|
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 - Morphart
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20
451
« on: March 02, 2011, 15:49 »
But yes, in "iStock light" you'll probably be OK. Guess if you're using ISO with lights in a studio, you'll be fine.
Thanks! I don't plan on stick to the "rebel" in the long term but for the learning process of getting all the required technicality right I think it's a good starter. Photo and video certainly does not have the same issues and requirements! :p Thanks again everyone!
452
« on: March 02, 2011, 08:58 »
Hate to disagree, but I think 10MP just isn't enough at the moment.
There are a few sites where you earn more for bigger file sizes, so on those sites you're missing out on higher prices with an older camera. If you're in any way serious about this, and have any success then the cost of the new camera is far less than the sales you'll lose. You have to decide - is this really a business that I'm going to be successful in, or am I kidding myself. If its a business, then you need the right tools - an old rebel can be made to fit, but its a false economy.
Hi! Yes that was part of the question. Site likes iStock do give more per image. I think I will take on both advices on the sites. I think I will first start off with what I have, can be 2 months, or 6 months, to get the right knowledge I need to submit to stock sites such as Shutterstock, and when I feel comfortable enough with what I do and what is required, move on to more than 10mp camera. I like the fact that if you use a 18 or 22 mp camera you can still downsize it to get good photo technically right if you do small mistakes. But yes my aim is to make stock my living for the next year. Right now I am making decent side money with my Illustration, but I like doing many things to keep my creativity stimulated (Illustration, Animation, Flash, 3D, Video). I am aiming at photography to start changing my line of work from graphic designer to selling stock full time. With a family and all, I don't feel comfortable right now leaving the good money my small advertising company generates for me for 300-400$ per month at stock. I am working to increase the stock income (and been succesful so far in the last 2 months by increasing the revenue substantially every month). I'll add to the "stick with your current gear at first" chorus.
Depending on what you plan to shoot - studio or outside, still life or people - I'd modify the advice on what sort of lighting gear to get. If you look at Lisa's portfolio - lots of studio shots of groups of people or full length isolated shots - the strobes are a no brainer. If you shoot still life or people outdoors, you might consider reflectors or light panels and one or two off-camera hotshoe lights. Much more portable - have a look at the strobist blog for lots of good information on that approach to lighting. You can see some good overall lighting tutorials here and here. There's also a lot of how-to stuff on equipment use, like this one on light panels for a beach portrait. Hmm... 300k EUR is definetly not within my reach right now... Nor will I have a clue as to what to do with a 300k studio  . Thanks for the tuturials site they may come in handy! Again thanks everyone for you advices and for helping me out!
453
« on: March 01, 2011, 20:26 »
I agree with Gostwyck, that your current gear is fine for starters. Better to get out there and shoot, and learn. As you shoot, submit, and learn from acceptances and rejections, you will get a better sense of what the limitations of your gear may be. Then you will be in a better position to know what you should upgrade to.
Something else you may want to consider is lighting. If you plan to do any studio work, a couple of strobes are worth their weight in gold. I shot stock for over a year using cheapo hotlights, but because they lacked the power of strobes, I had to use a tripod for every shot, which was quite limiting. I couldn't believe the difference a $400 pair of strobes made in my life. Saved literally HOURS on every shoot.
As a designer, you have a big advantage from the start. You know how to think like your customers and will be making images they want to buy 
Thanks again, great comment. For lighting I am currently studying my best options, doing some reading also, but I will take your advice there. As I am thinking to shoot some objects on white in studio lighting will be a must. And since it is something I will need for now and the future I guess investing in good lighting right now would be good. Like you mention being a designer helps to know what sells and what is used, since I buy a lot of stock photography and illustrations for my clients and to save time during project creation, I can guess what others in my shoe are looking for. I thought that even with good lighting I had to use a tripod to satisfy those reviewers . It's a good thing to point out, I'll put my money in the right place for starter. Thanks again Lisa!
454
« on: March 01, 2011, 18:03 »
It's a bit like golf in that respect __ if you have a hopelessly flawed swing then buying a $400 driver won't suddenly make it better.
Haha I like your end phrase . I knew that much, but I just wanted to know if I was playing with a flawed club. I didn't submit anything yet for stock, I know my basics but want to push photography more so I get all the technicality required for stock. It's great news for me that my current gear can be good to start up. Will be much easier to learn with this, and once I get enough experience and get submission through I will then later on push on to better gear, but right now I think it would be useless as I would not be using it in it's full potential. Thanks for you comment it's appreciated. I'll get my "hands dirty" now!
455
« on: March 01, 2011, 16:59 »
Hi!
I am a microstock Illustrator. I do my living for now as a Graphic designer, Website design and Video production.
I bought a year or so ago a Rebel XS (when the XSI just came out).
My first question would be, can I shoot stock with a Rebel XS? I know it's not the best out there, and the 10mb does have it's limitation.
I currently have 2 lens on it, which would be a Canon EFS 18-55mm, 0.8 ft and a EFS 55-250mm 3.6ft .
I still have some learning to do to understand the real value of each lens and their usability (portrait, landscape, close-ups, objects etc.).
I already have a good base in photography, done a lot of shooting, but shooting for stock is something in itself. So I was wondering what would be better:
1- Use my current gear, learn their "soft spots" and make out the best to learn and the move forward with better gear later on.
2- Buy new lenses for my XS (if the one I have are not optimal for what I want to do), make out the best to learn and the move forward with better gear.
3- Current equipment is crap, should buy something else. I am aiming at the 5D Mark II in the future, but in between I was thinking about the T2i if I cannot use my XS at all.
Thanks for your tips if you have any, I know a lot of you have more experience then me in this domain.
456
« on: February 25, 2011, 21:35 »
I guess I had my answer through email. It seems the earnings I see on my files is not correct, but my low "total earning" is correct: Please note that there was an error with the November royalties which caused the system to report inaccurate royalty earnings. Your account statistics will be corrected soon. Please note that the numbers you are looking at are overstated numerous times. Your current account balance is correct and reflects the actual earnings.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. We thank you for your patience as we work to restore StockXperts functionality.
Oh well... kind off a weird thing to happen...
457
« on: February 25, 2011, 16:17 »
Hi! I have a questions for you who still has their file up in StockXpert (being sold by Getty)... When I look at my images and check the sales, I see more than 227.30$ only on the my first image page as earnings... When I check My Account, I see only Total earnings $38.35... Where is the 180$ missing to close the gap? Or are they really selling my images to customers for less than 30 cents, and then I get 5 cents of it?? Thanks!
458
« on: February 25, 2011, 16:14 »
To prove my point above, I just got an $8.00 sale for a small image on Canstock, because of their relationship with Fotosearch, and I didn't have to lift a finger, other than the 10 seconds it took me to process the image that sold. That's not to suggest its all roses at Canstock, but its clear I will more than make back my effort in uploading there.
Yep, made 80$ this month with only a 10 min worth of time to send all my images in at mid January. I think they are really going up in the right track. It also shows in the Poll, they are up right below the big 4.
459
« on: February 25, 2011, 16:12 »
Are you exclusive to istock? Exclusives get a faster inspection time. Recently, some of my files have been getting approved in hours after submission. But some files take longer... a lot longer. I would say the average time these days for me would be a day and 2 max.
I nearly choked on my tea there, then realised you're probably talking abut illustrations, since that's what the OP asked about. I've got a load of photos uploaded on the 17th which aren't locked for inspection yet. I guess they've had a huge influx of editorial images which people had lurking on their HDs.
Yeah I guess the Editorial must make them spend a lot of time, but I read that it was different reviewers that inspect Editorials. Yes mine are Illustrations, and no I am not exclusive as I just got approved in iStock. I was used to the 2-3 days review wait on other sites I figured iStock would be the same
460
« on: February 25, 2011, 11:46 »
Hehe ok thanks for the tip... I was just eager to see some content up and see how they fare on the "big" iStock... More so for Flash and there is little content there but with good sales . Thanks for letting me know... I'll just do like everyone else and... wait! Thanks!
461
« on: February 25, 2011, 09:49 »
I have been accepted as a contibutor at iStock for Flash and Illustration.
My first files as Illustration were reviewed within 2 days. I then uploaded the maximum I could for the week (18), and uploaded 4 Flash files...
Were at the end of the week been almost 5 days and the file are still pending. Is this normal review time for iStock?
Thanks!
462
« on: February 24, 2011, 10:21 »
Has anyone else experienced a sudden burst there, or is it just a fluke with me?
Thanks,
~ Eli
Hi! Same for me... well I started in January with them, so... hell of a surprise when my vector started selling at 19.80$ comission! Basically, with 350 vectors there, I had (by the end of January, uploaded late 300 in beginning of January), I made 11.25$ in January and 60$ for now in February, which is more than Fotolia and similar to Dreamstime for me. Yes, great news with Canstock !
463
« on: February 21, 2011, 09:25 »
Using a Mesh doesn't raster too.
464
« on: February 18, 2011, 21:40 »
For your information, Round head and Sticks figures are no longer accepted on iStock, they had so many that they want to get more details on them now :p.
465
« on: February 18, 2011, 21:36 »
@Susan
Yes I agree with the details you pointed out.
Actually my ILLUSTRATOR application went pretty well... 3 submitted and 3 approved, which I am relieved ;p
For the Raster Art part, I will stick with the EPS10 at other websites.
I changed some Illustration transparency and radial with some good mesh work, but the business illustration when converted to EPS8 rasters 98 elements... Not really worth the time even tho I like the selling potential of this image. This is why I tried is as raster.
Thanks again for your insight and critique, will use it to grow!
466
« on: February 18, 2011, 15:43 »
And it's refreshing to find someone who laughs along with the joke when it's on them instead of getting mad. Kudos Morphart!
Hehe :p When you like to joke about people you have to be able to laugh about yourself too ;p
467
« on: February 18, 2011, 09:37 »
Mr Phart - those look pretty different to me. My name is Fart... Mr. Fart Hehe... It's more like Morph Art ;P
468
« on: February 18, 2011, 09:36 »
Thanks ! I posted this on iStock forum, and a contributor there clarified it for me. For those who are interested and don't want to waste time like I did: ... well the post was deleted since I posted my links to Shutterstock hehe... they deserved it. Basically, the contributor said that for the photo application, all submitted Raster should NOT look like it could have been done in vector. It can be 3D, or graphic design or photo effect, or "collage" art. I guess they really want to separate the Vector from the other digitally created imagery. Hope it helps someome
469
« on: February 17, 2011, 16:51 »
Fotolia for me is my lowest earner (I do stock Illustration). Yes they approve everything I throw at them, but the payout is less than dreamstime, and 1/6 of Shutterstock. Canstockphoto is beating their ass in my case. World Class... hmmm that I am not sure
471
« on: February 17, 2011, 09:36 »
You can be accepted with raster or 3d art. Can you be accepted in the Photo section with only this? I will try again then with only Rasters and let you know on the post here. Trying to use another photographer's work in your application is just silly. Thanks for pointing it out... Now that I stop and think about it, yes it is . I just felt it might help me get through without having to wait another 2 weeks for 1 rejection or something. Will try again, thanks again everyone ;p
472
« on: February 17, 2011, 09:29 »
Getting in is the first step. Getting something accepted is the second, and neither makes any income. Only sales make money.
Yes I understand this. I don't want to make income out of photography but out of Illustration. Half my current Illustration work would need major touchup as they were compatible with EPS10. Breaking them to EPS8 makes some gradients or transparency get rasterized, so this is why I have to pass the "photo" application.
473
« on: February 17, 2011, 09:17 »
Hehe, Thanks everyone for your comments. No I did NOT buy those pictures. By checking them at 100% I realized the quality wasn't there, but I guess I wanted a professionnal view on it, which I clearly got here, and you saved me a few dollars . As for raster art policy, I do not know if they have one, but here is the rejection reason they gave me. I provided raster art of different subjects (business, environment, global warming), and they said: BusinessFinance.jpg View
GreenFuture.jpg View
GlobalWarming.jpg View
Status: Rejected
Admin Note:
Two or more of these images are very similar in subject matter, perspective or style. We would like to see a demonstrated range of diversity in technical ability and a variety in subject matter. So if you have anything else you can show us we would love to see it. We welcome you to return after the number of days specified and upload fresh samples of your work and we will re-process your application. Please note that you will not be able to upload new samples until this waiting period has passed. So this time, I decided to upload 1x raster art, 1x 3d art as this is what I do good, and 1x photography. For the photography, I have one good photographer now willing to sell me copyrights of some of her work. I do no feel like waiting 14 days again or more to upload my raster art. Maybe you can look at: http://web.me.com/barbararevelli/photographyIn nature I was thinking about the lettuce or the offshore tree. I LOVE her people images, but they will all go as Editorial. But I think they can pass me through application process (since I don't think they require Editorial?). And for the one who was asking, no I do not plan on making stock photography anytime soon. I have a lot of technical readings and practice to do to get the technical requirements right (purple fringing, noise, lighting, etc. etc.). I'm a videographer, 2d/3d animation and illustrator, I did a lot of photography also but I never took care of those technicality. Will first try to get a decent ammount of pictures approved at Shutterstock before trying to sell some at iStock. Thanks a lot for your time.
474
« on: February 16, 2011, 21:32 »
Hi!
Thanks for the answer. That much I knew, but the real question is, can those image even be used as stock photography. I am trying to grasp the standards and technical requirements. But since I am buying those images (or not if the technical requirements aren't met), I would like to know if they would pass at Shutterstock or other stock agencies with decent standards (technically speaking). I know the subjects isn't that great.
Thanks again.
475
« on: February 16, 2011, 21:25 »
Hi! I do mostly Illustrations. Some illustrations I do will only pass at iStock as "PHOTOS" as the EPS8 vector format has too many things that rasterize due to unsupported effects. I want to buy a few copyrights of pictures off professionnal photographer to pass the PHOTO application (posted 2 illustration and want a photo as last time they said the subject of photo is too similar. Someone sent my images, which are great, but I suspect that looking at them at 100% there is too much noise, artefact and or off focus. Can you pros help me know if the images are OK or not? I have other submission with better subject and quality for stock, but I am also trying to learn in the process as to what are the technical requirements so that when I start shooting myself I shoot the right way: Image 1: http://www.morphartsolution.com/1.jpgImage 2: http://www.morphartsolution.com/2.jpgImage 3: http://www.morphartsolution.com/3.jpg
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
