|
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 - donding
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 70
451
« on: December 03, 2010, 17:43 »
I agree with everyone else...the lighting is the issue.
I wouldn't submit any of the horse ones...the lighting is to far off. The little girl on the swing I'd submit. I didn't zoom in on it but it looks good.
I liked the one of the cheetah also...maybe you can increase the saturation on it.
The one with the yellow house and autumn is also nice but the problem with it is the cropping. You've cropped off part of the main subject of the photo. That is considered bad composition.
Got any thing else?
452
« on: December 03, 2010, 15:40 »
Hi-I was not questioning the rejection. I was just wondering why they could not say "the focus was not where we think it should be"or "the white balance was off".It just seems to me those are two different reasons. I would even understand if they said the the focus and the balance weren't right.
Smiling Jack
It is had both those reasons for the rejection then it was rejected because of both...not one or the other.
453
« on: December 03, 2010, 15:36 »
I didn't know you couldn't sell them as RM on other sites. I always thought that you just couldn't sell them on other microstock sites. Did it use to be you could, because it seems people have talked about having their images on Alamy.
As I understand it, Istock exclusives can sell RM elsewhere, but the images have to be completely different (and dissimilar) to the ones in their Istock portfolio. Also they cannot be Istock rejects.
Ok...that's where I got it from. It kinds sucks they can't sale rejects as RM. I could see that would be the case where they were similar, but a totally different subject, I wouldn't understand. A lot of times those will sale elsewhere. Just glad I ain't exclusive and never will be... 
454
« on: December 03, 2010, 14:43 »
I can't sell any files that are on iStock or resemble files on iStock as RM anywhere. but these new Agency contributors seem to be allowed to do all of that. I initially thought they'd be bound by image exclusivity requirements at least, but that doesn't even seem to be the case.
I didn't know you couldn't sell them as RM on other sites. I always thought that you just couldn't sell them on other microstock sites. Did it use to be you could, because it seems people have talked about having their images on Alamy.
455
« on: December 03, 2010, 11:24 »
When I started at SS the waiting period was 90 days, needless to say, I was rejected the first time, and 3 months was a long time to wait...made it on the second try.
I was thinking it was 90 days too when I first applied, not 30 days....I thought maybe my memory had failed me....lol. It took me three times and I had the same problems many of you speak of. What was accepted the first time around was rejected the second time. I just about gave up. I ended up contacting support and told them that the rejects and accepted ones were different each time and the submitted images had all been accepted at iStock and were selling. Then the third time I made it through....I don't know if it had any thing to do with the e-mail I sent them or not, but I know how frustrating it was. I just about gave up and that may be why they do it like that....they only want serious photographers and if you don't pass the test and give up, that says a lot about how serious you are.....now this is just my opinion....
456
« on: December 02, 2010, 21:02 »
Got 400+ files on there and I get a download every now and then. Better than 123RF for me..
457
« on: December 02, 2010, 19:08 »
Why in the world would he want to be so rude? Even if the OP was a buyer as well as a contributor, that still doesn't mean he had to sound so childish. There are a lot of buyers that also are contributors. That's a known fact and as far as I know there is nothing wrong with that. He should have just politely locked the thread and not made those accusations.
458
« on: December 01, 2010, 22:08 »
I think I need to get all my relatives lined up and take mug shots...
I don't get why they're Vetta images, but they're decently done photos of "real" people and they buyers do seem to like them.... although I can't really imagine how they're being used - but I guess that's not the point.
If your click on his profile there is a link to an outside portfolio. In that port he has a "published" section. Some of those shots are shown there.
459
« on: December 01, 2010, 18:39 »
It's pretty sad, but after 8 years of making a living with my camera (6 in microstock), it just isn't a fun hobby anymore.
I think if the money was still there it would be more enjoyable. I think I'll do like you Lisa and go get me a small camera....some of those 12MP point and shoots take pretty darn good shots and it would be much easier than wearing a 2 ton necklace. My family doesn't ask for photos anymore after I told them I'd copy them and print them if they'd buy the cd's and printer ink. Wonder why they don't ask any more??? 
460
« on: December 01, 2010, 18:18 »
461
« on: December 01, 2010, 18:10 »
So is this a permanent condition? Or will I recover someday?
Same here... but I am slowly recovering.
Mainly because I am trying to pursue quality over quantity in stock lately: shooting everything one sees is simply no more profitable nowadays (it used to be just 3 years ago). Deliverance from that condition will come as a bonus.
That's good to know....I may actually recover.....now maybe my kids won't inherit a bunch of door shots...
462
« on: December 01, 2010, 15:14 »
I think a lot of the "old pro" photographer's have trouble with your basic stock photography. They might be photo journalist or wedding and portrait photographers and are great at what they do, but most of the time those wedding shots or portrait shots don't sell as stock. The more creative artsy "old pros" have a better chance of doing stock. Also I've heard many of the "Old Pros" say the technical requirements of microstock is much greater than they expected, which is another reason they can't get in. A lot of what they shoot are printed, whereas the noise ect doesn't matter.
463
« on: December 01, 2010, 15:03 »
How does one know what their rank is? Is it determined by views, downloads and zooms? I assume downloads have to do with it.
464
« on: December 01, 2010, 14:59 »
I've become the same way also. I find myself looking for the stock shot. I still do take some pictures of my immediate family, but only because I have MR releases on them. Anyone outside the immediate family I hardly shoot any more.
It's kinda strange because when I do have a lot of people pictures without model releases I always think of all the hard disk space I'll use up and won't be able to use them for stock so I end up deleting them. I don't even like looking at them.
465
« on: December 01, 2010, 13:48 »
Just watched that slide show...some really excellent concept images. Get them in color and I believe they will sell well.
About the cropping of images...I'm with you....I cropped my images and many times they get rejected for that very reason. I just like the close up's because you can capture the expression so much better, but that's not what sells and I still have a hard time remembering that when I'm shooting.
466
« on: December 01, 2010, 13:36 »
the best equipment doesn't buy you talent. but if you have talent to begin with, chances are you're going to evolve in terms of your equipment and invest in the improvement of your product. that investment should be apparent.
Exactly.....
467
« on: December 01, 2010, 13:20 »
I noticed there was a close up of a vintage car...looks to be a 57 Chevy....under the Artistic vision top 20. It is a really good shot, but I wonder how that got in there since no car shots are allowed without property release. Has anyone dug through these to see if the top 20 in each catagory are all agency or vetta and only by exclusives?
To be honest I didn't read the rules, didn't even think of entering and when I got the email about voting and where I could see the selected images that were in the finals, I deleted it. So Stockys may be fun and interesting and a nice promotional concept, but I'm more interested in clean socks and the tire pressures on my car.
Maybe you need to take a shot of your valve stem and enter it in technical difficulty......  I deleted the same e-mail but reading this got me curious. I just went yesterday to look at what was in there.....it was a pain in the a** having to click click click, so I didn't spend much time there. Heh make sure you wash them socks in bleach....
468
« on: December 01, 2010, 13:11 »
^ that's only partly true and it's an oversimplified argument. again, if it were that easy, none of us would be wasting money on good equipment. there's always someone in any industry who wants to make the same money as other suppliers without the same investment.
I agree with you but what I'm trying to say is that it's in the photographer's eye. Yes you get better quality technically, but that doesn't always make a selling shot. It's in the eye of the photographer, and the photographers knowledge of composition and lighting. I'm not saying it's easy...
469
« on: December 01, 2010, 13:05 »
@ichiro17
Have you ever considered that StockXpert payed a higher commission than iStock and was a very big competitor with iStock? By leaving StockXpert in place they were paying out a lot higher commissions as well as losing buyers to StockXpert. It would make sense to close down StockXpert and merge everything to Thinkstock because of cheaper commissions meaning more money for iStock. A lot of big companies buy out smaller ones in order to reduce their competition. It's a very common business practice with bigger companies.
470
« on: December 01, 2010, 12:51 »
It doesn't matter what size MP camera you have.....it's the ability to capture that selling shot. It's in the eye of the photographer where the good shot comes into play rather it was taken with a 10MP or a 24MP. Just because the equipment is expensive and the best doesn't mean the photographer has the eye for selling shots. If I inherited a million dollars and went out and bought the biggest and the best, it still doesn't mean I can shoot any better than someone with a 10MP camera.
471
« on: November 30, 2010, 19:40 »
I won't even attempt it, but I think a lot of people forget what this forum is for. It's to help fellow contributors.....somehow that gets forgotten.
472
« on: November 30, 2010, 18:59 »
I noticed there was a close up of a vintage car...looks to be a 57 Chevy....under the Artistic vision top 20. It is a really good shot, but I wonder how that got in there since no car shots are allowed without property release. Has anyone dug through these to see if the top 20 in each catagory are all agency or vetta and only by exclusives?
473
« on: November 30, 2010, 18:36 »
I noticed it when I first logged in this morning also. First thing that came to mind was 123RF........ 
474
« on: November 30, 2010, 15:13 »
All the 50% commission sites have been taken over by other companies - SS with BigStock, iStock withi StockXpert.
Well I wonder why they were bought out...you reckon it was because they were making money??? Nobody is going to buy a company that loses money unless they need a write off because they are making to much.
475
« on: November 30, 2010, 11:15 »
In the past I considered buying a refurbished camera, but after having to send in a new lens for repair after buying it and it came back with the same problems....well I question rather they actually do any repairs if the problem is minor. So you don't really know what you're getting.
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 70
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
