15 »iPad only from Apple, but sold in many places, sure, but Yuris images, only from istock, sold in many places, is not the same. The ipad is exclusive to Apple, Yuris images are not exclusive to Istock. So its not only from istock, its a lie, they are everywhere.This wasn't about Yuri. Go back an read the thread and you can see the context of that comment. It was in response to this "Pretty difficult to flaunt the 'Only on iStock' theme if most of the exclusive content is on the PP." Is it any different is "most of the exclusive content" is on Getty? 2793
iStockPhoto.com / Re: PP Sales October 2013 started« on: November 13, 2013, 16:10 »iPad only from Apple, but sold in many places, sure, but Yuris images, only from istock, sold in many places, is not the same. The ipad is exclusive to Apple, Yuris images are not exclusive to Istock. So its not only from istock, its a lie, they are everywhere. You said it clearer than I. I was starting to get all confunderated with my analogies. 2794
iStockPhoto.com / Re: PP Sales October 2013 started« on: November 13, 2013, 15:58 »So it is an impossibility to get any content from Stocksy? I thought we could get your content from Stocksy now and on top of that it is the only place I can get that content from. Seems like normal use of the word 'from' to me? You're losing the "Only From" distinction, as well as iStock is using "from" in conjunction with a multi-site distributor, neither of which you are doing with your Stocksy example. To expand. Yes, you can get my content "from" Stocksy, but when I get Lisa's content "from" TS, it is not "from" iStock in the sense of "only FROM istock". 2795
iStockPhoto.com / Re: PP Sales October 2013 started« on: November 13, 2013, 15:43 »I cannot speak for anyone else, but in this context it seems completely obvious that content uploaded to iStock which is also part of the PP or is sold at GI is from iStock. From iStock the brand. Clearly it is not only on iStock, the portal.That's just legal semantics. In this context, it may technically be accurate, even if that's not how most of the public would see it. Of course, the label is still slapped on images which are available outwith iStock the brand, but that's a different thread. Nope, an analogous situation would be "Only From LisaFX" as the content is produced, owned and uploaded by Lisa. iStock is merely a distributor, not the owner, or copyright holder or any such thing. eta: Great Minds and all that... ![]() 2796
iStockPhoto.com / Re: The "New" IS« on: November 13, 2013, 10:54 »
Just got an email where IS admits the collection is full of useless content...
"In this seminar, we'll show you some invaluable tips and tricks for getting beyond the clichs and finding the good stuff faster, so you have more time to create standout work (and get yourself another coffee)." "Tools you need to get past the imagery that is over used in our visual landscape." Oh, and you get to do the work for free! "Basic filtering techniques, using the community for image requests" 2797
General Stock Discussion / Re: Girl on the Affordable Healthcare Home Page« on: November 13, 2013, 10:32 »"Seeking free family photographs, Adriana emailed a contact at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency responsible for the Affordable Care Act's rollout, about having photos of her and her family taken in exchange for allowing the photos to be used to market the new health care law. She was never paid. " Point being, of all the things or people you might contact in the world when you want pictures of your family done, the US Center for Medicare would not particularly be at the top of anyone's list, which is why it sounds quite odd. Bob down the street with a Nikon, sure. The local photo shop, possibly. A camera club, maybe. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid? Ummmmm.... 2798
General Stock Discussion / Re: Girl on the Affordable Healthcare Home Page« on: November 13, 2013, 10:16 »
"Seeking free family photographs, Adriana emailed a contact at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency responsible for the Affordable Care Act's rollout, about having photos of her and her family taken in exchange for allowing the photos to be used to market the new health care law. She was never paid. "
Because I know that when I want some good family photography done, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid is who I would call. 2799
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Stats graphics not updating« on: November 12, 2013, 17:35 »iStuck. Well, he hasn't been too chatty about it lately... 2800
Stock Performer / Re: Interview with Sean Locke« on: November 11, 2013, 12:05 »That was a good interview, but I thought it was missing some insight into why (other than being an extremely hard worker) Sean has been so successful. Given the site is all about analysis of performance, perhaps that isn't really part of the goal for the interviews. Well, unfortunately, I can't really analyze too much, since the amount of data I have is so low right now, but like I said, I tend not to do that anyways ![]() That was a smile! |
|