|
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 - topol
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 20
301
« on: December 23, 2013, 19:28 »
Yes, I am implying: if you have a hard time with fotolia you need start thinking about gathering some skills.
And with that condescending statement, you can now lay claim to the dubious honor of being MSG's resident village idiot. Congratulations!
Really? Explain why.
Wow, you just proved my point. Such delicious irony...
I get nostalgic about exchanges like this. They take me back to kindergarten.
302
« on: December 23, 2013, 19:14 »
Aaah the anonymous bragging. No way to check that story now... lol. Big mouth behind the PC. I remember. Ok, time for me to take a step back again.
Living up to the standards of a site like fotolia might seem so special to somkeone like you that it feels like bragging, but in reality it just means creating many pretty, but bland - boring and repetitous stuff conforming to simple but narrow standards 90% of the time.
303
« on: December 23, 2013, 19:09 »
Yes, I am implying: if you have a hard time with fotolia you need start thinking about gathering some skills.
And with that condescending statement, you can now lay claim to the dubious honor of being MSG's resident village idiot. Congratulations!
Really? Explain why.
304
« on: December 23, 2013, 19:08 »
My acceptance rate across the board is 90-98%. From Shutterstock to Alamy. Yet on FT its 60%. Got nothing to do with Fotolia according to you then.
You kept comlaining about SS reviewing in general, also clearly wrote you had whole batch(es) almost completely rejected, so I find that... a tad bit dishonest. Maybe a bit more emotion than logic?
305
« on: December 23, 2013, 18:23 »
I have a hard time remembering when was the last time I got a rejection from fotolia, unless a few denied from a long series with many similars. They are one of the easiest. Yes, I am implying: if you have a hard time with fotolia you need start thinking about gathering some skills. If you have an impossibly hard time there, I don't even know what to say, they are anything but picky.
306
« on: December 14, 2013, 17:30 »
It's also not allowed to use our subscriptions to build an internal image bank for a company or a service.
Cheers,
Linda
I guess you have people going through offices with a juidical permit, right? How do you even dare to come here with nonsense like that after these news?
307
« on: December 08, 2013, 04:56 »
To be honest I'm struggling to spot any 'talent' at all in most of those images.
How about #6 in nature images?
308
« on: December 04, 2013, 16:57 »
People from s. africa get payed less than half for the same thing as ppl from japan :O that's severely insultive...
309
« on: December 03, 2013, 04:41 »
...I tend to agree that these make for pleasing images but seriously, is it truly forbidden to create an image that breaks those rules? Especially for less than $1?
Again, why not let the buyers decide? Most people are pretty happy with cell phone pictures. Some clients even want that look. Why not work just slightly outside the box occasionally?
In a nutshell.
The thread started with a "lighting" rejection and quickly turned into a discussion of the aesthetics of twighlight cityscapes. But Microstock didn't get started as an art school project.
I just did a skyline shot of Minneapolis, in the middle of the day, and got it accepted. I hope to make a few dollars if I'm lucky. Sorry, but at 35 cents per sale I didn't feel I could rent a crane, or a helicopter, or pursue building owners for rooftop access, or spend 90 minutes waiting for that perfect light, or an hour in Photoshop. Maybe it's just me.
Who is going to lavish all this time, attention and skill on producing gallery quality shots for these pathetic returns? I think the answer is: lots of people, now, but fewer and fewer over time.
An hour in photoshop?? Blue hour and similar ****scape shots are some of the easiest to process. Apply some partial noise reduction if needed, and that's it. 1.5 minutes. Most of the time you don't even need that, since shooting long with the lowest iso. I had a pleasant walk in the beautiful historic part of the city with one the gals, planted my tripod at a few places, enjoyed the view meanwhile, we had nice walk back & some fancy street food. What's so horrific about that? I was surrounded by tourists who even payed thousands of $ for the same thing. I would have done it even without taking shots. Ohh, I uploaded the shots to stocksy instead of SS, so instead of making 0.38... they made nothing. They come from spring, so several months now.
310
« on: December 03, 2013, 04:21 »
There is no point in dropping any unless you want to make some kind of a 'statement' about their pricing, but the opener didn't really implicate that. You can stop uploading, I did that to Istock and Alamy.
311
« on: November 29, 2013, 13:23 »
Here we go again with the staged look. Leaf wont allow us to post examples, but please, stop saying Stocksy images are not staged.
Someone once said here, to paraphrase, instead if taking most comers and editing for the photo, Stocksy edits the photographer and takes most photos. Maybe they thought we had enough photogs in that vein right now? So it's not that 'staged' is a four letter word, but right now the banks are full? Dunno.
I don't give a flying frikk what the meaning of the word staged is for this or that individual, but if it's a princinpal for curation it better be very consistent. I had staged, contrived rejections for shots with the sweetest most honest spontenious laugh / smile that my models ever had, as I just caught them with the camera 'off guard'. It's the shot some of them show off to everyone that represents "them"... meanwhile I see pics of people with food falling in and out their mouth in that infamous "smiling while eating and staring into the camera" gesture on site + and that most phoney worn-out cliche of 'people with inappropriate clothes alone in nature staring vacantly in low contrast' is all over the place as ... editors picks! that? really? you would have got fired from ad agencies for picking stuff like that even back in the 90's 
312
« on: November 29, 2013, 10:15 »
"I just can't see it working out to anything that way. :/ "
It depends on your work, I guess. Most of my new series have sold. I had five sales today so far, one uploaded in the last couple of weeks.
Exactly what I said: if you had plenty of images to start with. Your whole port was freed up from IS.
313
« on: November 29, 2013, 09:09 »
Everyone is so excited about the opportunity of being accepted to Stocksy but could anyone, who is already in, confirm that it makes financial sense to devote one's best works for them ?
Not in my experience :/
You mean you are there with your images and you're not satisfied with sales ?
Yep, and I don't see how the whole thing can work out to anything worthwhile, unless you have plenty of images to start out with.
How many images do you have ?
Below 300. The real point is I had almost no stuff to put up there when I started, all my other stuff up on regular micro sites (doing ok)... so I had to produce brand new stuff for stocksy, and I just can't see it working out to anything that way. :/ Especially if you need to do other stuff, which I guess is pretty much the default for most people. But I don't want to keep being a naysayer, because I think the basic idea of the coop is wonderful and very noble, but the curation - policy looks like a pretty bad failure to me (isn't it always the weak point?). If you insist I'll expand a bit.
314
« on: November 29, 2013, 08:35 »
Everyone is so excited about the opportunity of being accepted to Stocksy but could anyone, who is already in, confirm that it makes financial sense to devote one's best works for them ?
Not in my experience :/
You mean you are there with your images and you're not satisfied with sales ?
Yep, and I don't see how the whole thing can work out to anything worthwhile, unless you have plenty of images to start out with.
315
« on: November 29, 2013, 07:00 »
Cashing PP/Skrill out into my bank account (currency conversion + tax + bank charges) just to reinvest again (again currency conversion + bank charges) does not make sense.
It does if you put it into bitcoin. Also you might skip liberty reserve as it has been seized by the US attorney's office.
316
« on: November 29, 2013, 05:59 »
Everyone is so excited about the opportunity of being accepted to Stocksy but could anyone, who is already in, confirm that it makes financial sense to devote one's best works for them ?
Not in my experience :/
317
« on: November 29, 2013, 05:13 »
That's what I said above: I've seen the photos online, but I've never seen anything like that in real life.
That's mostly because the brain does very sophisticated and pretty strong WB correction even on parts of the image locally, very much like local correction you might do in photoshop. Same applies to contrast and brightness even more heavily. It actually builds a detailed mask for color and brightness correction, you can actually see it if you quickly close-open-close your eyes while looking at something with strong color and brightness variances. That's why what some 'supposed-to-be-purists' are saying that the unedited image is "the real repesentation" of what you see is pure uneducated nonsense.
318
« on: November 28, 2013, 18:00 »
Scenery like that should be shot in the blue hour. That should ba basic knowledge if you are involved in photography for more than 15 minutes. If you do that, you just have to set WB so the sky is a rich purplish blue, and it's gonna be all ok.
I would like to dispute your perspective (which IMO sounds like the sort of thing people might say at a camera club TBH). How a picture looks is utterly subjective. And suppose I need a picture which is about the effect of light pollution - which typically does have that nasty orange caste.
FWIW I come from the pre digital world of film, and am completely used to the idea of using gels and filters to balance the effects of different sorts of artificial lights. I also used to be good at color printing in the darkroom back even before RA-4 came along.
If there is a problem with Ron's picture, perhaps it is that the sky could maybe be somewhat darker. But for what it is I don't see that it matters terribly. I think they should leave it for the customers to decide if it works for them or not.
Sure, I'm not saying this 100% the only way to do it. But facing the mechanical-technical judgement you get on microstock sites, this probably is the safest way to go. In my opinion it also really does get you the aesthetically most pleasing result with night cityscapes in the vast majority of cases.
319
« on: November 28, 2013, 17:52 »
I've heard it a lot, I've even seen some allegedly 'blue hour' photos from Glasgow; but the only way I can get that sort of effect is by intensive manipulation. I have never seen it and I've never heard it mentioned around here. In fact, I specifically looked for it in both Memphis and San Diego, because I'd only heard about it from the US, but didn't see it there either (bad luck with sky conditions, probably).
A bit like 'sunny f16'. For years I wondered why no camera that I ever had or borrowed exposed properly with the sunny f16 and its equivalents, then I discovered that it was a rule made near New York, on a similar latitude to Madrid. We don't have the same intensity of light. In Baja I discovered that on a heavy overcast morning, the quantity of light was much more (totally different camera readings) than on a similar morning here, even if the quality / end result wasn't any different/better.
I just searched google and shutterstock for Glasgow night, and there were nice blue hour shots.
320
« on: November 28, 2013, 09:55 »
Rejected for poor lighting or WB. Lately all my night shots are rejected for poor lighting or WB anyways
Scenery like that should be shot in the blue hour. That should ba basic knowledge if you are involved in photography for more than 15 minutes. If you do that, you just have to set WB so the sky is a rich purplish blue, and it's gonna be all ok.
Mr. Perfect,
Please correct your grammar. You get an F.
"I correct mistypes grammar on teh internet. It's my duty!" 
321
« on: November 28, 2013, 07:43 »
Rejected for poor lighting or WB. Lately all my night shots are rejected for poor lighting or WB anyways
Scenery like that should be shot in the blue hour. That should ba basic knowledge if you are involved in photography for more than 15 minutes. If you do that, you just have to set WB so the sky is a rich purplish blue, and it's gonna be all ok.
322
« on: November 24, 2013, 17:37 »
22/26 rejected  cant say I agree with all rejections. Even images critiqued and found in order before submitting were rejected.
actually that's pretty consistent.
323
« on: November 17, 2013, 03:47 »
The market for cheap microstock subscription content is not growing - the sites are trading customers with each other and the total pool of customers is not growing. The stock commentators are getting this wrong IMO.
Could you link your data-source for this?
324
« on: November 15, 2013, 13:35 »
Remember he's sponsored by Profoto and Hasselblad and sells his monopod. Those companies want to get something in return for their investment. It's just part of his job. I wouldn't mind setting up a few shots like this if someone is going to give me tens of thousands of dollars in equipment.
But it's a rainy, semi-boring video at best. Look at the kinda stuff gopro or redbull have on youtube, thats what you need to compete with for people's short attention span... next to that this is about as exciting as watching granma' mow the lawn.
Gopro's videos cost a lot more to make than Yuri's and they are different things. Yuri is promoting himself, profoto, hasselblad, and his monopod in the video. If you look at profoto's last youtube video it's only had 6,000 views in 6 months compared to Yuri's which had 10,000 in a day. Seems fairly successful to me.
If you account for athe cost of the strobes, etc, I don't think most of the videos cost more at all. Most of profoto's videos are startightforward ads, Yuri only has some logo peek-a-boo.
325
« on: November 15, 2013, 12:54 »
Can someone explain why are these coming in separately a month later? Why aren't they reported instantly, like other things in the 21st century? Are they selling these pics on some mongolian farmers' market from camelback or what?
Also some of you write about checking them out ordered by date of downloads. How do you do that, I don't see any option for it. :/ What a junk site....
iStock is about taking what they are willing to offer you (zero) or leave, not much we can understand because that would be a waste of time, the right word is acceptation! 
So how can you see these downloads by date? Is it one of Sean's scripts?
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
