|
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 - Perry
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... 57
676
« on: May 19, 2011, 05:59 »
Lot's of sites also have keywords attached to the images, easily searchable on (for example) Mac's Spotlight.
677
« on: May 19, 2011, 05:52 »
The person making the complaint is requesting that Shutterstock take appropriate steps against you. Prior to taking any further steps, we are inviting you to respond to this claim. I really cannot understand how another submitter can make a complaint about an image that isn't already for sale? This sounds just too strange, and makes it hard to believe the OP doesn't have anything to hide. One thing that also pops into my mind: Did Shutterstock ever get the OP's reply at all?
678
« on: May 17, 2011, 12:27 »
OT: Why would anyone even want to use that filter, the results doesn't even look like real film, at least the perforation doesn't look like 35mm film.
I think SS have done wrongly here; if the filter site says it's okay to use the filters for commercial use, then it is.
679
« on: May 16, 2011, 14:14 »
Just got some good shots rejected for "lighting". Yes, they had some shadows, without shadows everything looks flat, but that's how they seem to like it.
680
« on: May 15, 2011, 16:31 »
Sigh. A composite or panorama is fine.
The problem here is that an image can be rejected if it's bigger than camera's native size - even if it is a composite or panorama or "added white background". They should really concentrate only how an image LOOKS at 100%, not what it is shot with.
681
« on: May 15, 2011, 11:56 »
I had 'degraded image quality from upsampling' rejections because some pics were slightly larger than what my camera (exif) produces - I extended the white background on some very tight compositions, where the subject was almost touching the edges... of course the images were razor * sharp. Fail.
Images larger than native camera size are not allowed. Next time don't frame so sharp, or downsize a bit to add white around it.
I added a note for the inspector to inform him/her about one of photoshop's most basic functions that even novices know: how you can enlarge image area with the crop tool which includes no upsampling whatsoever. From the answer it was pretty clear that I was communicating with clueless dilettant. It's not just they didn't know about that property of the crop tool, but seemingly didn't even understand it thru my explanation. Double fail: an inspector of digital imagery with hardly any knowledge of photoshop, and lacking the mental abilities to understand a simple explanation. : )) Well trained chimpanzees could do a better job than that.
What? You can't enlarge an image without upsampling. Using the crop tool to do so is still upsampling. Even a capuchin would know that.
He wasn't upsampling, he was adding white background with the crop tool. The same thing as adding size in "Canvas size..." The crop tool doesn't resize the image if you don't type any size information in the boxes.
682
« on: May 13, 2011, 02:32 »
There has to be an easier way than riding the back of a now dead photographer.
Are you saying the photos made by the now dead photographer should be forgotten and hidden in cardboard boxes in some storage? The problem here is that the original poster needs to know exactly when the photos were taken, I'm guessing most of them doesn't have exact year...? I think the easiest way would be submitting these to Alamy as RM.
683
« on: May 10, 2011, 11:02 »
PNG doesn't support color management, if I remember correctly (?)
684
« on: May 07, 2011, 04:35 »
I have just opted-in, 100 files, good sellers and all. I mean seriously, Im against it but what the heck, it cant get any worse? or at least thats what I keep telling myself.
Funny going through ones own shots really, I am actually a great photographer!! possibly the best! well at least among the 3 best, globally I mean.
You too? Welcome to the club! 
I'm the third one!
685
« on: May 05, 2011, 22:57 »
I just looked at my IS stats, made some maths and thought: "This month seems even worse than the horrible April!". How does your May stats at IS look like compared to April?
686
« on: May 05, 2011, 22:50 »
The fraction of a percent was definitely about the total change in royalties paid out, not the number of people it affected. "Oooops!". Then why the h*ll doesn't he call the reporter and tell him to set the facts straight? He just tries to squirm out of anything. And what does that even mean? That iStock royalty payouts were reduced by .1% and that affected dramatically... what? who?
687
« on: May 05, 2011, 15:44 »
I find the article extremely insulting.
688
« on: May 03, 2011, 03:02 »
I leave white space according to what looks aesthetically pleasing to me. Not too little, not too much.
689
« on: May 03, 2011, 02:56 »
I wish Osama would join us in this thread and set the facts straight.
690
« on: May 02, 2011, 13:37 »
691
« on: May 02, 2011, 05:39 »
there are 'bout 150 million ppl in the world who would look like that in that condition...
Yes, but it is still clearly just a photoshop job.
692
« on: May 02, 2011, 05:09 »
There are more ppl killed by heart atack from obesity, overfeeding and bad lifestyle every DAY in US then "terorrists" kill in the whole year worldwide...
I agree with your post, but the sentence above made me cringe. I don't think anyone has said that terrorists kill more people than "natural" causes? And everyone has to die sometime, for one reason or another, even if you stop eating burgers you might live 10 years longer but eventually you will still die.
693
« on: May 02, 2011, 05:07 »
The "thrown at sea" thing looks fishy to me. Maybe he's been dead fro natural causes long ago?
That would be a good explanation. I don't think the US government would like to admit they have failed in the terrorist hunt. IF Osama would have died from natural causes they would still have 1) Dead Osama 2) Dead Osama's DNA
694
« on: May 02, 2011, 05:03 »
Things seem to go the way depicted in my avatar  (I just hope the other sites would compensate for the losses)
695
« on: May 02, 2011, 05:02 »
It gives me some hope when I hear IS has plummeted to many others as well. Even this is bad for my earnings, I somehow enjoy IS getting hit badly - they have asked for it a long time and now they got it.
IS has dropped almost 50% from march. The last time earnings at IS was this bad was in february 2009.
Shutterstock had a good month, really close to BME
Dreamstime has been weak for a long time, but april 2010 was the best month since June 2009
Fotolia was pretty weak in april
I don't quite follow the small agencies, but I noticed that 123rf (BME!) and Veer are up!
Even with the positive signs from Shutterstock and Dreamstime, April was horrible.
696
« on: May 02, 2011, 04:51 »
I just wish they would drop the categories.
697
« on: May 02, 2011, 04:07 »
BTW. That's a long way to the sea, about a thousand miles. They seem to have trough a lot to "bury the body in the sea"
698
« on: May 02, 2011, 04:04 »
I'm a bit skeptical about this. Why no official photos released? (Osama didn't sign a model release ? ) Why such a hurry? This reminds me about the death of Hitler. The soviets found dead Hitler and set his corpse on fire without even trying to collect evidence. And there still seems to be some debate if he fled to South America or other place.
699
« on: April 27, 2011, 17:14 »
Do we want to contribute to the success of yet another 35 cent subscription site?
I'll rather have 35 cents for a M sized download than 25 cents for an XL download...
700
« on: April 25, 2011, 08:25 »
I have a really, REALLY bad month, I'm propably going to end up with about half (50%) of last month's earnings. The latest time my sales was as bad at IS was in the summer of 2009 
On a lighter note, SS is already almost BME and there is almost a week left...
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
