|
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 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 42
401
« on: August 04, 2013, 09:01 »
Working fine and has been working fine for many months.
402
« on: August 01, 2013, 07:01 »
I wonder whet the OP has been smoking?  Cause this just has to be a joke! Must be new to this.
403
« on: July 31, 2013, 20:18 »
Got 9 sales this month so far at Photokor. Incredible increase! Unfortunately nearly all at 18 cents to me. Hate to see more of them selling!
Decision time: Is it better to get a few cents from a low earner with very low rates, or nearly nothing from one with a more decent contributor deal?
If you absolutely need to do micro stock, I would recommend Fotolia. You will get more and at least, contrary to i-stock, shutter... and others, they do have respect fro their contributors.
Yeah right! Pffffttttt~~~~~~~~ .13 sales at FT not to mention others like EL's.  http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/comparison-of-standard-rf-license-agreements/
404
« on: July 31, 2013, 19:20 »
Hi
When you get a rejection from Shutterstock for "lighting problems", what is the first thing you typically do to correct it?
Ruth
Look closely at the rejection. Reason being is that it is a three part rejection so you must figure out which one or more of the three you must fix?
405
« on: July 31, 2013, 14:32 »
Here's a thought!
Maybe just maybe there is nothing wrong at all and that this is the way it is?
Now if that dont burst your bubble? ☺
406
« on: July 31, 2013, 14:27 »
I have compiled a list of rejections from SS if you want to see justlet me know. Part of the problem is a vague rejection reason, that doesn't explain what the "composition" flaw is? The lighting rejection has three reasons in it.
Doesn't it say more than Composition? Something like... Composition. Limited commercial value due to framing, cropping, and/or composition.
and Lighting: Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.
Just something additional to you and a number of others who use this as an argument, what SS rejects and other sites take, are not connected. The fact that DT and FT and DP (or anyone else) might take something, has nothing to do with what SS or IS will accept.
I get things accepted on SS that are regularly rejected on IS. Not as many are on IS but were rejected on SS. The reviews on those two sites are stricter than the rest. From my past experience.
I don't bother with the rest of the places anymore. Getting accepted is only the second step (creation is the first) Third is, will the images get downloads? So if someplace takes every little thing I submit and makes few or no sales, what's the point?
3rd is more important than image counts in portfolio, rejections or anything else. Bottom line is downloads and income, the rest is just conversation.
Interesting - I had a batch of 14 images all rejected this morning for the same lighting/composition reason. At the same time, all 14 accepted on DT (and other sites) so I can't be totally out to lunch on exposure and lighting!
408
« on: July 27, 2013, 19:37 »
I posted this over there and figured i would put it here as well. Theory: A theory is just that a theory until it can be proven and since we cant prove anything otherwise it so still remains a theory for now. 
409
« on: July 26, 2013, 14:16 »
Not worth it unless you are an image factory.
Too expensive considering what you are getting in return for the image if it sells.
Do it yourself nothing to it.
410
« on: July 24, 2013, 19:33 »
Never delete an old image it may one day get you an EL or an XSOD.
411
« on: July 24, 2013, 10:02 »
Easy to see you can use the windows properties or you can DL the program for Firefox and just click and show. I'd love to have the software they use, so I can see what they see and how it works. I assume if further review is needed... they grab the Levels Slider, take a peek at the inverse for spots and "hygene". But I wonder what camera data is always displayed without having to go into some menu.
I'd guess it's fairly straight forward.
The Bots (which Don't Do Reviews!) eliminate for size (including over and under), could read camera data, could read other data.
Humans can glance and see "this is a reject" - "this is good" without complicated software, some are easy.
A good reviewer (according to someone on Alamy) can spot a flawed image from the thumbnails, then investigates to see if it's a problem full size or not.
If there are any questions or needs for further review, use the software.
So what do they use to review? That's interesting?
I strip it out of every image I upload. It is needless.
Yeah and the funny part is, the agencies will strip it out and make us anonymous, after review. Good point, take it out in advance, might help. I don't upload shots from my pocket camera, so it's not an issue, but for others, it can't hurt?
Here's a free one, that I haven't used. Maybe someone can try it and report back?
http://download.cnet.com/Easy-Exif-Delete/3000-2248_4-75157345.html
A quote from a one time reviewer.
That to has an Influence on reviewers.We saw everything, exif,camera,Stats,everything.
412
« on: July 23, 2013, 21:58 »
A quote from a one time reviewer. That to has an Influence on reviewers.We saw everything, exif,camera,Stats,everything.
413
« on: July 22, 2013, 15:06 »
Anything to do with the NFL is off limits!
Its not NFL... read before you comment.
I did read and when you open his own personal site the first image has the NFL logo on a glove in it meaning it is the NFL, at least in that image and is a no go.
414
« on: July 22, 2013, 14:15 »
Anything to do with the NFL is off limits!
415
« on: July 21, 2013, 14:08 »
Tea and biscuits in her Royal chair with her corgi's beside her on the beach during the sunrise/set surrounded by the Palace guards.
416
« on: July 21, 2013, 08:27 »
yes also that, but more. What would a model do in the sunset?
Skinny dip, practice martial arts in the buff, riding a horse, sitting on a bench, fully loaded hunting DUCKS??
417
« on: July 21, 2013, 07:46 »
Overlooking a gorgeous sunset/sunrise?
418
« on: July 19, 2013, 10:12 »
SHUTTERSTOCK STATS:
27,727,580 royalty-free stock images / 161,652 new stock images added this week
And we shall soon hit the 28,000,000 mark.
419
« on: July 17, 2013, 09:45 »
I think if it were me, I'd send them a scan of my driver's license to prove that I'm who I say I am, and ask them to have the person who filed the complaint to do the same. I might even run a check on the license number, which anyone can do on my state's web site, and take a screen shot, in case the complainant photoshopped a DL.
SS should already have a copy of the Drivers licenses since it is required for proof when you join if you are from the states other then that it would be a passport but either way they can plainly see that you are who you are.
420
« on: July 15, 2013, 21:34 »
The Letter, by The Boxtops.
The one that says "my baby she wrote me a letter"?
421
« on: July 12, 2013, 08:55 »
i got one file to load a few days ago and weill see what happens now and go from there!
If it still doesn't work then I will send the unuploadable file to them so they can try on their side.
424
« on: July 08, 2013, 17:22 »
Yeah you need to learn how to use the light.
Just as picture5469 has said and more.
Just cause you have white paper it doesn't mean you are going to get an isolation or even an on white, this is something you must learn to understand and be able to differentiate between the two.
425
« on: July 05, 2013, 22:09 »
That formula is no where near reality!
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 42
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
