|
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 - Peter
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 52
701
« on: June 15, 2008, 15:18 »
I am on SS since september 2007.
702
« on: June 15, 2008, 12:13 »
Lets be real: even if accepted, chances are great that it would never sell. So what's the point? Landscapes are not good sellers, well known fact. Unleas they are extraodrinary. (in that case they would be accepted for sure). Stock is not about art, stock is about comercial use.
703
« on: June 15, 2008, 12:08 »
Another points are importants in the Fotolia's petition as :
- Give possibility of optout subscription's formula
- Limit the size available for subs at M maxi
Please take the time to read the details's petition and sign it if you are OK
Regards
Your request is not very reasonable. You see, L size is 4MP. M size is 2MP. Can you upoad 2MP at SS? Of course not. You also have 4MP on SS, and similar comisions (even less for newbies - 0.25$ at SS).
704
« on: June 15, 2008, 12:03 »
Then what is this:
http://us.fotolia.com/id/7615447
:/
Why do you ask me? I told you what are the rules. You can call that "reviewer's mistake" if you like....
705
« on: June 15, 2008, 11:59 »
If you read carefuly......
* Photos must be in JPEG format.
* Photo resolution must be greater than or equal to 2400 x 1600 (4 Million pixels).
* Upload images with normal proportions.
* Files must be less than 30 Megabytes.
They do not accept panoramas.
706
« on: June 15, 2008, 06:53 »
This is real problems!!!!! To actually have to do something... Why cantt someone build a machine that wipe our a....
No matter how easy thing are getting, we lower the level. Its kind of funny:) But Im with you guys, we need progress and innovations!!!
StockXpert has batch MR attaching system. You can attach MR to 50 images in one click. So it is not mission imposible.
707
« on: June 15, 2008, 02:17 »
Wait until you have to attach every MR to the uploaded image, there goes real fun. They do have batch processor for keywording, but not for MR attaching, you you have to click and attach every MR one by one on every single photo you upload. It is soo annoying.
708
« on: June 14, 2008, 02:39 »
well that is very encouraging. Nice to see they listened to the contributors. Well done fotolia
Here is the current price layout breakdwon
white 0.30 Credit
bronze 0.31 Credit
silver 0.32 Credit
gold 0.33 Credit
emerald 0.34 Credit
sapphire 0.35 Credit
rubis 0.36 Credit
diamond 0.37 Credit
The raise is not bad at all. Like on (most) other sites. I can live with that (I dont sell subs to much anyway). They should do this at the first place, and avoid atracting negatve publicity. I am glad they raised the comisions. Those 0.27 were really low, 0.32 is somehow acceptable.
709
« on: June 14, 2008, 02:30 »
7 keywords max ?
this is the opposite of what some other sites in the Big 6 advise you.
FT dont advise you to use 7 max, it is just my own (anf few other people) theory. It might not be correct. I also have few images on first pages with 13-15 keywords, so it does not support that theory, but mostly, images with less keywords (not always 7) will come first. Not always, but often. Once again, it is just a unproven theroy, not an official information.
710
« on: June 13, 2008, 17:23 »
1. raised the sub royalty twice
2. changed the way subs work with ranking
when was the 2nd change? I still get 0.27 for silver. subs do count in ranking, but 4 subs equals to 1 credit sale.
711
« on: June 13, 2008, 15:40 »
I dont agree with ranking theory. I am almost certain that photographer's rank has little impact on image order in search, actually, I am positive that photographers rank has NOT AT ALL influence on image relevance order. Not at all. I am 99% sure of that. I was suspecting on that too, but I conducted series of tests, and made conclusion that rank has nothing to do with relevance order in search. 99% sure.
Maybe not on fotolia.. but on some other sites it does.
Patrick H.
I talk about FT. Dont know (and dont care too much actually) about other sites. FT+SS is my primary combination, all others are auxilary earners for me, so I dont spend time to figuring their systems much....
712
« on: June 13, 2008, 15:35 »
I dont agree with ranking theory. I am almost certain that photographer's rank has little impact on image order in search, actually, I am positive that photographers rank has NOT AT ALL influence on image relevance order. Not at all. I am 99% sure of that. I was suspecting on that too, but I conducted series of tests, and made conclusion that photographer's rank has nothing to do with relevance order in search. 99% sure.
713
« on: June 13, 2008, 11:58 »
Dude you missed the point. I am against kw spam as well. But sometimes you need to put 15 relevant keywords, and if the image with 7 keyword will be in front of this with 15, well, I will shorten my list, and cut out some relevant kws. I never supported spam in kws.
Also, about superstition thing. Search engine is made by human. So it works on some pattern. It is not natural phenomenon, that nobody knows how it works. It is made by some programer, by some key. So there is the answer out there, but we dont know it (yet). hh
714
« on: June 13, 2008, 06:51 »
I give up. I totaly dont get this search engine. I just got aproved some watermelon images, and they have 13 keywords. 5 images on first page for "watermelon". This is really strange. There is no rule I guess....
Maybe they have a limit like IS. Only a few images (5?) from the same author can be on the first page.
that might be as well.
715
« on: June 13, 2008, 04:15 »
I give up. I totaly dont get this search engine. I just got aproved some watermelon images, and they have 13 keywords. 5 images on first page for "watermelon". This is really strange. There is no rule I guess....
716
« on: June 13, 2008, 04:13 »
Whos complaining? I curse every time I sell one! LOL!
717
« on: June 12, 2008, 16:13 »
718
« on: June 12, 2008, 12:03 »
4 so far.
719
« on: June 12, 2008, 12:01 »
this dog image is example of spam. it is so rude. cant believe it...
OK my theory does not work in every cases, but in some it does. I dont know any more. Thi search engine is real puzzle. I have some more images with 7 kws, but they are buried deep on page 40 or so.... dont know what to think about....
720
« on: June 12, 2008, 10:10 »
721
« on: June 12, 2008, 09:16 »
Of course, just "pure" number of kws is not all that is, there are many more factors, but that is the one I can change on any new image. The others, I dont have control of. But, I will rather make a system like this: If I shoot a series, most images will have normal 20-30 kws, but I will pick a few (1-2) from the same series that will have only 7 kws, and perhaps they will go on first pages, linking the other ones in the same series....  That is the plan I will do for any new image/series I upload. I whish I knew this before, In last 2 months I uploaded over 500 new images without being aware of this... thats pitty. Oh well...
722
« on: June 12, 2008, 08:58 »
I'll just test it.
723
« on: June 12, 2008, 08:43 »
my image is 1st for "pumpkin, fruit", 7 kws only. hm....... edit: day after it is not among first results any more 
724
« on: June 12, 2008, 06:01 »
5D has larger sensor than 1D? Didnt know that! LOL! How?
725
« on: June 12, 2008, 05:01 »
I have seen this on a Pro forum. The equation is to (square the sensor dimensions then add) square root the total. Then double the result.
(eg)
Canon 30D sensors dimensions are 22.7 X 15
22.7 squared = 515.29
15 squared = 225
515.29 + 225= 740.29
The square root of 740.29= 27.2
Double 27.2 = 54.4
So according to this the most accurate I need is the lens at 54mm. Anything less will make the model fatter, anything more will make the model thinner.
For those of you without a calculator, type in your figure you want the square root of in excel as such =sqrt(740.29) then hit ENTER. (Where 740.29 is your total of the squared sensor dimensions)
there are only 2 types of sensores. small ones (22.7x15) and full frame (35x25 or so...), this formula is useless. It is either one or the other. Only eos 1D and 5D have full frame sensor, and all others (in canon world) have the same size sensor (22.7x15)
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 52
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
