|
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 - Gannet77
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24
476
« on: November 13, 2009, 04:34 »
Well, I'm seeing images I opted in from iStock on photos.com now... so it's happening...
477
« on: November 12, 2009, 17:01 »
As already said, storage is cheap.
I always save a PSD, at original size, and to JPG at 12 - if I have to re-edit, I work from the PSD. I never resave a JPG.
And if that's not feasible, I've still got the RAW.
478
« on: November 05, 2009, 14:22 »
If you have followed the threads on istock about this, you will know that this is ground that has already been well covered. Many istock exclusives were not at all enthusiastic about selling cheap subs and staged a revolt when istock tried to force them into Photos.com. The resulting compromise was, as Ichiro correctly points out, only exclusive content 18 mos. and older is eligible.
Independents can opt in all their content through istock, but since they are lowballing us by only offering .25 instead of the .30 we got through StockXpert, I don't know a single independent who is opting in.
Bottom line is they are losing millions of top quality images through StockXpert and haven't managed to come up with a way to replace those via istock.
Which explains why the date keeps getting pushed back...
Actually, exclusives CAN opt in content less than 18 months old, but it can only go to either the partner program (photos.com) or to iStock, not both. I doubt any would do that though. Certainly I haven't.
479
« on: October 30, 2009, 18:27 »
I am not sure how the moo card works. Now lets say if I am a regionally recognizable micro stock geek and giving out my cards at workshops to the attendants. I will of course to tell them to sign up under my referral, and use the card to download my images. Now is this a violation?
If you ask them to download your images, then potentially yes. It's collusion.
480
« on: October 30, 2009, 18:24 »
Wow, you must be greatly favoured... I've had two in for over a month!
481
« on: October 25, 2009, 14:02 »
Well, I'm trying to learn Spanish - so far I'm not very good, and I'm always surprised that native Spanish speakers seem to be able to work out my meaning when I know I'm making lots of mistakes - but I appreciate it when they correct my errors, I don't call it whining!
As for your example - if you think it doesn't matter, try writing your CV like that, see how many job interviews you get...
482
« on: October 17, 2009, 15:27 »
Very nice pic Holgs - very clean, even zoomed there's barely any noise. I use E-510 and E-30 too, but I don't think I've ever tried at 800 ISO, at least, not for stock!
It is an ideally lit subject though - noise is worst in dark areas, and there aren't many dark bits there.
Did you apply any noise reduction or sharpening?
I like the Olys though. I just wish they would do a full frame model...
483
« on: October 15, 2009, 08:09 »
Can't speak for other agencies, but as I understand it, for iStock at least, it's by invitation only.
484
« on: September 25, 2009, 05:49 »
OK, I hadn't realised you had to be accepted first. Makes sense though, it's not a public forum like this one and there's no reason why iStock should make it fully available to anyone who isn't a contributor or a buyer I suppose.
Although as I recall I had to send a scan of my passport or other ID when applying, I would have thought that ought to qualify for posting rights!
Though I do think that going into iStock with the attitude that you don't like the site but you want to join because they sell well isn't a very good way to start. You'll end up bitter and twisted about them like so many other posters I read here.
From what I can tell, the only reason you're annoyed with them is that they haven't accepted you yet; but that's because you sent them three similar images of one subject, they asked to see a bit more variety in your work (same thing with my first application, actually) and you sent another three images of a different subject. Then did the same again, when what they wanted was three different subjects.
You just misunderstood, that's all. Move on, try again, and best of luck next time!
485
« on: September 24, 2009, 16:52 »
Ok, so my next question is... ...how do I post something (anything...) on the IS forum? Forum page lacks any means of making a new post. I joined iStock ages ago, have been able submit 3 times to be a contibutor, and yet I do not seem to have access to their forums. What is this???
iStock FAQs completely silent about theirs forums.
Forum has no search tool (perhaps only available once you can post?) so no joy there.
Would like to post at istock forum to ask how to post at istock forum, but cannot post at istock forum to ask how.
Why does this have to be like pulling teeth? Is this rest of iStock as user unfreindly?
Meanwhile, selling well on other sites!
It's not that hard. You go to the forums list (link on the left), select the forum you want (Critique?) and click the "Add Topic" button. If you're posting for critique though, you need to make a link to a 100% image somewhere. They usually suggest vox. But the search function isn't very good, you're right about that.
486
« on: September 22, 2009, 10:11 »
I agree with you, this is a problem on all the sites. As a buyer of stock as well as contributor, I run across this problem a lot.
I am hoping that with the institution of some of the keyword solutions, like flaggers on Dreamstime, that most of the spammers are going to be weeded out and for the most part photos will be keyworded properly.
On several occasions I have checked keywords of images that have blue flames and have found keyword spam amass (istock). I hope they are cracking down on that with the institution of the CV.
On iStock, the implementation of the newest Best Match with keyword ranking is supposed to help address this issue - have you, as a buyer, found it to be an improvement?
487
« on: September 20, 2009, 16:39 »
Hi all:
Wanted to get your thoughts on how you usually store your photography images. My external hard drive (seagate to be precise) decided to call it quit on me less than a year of purchase. Needless to say, I have to weigh the loss of my images versus the cost of recovering the data.
For you professional photographers out there, what is your advice on image storage option? Would love to hear your thoughts so no one, including myself, will not have to go through this nightmare.
Thank you,
In what way has it "decided to call it quits"? If it's still spinning and can be recognised by the BIOS there's a good chance the data is recoverable without great expense...
488
« on: September 19, 2009, 09:47 »
Out of curiosity, where do you find the total number of contributors to istock listed? 30,000 sounds low to me. I thought it was 50 or 60k
The figure given was from http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/ - don't know if this includes absolutely all contributors, but it must be most as the total files listed is over 5 million, which will be the sum of those from the 29,271 contributors listed (as of now). If there are another 20k or more, they don't upload much!
489
« on: September 18, 2009, 04:46 »
^ I don't agree - it depends - they may be searching for regular stock or they may be looking for something special, but the "rare and unique" stuff tends to be less popular and gets lost in the regular stuff.
So it makes sense to show off the special stuff at the top, so they can at least get a taste of it without having to wade through pages of more standard images.
I do think though that Vetta images should be more obviously seen as "different" (and hence warn the buyer that they cost more) by, say, putting a different border on them and reserving the top row or something. Sort of like iStock have done at the stock.xchng site.
490
« on: September 16, 2009, 05:26 »
I can't speak as to whether or not iStock is the "best" agency, as I'm exclusive there and have little experience with other sites - but if you find the upload and keywording annoying, try using DeepMeta instead. See here http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=57564&page=1 for information.
491
« on: September 15, 2009, 08:08 »
I was denied the ability to apply for the Getty contract ("not available to Gold - and you'll never make Silver") and I was told by admin that it was a mistake that my exclusive application ever got approved.
I find this statement astounding! Do you mean "not available to Bronze" perhaps? I wasn't aware there was any approval required other than having sufficient downloads (and, now, a 50% acceptance rate). Did they give a reason?
492
« on: September 14, 2009, 13:15 »
I don't have any regrets either. I haven't missed a beat from my non-exclusive days and spend a lot less time uploading. 1% is pretty insignificant.
It's a little early to tell from that. What's important is the trend - you would expect it to take a while for the other sites to pick up enough to recoup the lost income from the exclusive bump, but if the income from them is still rising while that from IS is still flat, that would be a positive sign. Me though, I'm happy being exclusive too.
493
« on: September 13, 2009, 08:37 »
With the focal lenght of the mirror lenses (400, 500mm...) and the maximum aperture they get... They cant be very useable...
Their advantage, besides being cheaper of course, is they're relatively small (or at least, short) for the focal length, and relatively lightweight, so they're useful if you need to hike distances and take wildlife pictures. I used to use a Sigma 600mm mirror lens years back, with film. But as you say, not very usable generally. Fixed aperture, usually something like f8, so narrow depth of field given the focal length. The tendency to produce ugly doughnut rings was really only a problem if there were out of focus highlights in the background, say when taking pictures of seabirds with the sun glinting on water behind the subject or some such. Otherwise it could be quite effective.
494
« on: September 11, 2009, 04:12 »
Yes indeed, as the OP was referring to IS specifically, I had assumed that we were talking only about them! Other sites I wouldn't know, I did apply at a couple before I was exclusive, accepted at both with no issues but they never worked as well as IS did for me. And indeed, if it works for you, stick with it! 
495
« on: September 10, 2009, 05:39 »
^ My understanding is that their rationale is that for the application, they want to see that you have a good "eye for an image", as opposed to just being a snapshooter.
Hence, what they like to see is a variety of subjects, well composed and well lit - technical aspects like noise and artifacts aren't so important.
Then, once you're in, the inspection process takes over and a contributor can learn the technical skills on the job, as it were. Makes sense, they don't expect you to be a professional straight up, they just want to see ability.
Certainly this was the case for me, although that was three years ago, maybe it's changed. None of my initial application images got past inspection without further post processing.
I often downsample too, but I don't quite understand why you say you "don't want full sized images out selling for 69 cents" though; surely, even as a non-exclusive, you get 20% and that would be $2 or more at least for Large, excepting old credits maybe?
496
« on: September 09, 2009, 11:20 »
^ Well, maybe - but my initial applications weren't downsized, the only issue was they asked me to provide more varied images.
I'd always understood that they don't inspect application images with the same rigour as images uploaded for the collection, and certainly that was so for me, as my application images didn't pass inspection first time once I was in.
And as for later submissions, I've had some where the inspector specifically suggested downsampling in order to improve some slight flaws!
497
« on: September 09, 2009, 07:04 »
The same with me. First time I sent three still lives. Different objects, different set ups and concepts, all sharp and well lit, but - still lives. I was rejected. Next time I sent one still life, one outdoor portrait in field and one industrial picture. I passed.
Pretty much the same as my first failure and my successful application. Isolation, nature, business building, still life, I was accepted.
It was people here who said, various subjects and lighting, and downsize to just above the minimum for first application. It worked.
My three D's of getting accepted to sell on iStock have become four D's.
1) Diversity, show your versatility.
2) Downsize, just over minimum to reduce potential problems.
3) Don't over process (natural colors and saturation)
4) Don't Panic.
I don't think (2) Downsize is necessary for the initial application, though it can help with getting images accepted once you're in. The others are good advice though. Especially (4).
499
« on: September 04, 2009, 04:50 »
So you got 1 cent per copy for your image... It was obvious that the image was important to them. You should have got a better price for your image, this is too low. Always keep in mind that there is a world beyond micros and their microprices.
Indeed there is, but if the image was once sold as micro, that's the world it's in. You can't expect to sell an image at macro prices at the same time. Sounds like an equitable deal to me.
500
« on: August 27, 2009, 05:30 »
Constantly complaining, because the shot they really want is at Corbis or Getty or that illusive phootshoot, but instead they are forced to settle for less, because the end client doesn't care anyways. Vetta solves this, because now designers can buy better images with their iStock account. All they have to do is buy less, and they can stay on budget.
Yea, like those images weren't there before Vetta. Most of the Vetta images were uploaded to istock long before introduction of Vetta. Now they just have higher price tag combined with better search placement.
And you'd prefer your best images to have a lower price tag and poorer search placement?
No, why? I'm all for Vetta. I love when micros raise prices, even though I'm not exclusive to IS.
OK, I misunderstood - it's just that your post "they just have higher price tag combined with better search placement" read like you didn't approve! Anyway, as iStock mentioned in a forum post somewhere, they have to start someplace. Going forward, Vetta will be populated by new images not previously available in the rest of the collection, and hopefully originally conceived with the awareness that putting extra effort and cost into the concept will be repaid by the higher price point. Of course, whether or not it will work remains to be seen, but many contributors are reporting Vetta sales so it's promising.
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
