|
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 - Bateleur
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 35
476
« on: October 04, 2007, 02:30 »
Give us your images and we will distribute on Jupiterimages.com (JI) and within our network of over 200 agents worldwide.
How is that different from Alamy, who also have a world-wide network of distributors, pay 65% royalties and don't require exclusivity?
Lastly, this is an entry point for other opportunities. As a JI contributor, you are exposing yourself to other content directors who are looking for new talent.
How many wannabee starlets end up in the Producer's bed in Hollywood, having fallen for exactly that line? 
477
« on: October 03, 2007, 09:24 »
You will receive a 15% for every image downloaded. Images range from $79.95
for a low resolution file and up to 349$ for a high resolution file.
So ... have I got this right? The maximum you can earn for an image is 15% of $349 = $52.35 For a high-resolution exclusive image? Hmmmmm ... I think I'll pass on that thanks, even if it is Jupiter.
478
« on: September 30, 2007, 11:33 »
Great idea! Thanks for setting it up. Okay, here's mine: 
479
« on: September 30, 2007, 04:26 »
Alamy is selling to the secondary editorial market - if there is a bird in the sky, the bird needs to stay in the sky.
Trouble is ... I've had images rejected by Alamy for dirt/dust issues when there wasn't any. I suspect it was a distant bird  No reply from Member Services to my 'recognisable people' question, though I did have a very prompt reply to another issue I raised (about images not showing up in searches) and which I've mentioned in another thread. That one has been sorted now, I think.
480
« on: September 30, 2007, 04:21 »
Offering the same images on both is no more 'immoral' than one petrol station selling petrol at 2.00 per litre and another, round the corner offering it at 1.75 (or whatever). If the buyer is prepared to pay the price then that's okay. What is immoral (and illegal in many places) is if all the petrol station owners get together and say "all of us will stick together and sell petrol at 2.50" so the consumer has no choice. (not that this is relevant to the question ) There's also the fact that, on Alamy (for example) you can get much much bigger sizes than on the micros.
481
« on: September 27, 2007, 04:48 »
Just got this reply to my e-mail from Member Services ...
Hi,
Please note that the keywords placed within the new fields (Essential keywords, Main keywords, Location) will not be searchable until this weekend. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Kind Regards
Luke
Member Services
AlamySo ... I'm still not doing any more work on my images until they are searchable. What's the point? One of the few times when it pays to be lazy
482
« on: September 27, 2007, 02:13 »
Something about 'putting eggs in baskets' comes to mind here Hey! Now that's a great idea for the September Lightbox Challenge  Oh boy! I wonder if iStock will let me upload it before the end of the month 
483
« on: September 27, 2007, 02:08 »
I have started to 'disambiguate' my images on Alamy, and I've been playing about with searches on the ones I have done, to see how well the new system works.
Something very strange has shown up.
I have just sent the following e-mail to Alamy Member Services which (I hope) explains what seems to be happening ...
Dear Member Services,
Can you explain this please ...
I am starting to work on my images, adding the additional information and modifying the keywords as you require.
On Monday I modified image ACHNDW with all the necessary additions and alterations. Its status is now shown as 'On sale'.
However, when I do a search on all of the keywords in the 'Essential' list for that particular image (i.e. cycle bicycle race competitor cyclist positive) it fails to show up.
Doing such a search brings up 7 images, two others of which are mine, ACB6JN and ACB6FP, and neither of which I have worked on yet.
Exactly the same thing happens for image ACHNGW
So, it appears that the result of updating the images as you require they are left out of searches.
What's going on?
Thank you
For the moment I'm not doing any more 'disambiguation' until this is either mended, or I have an explanation.
484
« on: September 26, 2007, 02:46 »
I'd be interested in an answer to this, too, as I've been casting an eye over them.
485
« on: September 26, 2007, 02:45 »
I still haven't fought through the istock disambiguation.... 3/4 done.
Yeah ... I'm still ploughing through my iStock disambiguation too. I think it's a plot to stop photographers swamping them with pictures
486
« on: September 26, 2007, 02:43 »
...look at the example at alamy makes it pretty clear what they mean by digital altered.
I think Alamy does not make it clear at all ...
The trouble is that Alamy does not make a lot of things clear. The other big question I have is about model releases. One question on their new form is: How many people are in this picture?If you indicate that there is a person (or more) in the picture, you have no model release and the image is RF then you get an awful warning in red:
This image cannot be Royalty Free because it does not have the necessary model and/or property releases. If the image has not sold, it will be changed to Licenced within 3 months, and will remain on sale. If it has sold, it will be deleted within 3 months. To sell it as Licenced you will have to resubmit.I have quite a few RF pictures on Alamy with a completely unidentifiable person in ... the sort of pictures that any of the micros (who are extremely cautious) would happily accept without a model release. But, I can't indicate they contain a person on Alamy and still keep the image as RF. But, at the same time, on their help pages, they write: You should seek to get a signed model release any time that your photos contain recognizable images of people ...So, I'm taking that question as reading How many recognizable people are in this picture?I've written to their Members Services asking for clarification, but haven't got a response yet.
487
« on: September 25, 2007, 15:25 »
Okay ...
... now I'm doubly glad I didn't go exclusive.
488
« on: September 25, 2007, 13:56 »
I don't usually hang out in the iStock forums (fora?). The ' Gee! Wow! That's way too cool iStock!' tone is vomit-inducing, and I like to keep my meals inside me. But people on here have been mentioning a slow down in sales with IS lately. For some reason (I've forgotten why I did it now) I did go on, and I came across this thread ... http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=57785&page=1Interesting? And it's been locked, too.
489
« on: September 24, 2007, 15:55 »
Question (I know we're not Alamy here, so can't give a definitive answer but I'm looking for opinions) ...
Is a panorama, stitched together from several images, 'digitally altered'?
490
« on: September 19, 2007, 15:07 »
But after they removed a post of me more than a year ago, I don't even bother to look there.
Yeah, me too. The sycophancy there makes me want to throw up. I'm waiting for the day when they announce something like ... " We're changing our system so photographers now have to pay us to sell their images for them" ... ... and their forums fill up with comments like: "Yay! That is so cool. Thankyou thankyou thankyou iStock."
491
« on: September 18, 2007, 04:11 »
I have 79 images with them and have sold 55.
Their approvals take quite a long time now (there was a time when they were being done in 24 hours) and sales are very slow.
Also, as you know, they are incredibly picky. My rejection rate there is the highest of any agency - running at about 50% of my submissions.
But I keep uploading to them, slowly, because I think it keeps me on my toes. It's quite a challenge to get an approval there, and I enjoy challenges.
492
« on: September 18, 2007, 01:52 »
Strewth! 3 days 17 hours 57 minutes. I can't believe it. Think of all the photos I could have uploaded in that time
493
« on: September 18, 2007, 01:47 »
You do not need to upload a model release. you just have to mark the box "model release available" in "manage images" if you do not sell it editorial.
.... but if you do tick the box you should have a signed model release clipped away in a file in your home/office/studio somewhere, just in case. I know that should go without saying but, from what I hear on other forums, there are people who tick that box regardless. If there are recognisable people in their picture they're taking a hell of a risk.
494
« on: September 15, 2007, 13:55 »
495
« on: September 15, 2007, 12:11 »
496
« on: September 15, 2007, 11:56 »
I'm adding "... visit my gallery to see Shutterstock's largest aircraft collection", which is absolutely true.
Ah ... that explains it. When you wrote "... one of the words I'm adding ..." it sounded to me like you were adding just the word itself, not a phrase containing the word. Thanks for the clarification. It had mystified me.
497
« on: September 15, 2007, 05:53 »
This may be a silly question, but ... why are you adding the word 'Shutterstock' to the description field of an image on Shutterstock? Is there something we don't know?
498
« on: September 13, 2007, 16:48 »
I use Elinchrom D-light 4 strobes with a softbox to diffuse the light. I bump the one on the background up to high enough power to totally over-expose it, though even then it sometimes needs a bit of photoshopping to remove odd marks ... a crease, a spot, a stray fly.
499
« on: September 13, 2007, 01:43 »
In very general and brief terms you can do it either in Photoshop or when shooting. In Photoshop: You have to select the object using the pen tool, invert the selection and wipe out the background. Don't try using the magic lasso or tools like that. They aren't anything like accurate enough. This is just about manageable with regularly-shaped objects, though a bit of a hassle. But it's almost impossible with irregularly-shaped objects - e.g. people with hair - though there are horribly complicated ways of doing it ( http://av.adobe.com/russellbrown/AdvancedMasking.mov). The advantage is that it gives you a clipping path which you can include with your image and which may, just possibly, make it more saleable. In camera: Simpler. Place your object/model in front of a white background and then put enough light on the background to burn it out completely. Make sure that your model/object is far enough away from the background so that you don't get any light 'spill' which ruins the edges. (I have had images rejected for 'poor isolation' when I haven't isolated them at all. They were done against a white background, and I guess I just had it too close.  )
500
« on: September 11, 2007, 11:56 »
... and with that number of views, each viewer it bought it over 25 million times.
What was it a picture of, for heaven's sake? Gonna let us in on the secret?
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
