|
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 - epantha
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24]
576
« on: May 26, 2008, 05:08 »
Mine is a photo of early morning sun (coming through some small trees on the upper left side) taken from a path in the woods.
577
« on: May 25, 2008, 16:42 »
Google
Cranky MIZ My goodness! Actually, I wanted to hear the difference between your version of artifacts and your acquaintance's. But hey, no problem.
578
« on: May 25, 2008, 15:58 »
If you are isolating with pen , after you are done try to use a bit of blur on the white area and you will have smooth natural edges , how smooth , well it depends of blur amount . Does anyone use the "Refine Edge" feature in Photoshop CS3? I draw the path with the pen tool then make the path a selection and use Refine Edge. Many options available.
579
« on: May 25, 2008, 15:48 »
I had a conversation with a reviewer recently, as he is an acquaintance.
During the conversation, I noticed his reference to terms like "Artifacts"....etc
His explanation to me, and my learned definition of those same terms were totally different. I would love to hear the different definitions of "artifacts". Could you share please? 
580
« on: May 25, 2008, 15:09 »
Here are some examples of what I'm talking about. What profile is Dreamstime using?
1. My original photo - Color space: RGB, Profile name: Adobe RGB (1998)
2. iStock preview - Color space: RGB, Profile name: sRGB IEC61966-2.1
3. Dreamstime preview - Color space: RGB, Profile name: (none listed)
After uploading the examples here (and clicking on them), my original looks closest in color to the IS preview. The DT preview has been sharpened and no profile is listed when you do a Get Info.
PS: My monitor is a LCD 21" Apple Cinema HD Display
581
« on: May 25, 2008, 14:21 »
(I will para phrase) ....some sites want you to oversaturate your images so they look better as thumbnails. I began to wonder if this poster knew the difference in the different color profiles like Adobe 1998 and sRGB. I mention theses profiles because they look entirely different side by side on the web. sRGB looks more saturated.
That was me, and yes I understand the different color profiles. I have mine set to Adobe RGB in Photoshop but still notice a large amount of color degradation in the thumbnails of most of the big 6 agencies. So if most of them are using Adobe 1998 and I am using Adobe 1998, why is the color so much duller when they make the thumbnails?
582
« on: May 23, 2008, 13:43 »
somehow i don't think that BigStock judged photos from thumbnails. reviewers always view it at 100%; the more critical reviewers even at 200%...
eg. coming back with "sorry, can't accept this, due to the license plate of a parked car in the left corner". What I'm saying is that BigStock (and DT) want us to over-saturate the colors on our end because when they process them for thumbnails and previews, the original color of the photo is degraded. I don't see this problem of dull thumbnails with IS, for example.
583
« on: May 23, 2008, 13:14 »
IS has taken all of the landscapes I've submitted so far (4 of the 42 photos online there) and just accepted a photo of my black cat sitting on the deck banister. They also seem to accept A LOT of flower photos.
584
« on: May 23, 2008, 13:08 »
Don't know about anyone else, but if I boost the saturation too much it causes posterization in some of the darker colors and looks fake. BigStock and a lot of other sites have very poor thumbnails and previews which have been leached of color when they are created on their end (to make them smaller?). Maybe they should stop blaming the lack of color on us and improve the quality of their previews.
585
« on: May 18, 2008, 05:31 »
Do these new relevance results and ranks have anything to do with exclusive images? Not that I would know personally since I've only been on Fotolia for a couple of months. Just wondering. 
586
« on: May 17, 2008, 04:41 »
I upload one image in the morning and one at night at IS. This way there is always something going on with the approval process and makes it all a little less cumbersome.
587
« on: May 17, 2008, 04:37 »
Well, I appreciate it when someone takes the time to let you know they like your work. I'm constantly watching the new uploads on IS and when I see something outstanding I rate it and sometimes write a short note. It's nice to be nice. 
588
« on: May 16, 2008, 13:40 »
At some point, you are going to run out of things to shoot. You really think so?  I'm thinking the number of things to shoot is infinite. Of course you may deplete your immediate surroundings, but you can go to so many places to find new things, eh?
589
« on: May 16, 2008, 08:11 »
At first I thought it was only the customers and users clicking the rating stars but a couple of times I've had a 5 rating on a newly live image with 0 views. So the inspectors sometimes rate the image?
590
« on: May 12, 2008, 13:45 »
Only been on FT for a couple of months. Very few regular photo sales but there were some downloads for Mother's Day graphics. Not very impressed so far.
591
« on: May 09, 2008, 13:02 »
Do you think StockXpert and other sites reject almost everyone the first time to maybe try and get the best work from people? Or do some people get in on the first try? I found IS a lot more strict on the application photos than they are on the images I'm uploading now. Which is a good thing 
592
« on: May 07, 2008, 16:34 »
On the subject of XS sales: Unfortunately I don't have the time to keep up with technology like I want to. What's the latest in upsizing (a.k.a. uprezzing) technology? If it's much better than the past, then wouldn't it make sense that buyers would buy the smallest usable sizes and then just uprez them themselves, in spite of the time factor? I guess batch processing would make it a breeze. Perhaps right now the money/cost factor is more important than it was in the recent past and would outweigh the time involved in buyer post-editing. Any thoughts? I work at an ad agency and have a lot of experience with print layout and web graphics. I'm pretty sure the XS size will only work on the internet. You can resize the 72 dpi photo to 300 dpi but then it would only be 1.5" wide and would basically be useless for print. Also, I would never try upsizing a 72 dpi photo. The quality is already at a very low level and upsizing it would make it much worse. You can successfully upsize 300 dpi photos but should use tifs, not jpegs to do this.
593
« on: May 07, 2008, 16:07 »
I agree about this being the place to be. It is a wonderful, busy, helpful forum where I have learned so much in a short period of time. So thanks to all of you for being here and sharing your thoughts and experiences. 
594
« on: May 03, 2008, 08:49 »
This is the first site I signed up with a couple of months ago. The photos I have there are exclusive by my choice and I like the fact that they take some of the more artistic shots that may not be perfect "stock" material. The editability and keywording of the images is excellent and the editors have good taste in the photos they have selected. I'm optimistic but don't expect to make a ton of money there any time soon. I'll keep uploading some of my best shots and see what happens.
595
« on: May 01, 2008, 15:04 »
I'm masochistic and currently have 5 isolations in a row lined up for review at Istock. I was thinking since I've worked with the pen tool and clipping paths in Photoshop for years, there wouldn't be a problem getting isolations accepted. Ummm, no. Managed to get one through of a wood goblet a few weeks ago because they let me resubmit it a few times until I got it right. Another one I've resubmitted 2 times is hawk feather on a white background. Not sure why I thought that was a good idea to try but it certainly has been a challenge and a learning experience!
596
« on: April 29, 2008, 15:22 »
Well, I think we are supposed to take the pictures correctly in the first place so we don't have to spend a lot of time photoshopping? But since I still frequently don't get it right, I put on some nice music and clone away the defects or fix other problems. I find it kind of relaxing. It's all fun though isn't it?
597
« on: April 29, 2008, 13:51 »
Hi melastmohican, I'm new to microstock and joined a bunch of places about a month ago and I think it takes awhile before the downloads start. I uploaded some Mother's Day theme type treatments to DT and Fotolia and those are doing well but Istock doesn't take type stuff so I think it's best to try a variety of subjects, themes and ideas on the different sites to see what works best where. Since I'm new and have A LOT TO LEARN, I will keep exploring to see what sells. I take pictures every day anyway, because I love to, so might as well share them with others.
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
