|
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 - ruxpriencdiam
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 42
301
« on: December 15, 2013, 12:09 »
Saw your post on SS and you need to remember that this type of rejection is usually a 3 part rejection. http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132939&start=15Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, shadows or exposure issue. White balance may be incorrect. Your crow also had one or more of these. Composition--Poor framing, cropping, and/or overall image composition. Please see Shutterbuzz for more info Composition--Poor framing, cropping, and/or composition. Please see Shutterbuzz for more info Focus--Your image is not in focus or focus is not located where we feel it works best. Please see Shutterbuzz for more info
302
« on: December 14, 2013, 18:47 »
Opted out but still waiting on an answer from YAY as to how to close account and remove all files?  ?
303
« on: December 14, 2013, 00:35 »
Not good!
Where can you opt out or terminate your account I cant find it and just sent them an email requesting account termination.
304
« on: December 13, 2013, 23:40 »
.4 megapixel
305
« on: December 04, 2013, 07:45 »
306
« on: December 04, 2013, 07:41 »
Always thought they were those little thumbnails on the right side with the adds???  101px 80px (scaled to 91px 72px)
307
« on: November 29, 2013, 09:25 »
customers, Ron, customers.
How do you know if that image wont sell?  Images of singled out architecture cant even be sold as commercial, it would have to be editorial.
I think he is just stating what Scott has already said way above in his large post. Chit run it through Topaz or NIk whichever one you have and make a few minor adjustments and resubmit it.
308
« on: November 29, 2013, 00:45 »
And all this while I thought everyone knew about the Blue Hour and when to shoot it!?
Guess not!?
309
« on: November 27, 2013, 18:15 »
True wisdom comes from listening and then asking yourself the questions to see then how you answer them!
Look at the Shaolin and Buddhist Monks.
310
« on: November 27, 2013, 16:47 »
Hey guys,
I wouldn't want to speak on behalf of an individual reviewer's determination, but looking at the example that Ron provided, it's pretty clear that Beppe's feedback was correct in calling attention to the mixed lighting sources and the color temperature. The sky has a clear and inconsistent red / yellow color cast that could be improved in Photoshop. The oversaturated yellows in the city are relatively normal for a nighttime image with mixed lighting sources, but also could be color-corrected or more purposefully executed. It's a reasonable rejection.
We do get cityscapes that are highly stylized and saturated in terms of color, but your image doesn't look as intentional as some of those.
It's worth noting the composition of the image as well. Typically, cityscapes that get high downloads either have strong graphical lines, notable landmarks, a strong center of interest, or some sort of obvious narrative or contrast (old vs. new) etc... The church on the right is interesting, but the composition doesn't seem to focus on any of those aforementioned elements. The roof / terrace on the left is a bit distracting.
For example, consider these images:
Symmetry, graphical lines
Berlin, landmarks with visual interest, naturalistic lighting in the sky
Rooftops with some graphical lines and color contrast
Saturated color casts that add to the image
Unique and exceptional subject, but interesting symmetry example #2
Sorry, not trying to be critical, but hopefully this will serve as some constructive feedback and insight into what might have been going on in the reviewer's mind at the time of rejection.
As mentioned by Anthony - we do entertain requests for a second review if you feel strongly that the rejection was done in error.
Best,
Scott
Tightening up!
311
« on: November 25, 2013, 11:22 »
Thanks Ron. I read it. I am surprised, cos they have got images from this location
That image is from years ago when the restriction may not have applied SS changes the restrictions as is needed or warranted. That image #83688676 is a long way from where we are right now which is in the #164######'s which is about a two year difference.
312
« on: November 22, 2013, 14:18 »
Hello,
Historically, the goal of the resubmission period was to give new contributors -- many of whom are completely new to stock photography -- a chance to go and learn more about quality guidelines, create new work, consult with experienced contributors in the forums, etc..., and --- to a limited extent --- reduce the spam of unsuccessful applications. We try not to speculate on the future, but the goal is to maintain our quality standards while working hard to make sure that contributors have a successful first submission, and that there's a good educational path for them to have a quick and successful second submission if they didn't pass on the first try.
Our goal is to reduce that resubmission time period, rather than increase it, and to build an environment where people are more successful on the first try.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Thanks for the clarification for those who do not understand as stated above.
313
« on: November 22, 2013, 10:29 »
Hello All,
The wait time is two weeks. This is something that we have control over and we have a goal to reduce wait times while ensuring quality reviews and submissions. There may be some outdated text in the system, which we generally clean up as we go along. If you've found a specific reference, feel free to private message me and I'll ask the team to take care of it.
Thanks!
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Thanks for the info.
314
« on: November 22, 2013, 07:44 »
Yeah we have read about the two week wait from a submitter on SS who said they too have to only wait for two weeks to submit again. We have no idea yet as the guidelines still say 30 days? So we are lost and waiting for an answer? ??
315
« on: November 18, 2013, 22:41 »
no it aint so! You mean no ocean front property in Arizona? No aliens in area 51? Ancient Aliens, Nostradamus? Global warming? But you buy a lottery ticket? Hows bout a better chance at winning in the NFL challenge perhaps? Yes, I assumed we agree and it's just some quibbling over 1 trillion or 1 billion and in the next 75 years.
Keep in mind this is off topic and if there was an off topic, it's inane humor, that would have made it better placed.
I'm not worried about Yellowstone blowing up, California falling into the ocean, the Mayan calendar predictions, Y2K apocalypse, being hit by space junk, or abducted by aliens. (and many more) I do buy a small lottery ticket, even thought the math says, "Ain't Going to happen Bud!" Hmm, and wasn't there something about that way at the top?
Billion or Trillion, it could happen, but we don't need tinfoil hats and space debris shields, to help protect us.
"...the latest numbers have found more than 20,000 objects larger than ten centimetres (four inches) being tracked, and an estimated 500,000 objects larger than one centimetre (0.4 inches), not to mention over 100 million objects smaller than one centimetre (0.4 inches)." - See more at: http://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/3467/how-much-junk-is-there-in-space/#sthash.85b6AxmH.dpuf
ps didn't this topic fall, last weekend. I didn't see anything.
Pete, I think you've misunderstood what the ESA said (though their paragraph is badly worded and rather obscure, so I'm not entirely certain). What I take it to mean is that the chance of anybody anywhere being hit over the course of 75 years is bit more than 1 in a billion.
The paragraph concerned states: "The European Space Agency, on the other hand, feels more comfortable pinning down the odds: "The annual risk of a single person to be severely injured by a re-entering piece of space debris is about 1 in 100,000,000,000" one in 100 billion, said Heiner Klinkrad, head of the ESA's Orbital Debris Office. In the course of a 75-year lifetime, then, the odds of getting injured by space junk would be a little less than one in 1 billion."
Look at what NASA said: that the chance of this bit of junk hitting anybody on earth was 1 in 3,200. To bring that down to one person being hit every 10 years you would have to have 3,200 similar-sized objects falling in a 10 year period, or about one per day. That clearly isn't the case.
So I still think suggesting a one in a billion chance of being hit is being extremely alarmist!
Those are not MY numbers, they are from the space agency. The idea was to explain that much lower number which was being misunderstood.
I'll give you their address and location and you can continue with the source. LOL NASA Johnson Space Center
Here's a nice page about it.
http://www.space.com/13034-falling-satellite-space-debris-injury-risk-uars.html
The ods that someone might get hit, 1 in 3200, "The odds that you will be hit are 1 in several trillion,"
You're still a bit off there, I think. If the odds are one in a billion in a lifetime, then seven people will be hit by space junk over a 70 year span, which is one every 10 years. So far, the tally is zero and even though the chances of a hit are growing with the growing populations of people and of space junk, I think you are being overly pessimistic.
316
« on: November 18, 2013, 22:14 »
Site's been up for a few hours. No progress in stats updating.
Just been updated on the contributor home page.
317
« on: November 18, 2013, 21:31 »
Site's been up for a few hours. No progress in stats updating.
+1 email sent.
318
« on: November 18, 2013, 17:24 »
This right here is just leaving the door open to a whole nother can of worms. There has been mounting pressure on internet companies to take action against searching for illegal content.
319
« on: November 18, 2013, 11:32 »
Today so far is one of my best days in a while. Site is up you just can't go to http://submit.shutterstock.com instead go to https://submit.shutterstock.com . Go ahead and log in and you will get the chain again as it brings you back to the standard http version of the site. change it once again to https:// and you are good to go and can check your stats.
This works great and gets you wherever you want to go!
320
« on: November 18, 2013, 11:21 »
321
« on: November 18, 2013, 07:17 »
Oops
Yep this is what I get for the stats page and submit page.
322
« on: November 17, 2013, 21:56 »
Not Found
The requested URL /forum/ was not found on this server.
323
« on: November 17, 2013, 21:27 »
Can get almost everywhere except for shutterbuzz and the forums? ? Proxy Error The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server. The proxy server could not handle the request GET /forum/. Reason: Could not connect to remote machine: Connection refused
324
« on: November 17, 2013, 21:01 »
They posted on FB that it is back but NOT!
Proxy Error
The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server.
The proxy server could not handle the request GET /forum/viewforum.php.
Reason: Could not connect to remote machine: Connection refused
325
« on: November 17, 2013, 19:42 »
Just got this. Hi Barry, we apologize again for the inconvenience. If you have questions, please email [email protected] to speak with our customer service team.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 42
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
