|
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 - rimglow
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 30
451
« on: June 04, 2012, 13:07 »
The LCV rejection could just mean that your image isn't very good, it's nicer than saying that. Without seeing examples it's almost always pointless to discuss rejections, especially for LCV.
Okay, here was my latest rejection from Shutterstock for LCV. There are many variations from others at shutterstock that were accepted and are selling.  So, it wasn't rejected for quality. It wasn't rejected because they have too many. The ones that they have accepted are selling, so it can't be the subject matter. Maybe the reviewer hates pictures of remote controls? I could point out other examples but the point is that the reason (LCV) is absurd. Of course it has commercial value, or there wouldn't be any photos of remote controls on the site. Pick it apart for other reasons but not LCV.
452
« on: June 04, 2012, 11:29 »
Yes, let's have 10 million more amateur shapshots, please.
I think that at least 90% of these LCV rejections are entirely justified.
If your point is that amateur snapshots should be rejected because the quality isn't up to professional levels, then I agree with you. But who is expert enough to say that it should be rejected because it has "Limited Commercial Value"? My point is that that kind of rejection makes no sense and has no merit. How can a reviewer that lives in one country possibly grasp what buyers from the rest of the world might want? Rejections should be based on quality, no bias.
453
« on: June 04, 2012, 07:25 »
Scott: In case you missed it on the Shutterstock Forum,
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:56 am
I would like to call for an end to the Limited Commercial Value rejection. As a contributor and buyer for many years, that specializes in isolated objects, I know what sells. I know that everyday objects, isolated, and photographed well, are much sought after. I've done very well here and on all of the top eight microstock sites selling such objects.
Within the last few months, I've been getting this rejection for the first time, even when the same photo is accepted and sells on the other top seven agencies. Obviously Shutterstock has undergone a shakeup in the reviewing process. The rejection email gives a link to Shutterbuzz, that tries to explain "the most commonly questioned reason of all for submitters" It goes on to explain that the reviewers are well trained and that they are artists and photographers themselves. Therein lies the flaw for this kind of rejection. They are not in marketing. They may well know technical merits, but not have clue as to what buyers are looking for. It's a different side of the brain. Artistry versus Marketing.
Therefore, I respectfully call for the end of this kind of rejection, and stick to judging a photo on it's artistry and technical merit, and not speculating on what the graphic community is hunting for. As a buyer, I can testify that you just never know what the next project is going to require.
454
« on: May 31, 2012, 11:05 »
Hooray!
455
« on: May 30, 2012, 12:27 »
Shutterstock Forum
Posted: by rimglow: Mon May 25, 2009 3:57 pm
It appears, to me, that Shutterstock has fallen victim to a sales pitch from Recaptcha, based on fear. It's unfortunate a little more research wasn't taken, to see how other sites handle these issues, without turning off the contributors. I predict that Shutterstock will drop this burden laden plan, one day, in an effort to promote a more professional and user friendly site.
456
« on: May 30, 2012, 07:35 »
Agree, they are so desperate to become "someone" in the market that it leads to something like putting our images on Alamy without telling us!
It's like people who are deep in debt trouble starting to steal .... sad very sad!
I just wrote to support asking them too remove my images from Alamy or remove my account from Veer, this is just ridiculous ... Alamy makes me 6 to 10 times more than Veer so it is definately not worth having my images from Veer there AT ALL!
Hope there is a solution soon
+1 I wrote support asking the same thing.
457
« on: May 29, 2012, 11:57 »
I just tried to contact support but when I hit "send" I'm informed that [email protected]/ is not a valid email address. How do you contact them?
458
« on: May 18, 2012, 11:33 »
I'm looking but can't find a "share button." I also want OUT. Where do you find the "feature", Cathy? 
459
« on: May 18, 2012, 08:03 »
460
« on: May 09, 2012, 09:53 »
I usually make several exposures at different focus points (front to back) and auto-align and merge the layers. Photoshop has made this very easy to do now.
I have also been using the auto blend approach to focus stacking in Photoshop, but I downloaded the 30 day trial version of Helicon Focus two days ago - absolutely great for quickly creating the best blend of focus from multiple images. Much faster than PS, and seems to be more accurate. I haven't got into all its features yet (you can touch up between the layers in the program before it creates its final blend), but I'm seriously thinking of licensing a version once I have expired my trial.
Steve
Thanks for the tip! I'm playing with Helicon Focus today, and it is very impressive.
461
« on: May 08, 2012, 09:07 »
Thanks Wim & Microbius for the kind words.
462
« on: May 08, 2012, 08:18 »
I am always amused when someone brings up this old chestnut. "There are too many isolated: apples, roses, doctors, businessmen, elderly couples, construction workers, etc." Who's to say there are too many?...
Agencies, I believe. Admittedly I don't know for sure that this is happening with isolated photos (I don't do photos myself) but aren't isolated simple objects more prone to rejection nowadays? Those "too many on site" type of rejections?
I haven't received that kind of rejection from any agency, and isolated objects are all that I submit. The trick is to make it stand out from all the others. Approach it from the angle that, if you want to submit an isolated red apple, go for the one that will be the most downloaded apple of all.
463
« on: May 08, 2012, 08:01 »
Do simple isolated objects still sell? Or even get accepted? Seems like this sort of stuff would very likely get a "too many on site" type of rejection.
I'm not shooting isolated shots of common objects any more. The sites are already full of them. It's really difficult to generate decent sales with such generic isolations. It makes no sense to dilute the sales more. So stop shooting those red apples on white! 
BUT, if you have some niche objects or shoot "still lifes" you can get some success. Or if you are certain you can shoot a CLEARLY BETTER image than those that are already on sale.
I am always amused when someone brings up this old chestnut. "There are too many isolated: apples, roses, doctors, businessmen, elderly couples, construction workers, etc." Who's to say there are too many? What is the number? By that reasoning, one day all stock sites will no longer accept any more submissions because the isolated limit will be reached on all subject matter. There will always be a need for new approaches to any subject. Isolated imagery will always be in demand for any art director that wants to drop an image into the latest project. I know. I've combed through hundreds of isolated photos of lemons looking for just the right angle, point of view, color, and lighting, only to end up shooting it myself. I've never wished I had less choices when looking for stock photos. No stock agency brags about how few choices they offer.
464
« on: May 08, 2012, 06:16 »
@avava: meant to say "Refine Edge Mask"
@vannphoto: focus layers are auto-aligned & auto-merged before performing isolation.
465
« on: May 07, 2012, 17:08 »
I would say 80% of my isolations are done with the pen tool so that I can include a clipping path. (very desirable)
The more complicated edges are selected with the Quick Selection tool and I then use the Refine Mask.
466
« on: May 07, 2012, 16:25 »
I don't place a lot of value on white isolation tables. I usually shoot with a light grey background to maintain a nice under shadow and avoid background spill over. Also, trying to keep everything absolute white in the background has proved too time consuming, because every shoot has it's own little set of problems. I now just perform all isolations in post production. (Photoshop) I'm very fast at it, and it comes out very clean. Since I shoot so much product stuff, I usually make several exposures at different focus points (front to back) and auto-align and merge the layers. Photoshop has made this very easy to do now. That's my workflow. 
467
« on: May 03, 2012, 17:20 »
A Sensitive Use is defined as a use of Submitted Content that contains one or more recognizable people in a context that might cause a reasonable person to believe that the subject(s): a) suffers from a physical or mental health condition or infirmity;
I'm opted in and I have some shots of my friend that looks really naive in a few photos. I hope I'll finally get some big bucks.
P.S. He wouldn't mind even if the buyer wouldn't add a disclaimer 
The word "naive" is not really socially acceptable in the United States. It's not about freedom of speech. It's about respect.
468
« on: May 03, 2012, 13:32 »
I love how big the previews are! You can finally see the detail in what you are buying. You can fill your screen. He's raising the bar for the other stock sites.
469
« on: May 02, 2012, 15:05 »
Opted in.
470
« on: May 02, 2012, 11:55 »
Tea Leaves isolated on white. (one of my best sellers)
471
« on: May 02, 2012, 09:14 »
Been using it for about a month. The improvements to ACR alone are worth the upgrade for me.
472
« on: May 02, 2012, 09:11 »
I got my first $90.60 on April 12th. It was a good day!
473
« on: April 27, 2012, 15:00 »
You need to provide a lot more info. Also, you'll find a lot more help on the Adobe forums.
Sounds like a ram issue. Buy more ram.
474
« on: April 26, 2012, 08:14 »
it"s been my experience that ad agencies pretty much stick with the one or two agencies they have accounts with. They don't spend a lot of time checking the whole microstock community only to find out that all agencies have pretty much the same stuff.
475
« on: April 25, 2012, 13:10 »
Well, the first red flag is that the link is broken. Probably should be .com (not .comn.) Not very professional.
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 30
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
