|
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 - cathyslife
7226
« on: March 24, 2009, 19:58 »
New Java loader...yes, that's what I'm talkin about. Yes, I know FTP is faster, but I guess I get in the groove of uploading from the site. For two images, I think it works fine.
7227
« on: March 23, 2009, 19:26 »
I have just discovered you can now upload multiple files at one time on Dreamstime! This is great news.
7228
« on: March 22, 2009, 18:11 »
I have had similar rejections.
As I understand it, even though the leaves are basically isolated and on a white background, if they have shadows you should not use isolated as a keyword. If you use isolated as a keyword, then they will reject because of the shadows.
madelaide, if you didn't use isolated as a keyword, then the rules may have changed.
7229
« on: March 14, 2009, 16:25 »
Oh my gosh, I missed it. The Miz died? What happened?
I never interacted personally with him, but read his posts most of the time. Sometimes I laughed, sometimes I scratched my head and said what the f--- is he talking about. I'm sorry to see him go.
edit: I just did a search over on the DT forums and learned he passed away last October from cancer. I can't believe I only stumbled on the news today! I must be living in a freakin hole or something! Sad news.
7230
« on: March 11, 2009, 17:21 »
Maybe there aren't any Seattle-ites here.
7231
« on: March 08, 2009, 17:57 »
I really like the way the photos load, with the thumbnails coming in on the right. I don't have a problem with Flash used like this. Thank goodness you don't have sound...I hate when people use sound on their sites. I only have one constructive critique and this is purely my opinion, so please don't take offense. On your main page, I think your logo should be smaller. I like your logo a lot, but to me it looks a little too big for the elegance of the rest of the site. Again, if you disagree, that's ok, I just wanted to give my opinion. You did a GREAT job for your first site! I need to rethink mine now. 
7232
« on: March 04, 2009, 19:01 »
What a hoot!
I made the mistake of taking my camera into the local mall one day. A store worker called security and they told me if I wanted to take pictures I had to check with the security office first, otherwise it wasn't allowed. Yikes, that would have been a real threat to national security, taking pictures of people and the stores.
7233
« on: February 21, 2009, 15:20 »
I got an email from istock with about 25 of my old images destined for the dollar bin. They were really early stuff, some not necessarily bad, but I chose to deactivate them, as they are sold on other sites.
I went over to the Dollar Bin. I find it really hard to believe that some of those with blue and red flames never got downloaded once or twice from the regular site. Did they ask some people to donate a few good ones in there just to make it attractive? Hmmm....
7234
« on: February 18, 2009, 18:05 »
I love it too, nice work, Leaf!
7235
« on: February 13, 2009, 18:13 »
I know istock occasionally tell you reasons why the image in particular was rejected
istock USED to actually attach a jpg of the area that had a problem, back in the good old days! That was great because you knew EXACTLY where to look for the problem. But I can see where they can't possibly do that now.
7236
« on: February 13, 2009, 18:07 »
I'm seeing a lot of artifacting in the hair. There is a lot of blurring on the hands and feet...perhaps that is a filter? Or maybe not fast enough shutter speed? I'm not sure I can tell what's going on.
If you did any filtering at all, I would say go back to the raw image and upload that for critique before spending even more time on it.
I know that istock, for the most part, does not like filtered images. I know, I have had a few rejects myself. The only people who can get away with it are the big guns (IMHO).
Your composition is good. I personally like the horizon to be straight, especially in this image. The models are great, they're having fun and to me, the background is a little distracting being slanted.
You also have some fringing going on, check out the girls shoulders...the white line between her shirt and the sky.
If this is a composite, as was suggested by a poster above, maybe the blurring was to try to blend the people with the background?
I also agree, upload 3 totally different photo subjects.
Anyway, just my two cents...I'm no expert by any means.
7237
« on: February 09, 2009, 17:35 »
whistling (not humming) the theme tune to MASHI love it...the theme tune to MASH is titled "Suicide is Painless"  I'm liking the best match...my sales have increased substantially.
7238
« on: February 08, 2009, 11:11 »
I think these images are fixable and are good images, especially the horizontal one. And I would fix the tilt on the vertical one, too. And maybe you are "supposed" to photograph at dusk, but personally I think a little more freely than that...I like the looks of the lighting on these.
I don't upload to Crestock, so don't know about overrejections but that happens on just about every site...they seem to all go through stages. The beauty of uploading to more than one site is that you can blow off the inane rejections and upload to other places that will actually sell your image that didn't meet the creative standards of Crestock!
7239
« on: February 08, 2009, 11:00 »
I think the improvements are great but what baffles me is I still can't get my IPTC data to show in the fields when uploading unless I first click on a forum. To me that is just too ridiculous.
7240
« on: February 07, 2009, 08:30 »
Am I the only one annoyed by the rejections that include 2 completely opposite reasons - "too many or too specific", "edges are too feathered or too sharp", or "too much noise or overuse of noise reduction". Well, which one is it?
No, you're not the only one annoyed. But my opinion is that there are so many people trying to cash in on microstock that the reviewers have become so overwhelmed and they just want to cover their butts. A lot of times my rejections don't make sense, and I long ago gave up trying to figure out what they mean. I still upload to 5 sites and one very major reason is that if a photo gets rejected on one site the other 4 will approve it.
And if I get too many rejections from one site that seem like total bullsh-t, I will do what e-person is doing. So far, that hasn't happened to me.
7241
« on: February 03, 2009, 18:29 »
I think it's a good image, but it looks pretty heavily filtered to me. I would NEVER get an image like that accepted on istock, I'd get an overfiltered rejection.
7242
« on: February 01, 2009, 12:53 »
I did not even make payout this month at SS 
7243
« on: January 31, 2009, 16:53 »
I have the Sekonic L-358 as well, and always use it for studio shooting. I use the histogram method when shooting outdoors.
7244
« on: January 30, 2009, 18:00 »
Read books, research the web, buy a camera, buy food, shoot. These should be right up a student's alley!
7245
« on: January 30, 2009, 18:00 »
Read books, research the web, buy a camera, buy food, shoot. These should be right up a student's alley!
7246
« on: January 29, 2009, 22:04 »
I will be lucky if I get a payout this month. My sales on SS have been down for the past 3 months.
7247
« on: January 28, 2009, 18:46 »
Congratulations! Photos, please!
7248
« on: January 25, 2009, 18:37 »
I have a Big 5...IS, SS, DT, StockXpert and BigStock.
IS is usually No. 1, BigStock is usually No. 5. Right now, SS is way behind for me, though. For the most part, IS stays at No. 1 all the time. The other 4 have ebbs and flows.
7249
« on: January 25, 2009, 17:31 »
That's the thing. Many people don't have a clue about microstock. They just look for free images and then when we show them what kind of images they could get from just $1, they go for that.
I guess I disagree. When people are used to getting images for free, they will think $1 is too much. Sure, they will go to the microstock sites then, and start ripping off the thumbnails and using those, with or without the watermark, because what the heck, those are for free.
But I will keep my eyes out on this site to hear from other microstock users who think this is a good idea and is making tons of money from the referrals that make it worth the effort.
7250
« on: January 25, 2009, 12:37 »
I agree with madelaide. I think that buyers go to microstock to buy images for micro prices. The only way I would pay more money for that image is if it's rights managed and exclusive to that site. Assuming that's the way the images are going to be marketed, it makes sense to keep buyers on your site for that exclusive image rather than lose them to go surfing at other rights managed sites.
I think this economy has everyone diversifying and trying to grab as many buyers and keep them on their sites for as long as possible. In that context, it makes sense.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
