All the keywords in question are acceptable by my standards. Every single one.
The images themselves? Kinda redundant if you ask me. One white and one red would be enough.

Although they may be of different species, from a designer point the minor changes mean nothing.
A rose is a rose, is a rose. They are all frontal shots, all eye level, all perfectly centered in the frame.
REDUNDANT any one of them could be plugged into a design and not make any difference in the design.

Cranky MIZ

The questions is: Is there legal recourse to  make the company pay the price of an enhanced license?

If there is, is there any added benefit after court, lawyer and your time are added in?
Will a stock agency go the course for you on your behalf, and incur the costs?


Cranky MIZ

PS I have never in my 3 years of stock heard of any kind of mutual settlement in cases like these. (That doesn't mean there aren't any)

As you get more proficient in your editing skills, I suspect what took you 20 minutes to clone out a logo, will take only 2 minutes in the future.
As far as model release? I thought it was made perfectly clear on every site, that if there is a distinguishable face then it required a MR.

Had you not seen the distinguishable face prior to uploading it, then I suggest you take some of the time you will save editing you images in the future,
and pay more attention to the contents of each image.

Good luck in the future.

Cranky MIZ

I was over come by the hunger it caused me.

Actually it's framed very nicely.
That other photo was not

Cranky MIZ

PS boy you're annoying

My definition of serious: Willing to spend $900 or more for your first DSLR, means your serious.
Now how you became serious about investing that much money is a mystery  to me.

My ONLY point here is not why or how, but you WILL want to upgrade. This I can promise you.
So far I count only 1 "weenie head" and it ain't Adeptris.

Cranky MIZ

I think food shots that cut off the subject in the frame are annoying.

Cranky MIZ

Does it make any sense of dollars and cents, to close an account if you are at recieving payouts?
Albeit maybe every 3 to 4 months, but hell it's found money you would otherwise not have.

It makes more sense to stop contributing, rather than closing down an account that pays even slow dividends.
Sometimes, I find it difficult trying to figure out how others think. How come everyone don't think like I do?
If everyone thought like me....this would be a perfect world for me to live in.

Cranky MIZ

I kinda like it. Food is one of the more difficult aspects of photography to get right.

It must be appealing.
It must make your mouth water.
It must make the viewer want to taste it.

Setup is difficult
Composition
Framing
Background
Appealing utensils, flatware etc
Lighting proves to be the most difficult.

You have done well in all aspects!

Cranky MIZ

"In the long run, you will waste more money on the supposed instant or easy solutions, becasue in the hands of inexperience, none of them will be satisfactory, and you are likely to hop from one to the next."

....more truer words were never spoken.

Cranky MIZ

Do you have any idea what color profile your uploading your images to?
Truth be heard, here's what some newbies might not be aware of:

There are many color profiles you can assign to an image. The two most common are
1. Adobe 1998
and
2. sRGB

Adobe 1998 has a much larger color gamut and therefore prints better on ink jet printers using more colors than sRGB.
sRGB displays better on screens and therefore is better suited for internet use.

Here is a sise by side comparison using one of my recent stock images I just created.
Notice the color of the bat graphs, and the yellow slice in the pie chart. I have a red/grren color deficiency so I am less likely to see that.



If your camera is taking Adobe 1998 you might want to consider changing to sRGB.
Or it's just as easily done using software such as Photoshop etc.
The clients DL'ing your images can easily convert the image back to Adobe 1998 for printing if need be.

My advice: Take advantage of the vibrant colors sRGB has to offer for displaying your images.

One final note: I'm not sure but I believe some stock sites automatically do the conversion.
I'm not sure if in fact they do, or as to what sites do and do not.

The "Cranky" MIZ

All of you are right on target about me .... except for one thing. I don't drink

Cranky MIZ

Some say: 'The less you say, the more people leave you alone.'
Another
"Confess your sins and you shall be free"
Two conflicting pieces of advice.

The last thing I want people to know are my weaknesses and faults.
Why? Because I don't want them to know just how stupid or how vulnerable I can be.
It's probably an instinct connected to self preservation and my will to survive.

I have many short comings, and a lot of character defects, that I prefer you not know about.
I have a hard time covering them up, and hiding them in general. Least of which I'm not about
to spew my guts out in a public forum.

So the question of the day is:
Why do some of us here advertise and publicize our rejections by reviewers?

There is nothing to be gained by it. I mean it's not part of a learning process.
And truth be known, I could give 2 sh*ts about your rejections.
You have by your confession instructed me to think you are less than a good photographer or artist.

My belief is that there are those who post information about rejections as though to point out faults
of certain websites i.e. "I submitted 100 images on XXX and they rejected everyone but 2"
This is interpreted by as "What lousy reviewers on XXX site" "They have no taste for my most excellent images"
It's another case of "I'm OK...your not"

So think about it the next time your about to inform us about you short comings.
NO ONE GIVES A CRAP.

The MIZ

Me.... I make Frankenstein Images. I borrow 1 part of a photo and put it into another photo and change it from a photo to an image.
Then I take part of that image and perform photoshoptic surgery on it. When I'm done I stand back .... look at it .... and scream "It's ALIVE!"

The MIZ