|
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 - cascoly
3726
« on: March 18, 2012, 13:34 »
noise is one of several catch all rejections, esply from SS - it could mean too much, or over ruse of Noise reduction, or the reviewer is just using a random reason -- i often get 'overuse of noise reduction' when nothing was done to the image
Noise Ninja does help get accepted - if an image is rejected only for 'too much noise' - i'll check it - often, ifthe noise is in the background [skies at dusk, out focus backgrounf, etc) NJ will clear it up enough to have the image accepted. if the entire image is noisy, it probably won't help
Scans of slides can often get accepted after treating with noise ninja
3727
« on: March 17, 2012, 15:59 »
>>>>>>
"When submitting public domain images, submit them for commercial use and provide us with the source name, country, year, and creator and a property release."
I don't understand the property release part? Property release for a PD image, from whom?
>>>>>
yes, that property release for a public domain image is oxymoronic
even sillier, i've provided public domain images from 19th atlases, old US govt publications, and given complete details of the source - they were rejected BECAUSE i included the words 'public domain' - i had to resubmit without those words, no other changes and they were accepted
3728
« on: March 16, 2012, 11:38 »
I had this very thing happen to me yesterday, which I found rather odd, given the fact that I have other editorial photos in my SS portfolio that aren't newsworthy, such as shots of a tourist attraction in south Florida. DT gave me the same response. Is there another site that accepts general editorial that's not late-breaking news?
DT accepts most of the editorials that SS rejects 123, Yay, Most, & BS also accept most editorials as do superhug and isign
3729
« on: March 15, 2012, 16:30 »
for a long time, SS had been rejecting just about all editorials if they were not 'news worthy', even though they specifically said that editorial includes more than that
now it seems, rather than train their reviewers, they're just bulk rejecting as 'limited commercial value' since that can't be re-submitted
anyone else experiencing similar problems? as usual, these same images have been accepted & sold elsewhere as editorial
in a way i prefer it this way, since my earlier editorial images at SS continue to sell fine, and now there wont be any competition!
3730
« on: March 15, 2012, 14:11 »
in addition to all the postive reasons mentioned above for submitting similars, there's the additional random factor that what the artist considers their best 3 or 4 may all get rejected by reviewers, while some that the artist rejected could be accepted.
there's some merit in the argument that similars steal from each other and hurt search placement, but there's no actual evidence that a buyer who takes 1 shot would automatically chose a similar if there were only 1.
3731
« on: March 09, 2012, 16:46 »
i do a number of panoramas, and they sell as well as other travel & nature shots - almost all are stitched. the automatic panoramas are limited in height - often only 1000. i usually take 3-5 verticals for a panorama
3732
« on: March 09, 2012, 16:39 »
i just counted & relaized i was currently dealing w 21 agencies plus 7 for footage
however, the only ones i make sure to send to are SS, Big, 123, & Dt , and Pond5 for video
photodune & most are borderline - fairly easy upls, but poor sales
the others get uploads when i can do it easily - so any agency such as fotolia or panther with poor sales and non-simple upl doesnt get updated often
i have large ports but no sales on superhug, cutcaster, isign, zoonar and seeral others, so those wont be seeing many new images
3733
« on: March 08, 2012, 16:21 »
I had a blank steering wheel refused for possible copyright infringement. 
Yes the Coast Guard cutter stood out, but that's civil (taxpayers own it) so maybe a note to the reviewer that it's public domain? Or maybe it refused for being that model of ship? I don't have a clue. Some rejections are a mystery.
Sorry to be no help, but if it makes you feel better, I've had things rejected for Must Be Editorial and weeks later had a similar shot refused for "does not need to be editorial".
This may help?
Do NOT submit public domain images as editorial. When submitting public domain images, submit them for commercial use and provide us with the source name, country, year, and creator and a property release.
?? how do you get a property release for a public domain image?
3734
« on: March 07, 2012, 12:59 »
Hi we should be going live next week or so. stay tuned...
Alex
that was in feb - after an earlier prediction of early Jan - another month and still no news? when will videos go on sale?
3735
« on: February 17, 2012, 18:04 »
Was it from France?
Neuschweinstein in Bavaria, Germany.
Why did I think about that? 
it is one of the most recognizable castles in the world - part of mad king ludwig's collection that castle is the basis for disney's cinderella castles in movie and theme parks disney used the st hilarion castle in cyprus for sleeping beauty
3736
« on: February 17, 2012, 18:00 »
I've had a few of these personal rejection notes. It basically means the image will be accepted, so long as when you re-upload you add the requested info. in the caption and quote the original rejection reason in the comment to reviewer.
in my experience, after i supply the requested info, it's then rejected as 'not editorial', or these days for 'lack of composition'.
After putting the original file number and reason for rejection in the comment box?
yes - repeatedly
3737
« on: February 17, 2012, 14:41 »
Yeah sorry - I had not realized that this wasn't on the news in England. It sure is in Central and Eastern Europe...
I kinda meant though that the rejection itself is hilarious. The question format. I almost fell over laughing and totally wanted to explain it for the poor chap. 
The character limit is indeed ridiculous for editorial captions. Their rules for place/time (twice!) alone makes them take up half of it.
Ok, I see what you're saying. I agree. It would be nice, if there was a question about an image, editorial or not, if they could throw it back into pending and send the question to you to answer before making a decision. If the rejection isn't based on a technical issue but a question as to subject matter it seems stupid to simply reject it.
I've had a few of these personal rejection notes. It basically means the image will be accepted, so long as when you re-upload you add the requested info. in the caption and quote the original rejection reason in the comment to reviewer.
in my experience, after i supply the requested info, it's then rejected as 'not editorial', or these days for 'lack of composition'.
3738
« on: February 17, 2012, 14:38 »
It's not a contradiction, it depends what aspect of news you are interested in. There are some people who haven't even heard of the Urea Scam or the Bofors Scandal.
or what a santorum is - google it if you're not sure
3739
« on: February 17, 2012, 14:35 »
my images have been reviewed in normal, reasonable time - but ALL editorial images are now being rejected as 'bad composition', meaning they cant be resubmitted - seems like this is one way to avoid making their reviewers actually read their description of editorial - previously they would bulk reject anything that wasn't 'newsworthy, even though their descriptiob EXPLICITLY says not all editoruial is newsworthy
meanwhile, previouslty accepted editorial images [from over a year ago] continue to sell on SS, so i guess i should be glad SS is banning my competition!
s
3740
« on: January 27, 2012, 18:19 »
i gave up on them long ago - ridiculous reviews & rejections and no sales - not worth the time
3741
« on: January 25, 2012, 19:34 »
looks pretty but it remains to be seen if they can do anything about the miserable sales - i've only been uploading to photodune & superhug, but hy've each already outperformed GL 's rsults for the last 7 months
3742
« on: January 25, 2012, 19:30 »
Even without a testimonial, isn't it implied by context that this man is an amputee? I.e. that most 'average' viewers would 'reasonably infer' by looking at the ad that this man is a diabetic amputee?
they'd be wrong - just like everyone in a lab coat didnt go to medical school - most model images would be banned if the models had to asctually have experience in the area depicted i saw the ad and there's nothing wrong - it shows a man with 1 leg but makes no claims
3743
« on: January 19, 2012, 00:17 »
thanks zsolt, but ther's still no way to tell how many images are live since you combine active, rejected and pending in the count
3744
« on: January 16, 2012, 12:05 »
I think any subject can sell well as stock, as long as you can come up with a concept that interests buyers and produce quality photos that stand out. Have a look at the sites and there's some great scenery photos that sell very well. It might not be as easy as some subjects but there's probably less competition.
actually, scenery is both low selling AND highly competitive
3745
« on: January 15, 2012, 13:18 »
I had 2 different interests - where do my own sites appear in Google and here do my images appear. I checked the first 3 pages of results.
The table shows some results - I found there were big differences in whether I included the tags 'stock' and 'image'. Without the extra tags I was more likely to find my own sites - the 'cascoly' column shows the page on which my site appeared.
The image column shows how many of my images appeared on the first page - this requires the 'stock' and 'image' tags. The total column gives total references to my pix - almost all of these are various microstock agencies.
So question is how many people use 'stock' or 'image' and how many of these are our buyers?
search string image total cascoly
bare winter aspens stock image 24
bare winter aspens image 15
hindu shaman 5 10 2
hindu shaman stock image 11 27
mani rimdu stock image 21 1
mani rimdu image 8 1
moose walking image 4 11
moose walking stock image 7 15
penguin diving stock image 5 9
india markets 1 1 1
india markets image 2 3
3746
« on: January 15, 2012, 12:39 »
Thanks Sharpshot and rinderart.
At this point it's either Premiere Elements to save 20 or I'll just buy Photoshop elements on its own. I don't make enough videos, even entirely for my own use, to make anything else worthwhile at the moment.
on amazon i got both new for about the same cost of an upgrade to elements 10
3747
« on: January 15, 2012, 12:36 »
1 Should normally be one position to the left if they didn't have this obnoxious IFRAMES or scrollable windows that make you click and scroll all the time to get anything done. I get FSS (Finger Strain Syndrome) from it.
easy fix is to write offline and paste in - i agree that scroll is terrible
3748
« on: January 13, 2012, 19:51 »
when i log in at isignstock.com it says i'm logged in, but now doesnt give any info about my images, etc - just gives me the buyer's site - this has been happening for the last week or so
3749
« on: January 13, 2012, 19:46 »
mine have been sitting for 5 weeks or so, and now the link is broken http://www.123rf.com/footagedoesnt seem to be any way to get from images to footage either
3750
« on: January 13, 2012, 19:44 »
Thanks for the positive feedback Kjorgen!
We are really keen to get more of you guys on board with us and are confident that we will compare favourably to the so called middle (if not higher) tier agencies.
We are more than happy to support large submissions via hard drive or FTP and assist with all the releases and data management.
As always please feel free to drop me an e-mail (johnnieatingrampublishing.com) if you have any questions.
i had my first batch reviewed after a week or so, but the next batch has been sitting for more than a month - i asked support, but no reply
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
