|
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 - Sean Locke Photography
7326
« on: December 02, 2008, 22:47 »
I get rejections for all kinds of other reasons. I also especially get the "isolation" rejection, even when all my files are naturally complete whites on the RAW file. The rejections only make sense if you think of the non-exclusive inspectors as trainees, which they are. It is however irritating on a professional level, three years into microstock, to have to be judged daily by people making more mistakes in basic technical photography then my assistants.
Training inspectors is however very hard, and I do see it from Istocks point of view too.
Perhaps you could post some of these rejections for critique so we can see them. I'm sure you'll be the first to admit you and your team are human. Remember the floating business team above the reflection. That happens a lot in those fake reflection shots and would probably trigger a rejection.
7327
« on: November 30, 2008, 17:30 »
Why don't you alphabetize and categorize the and post them all on a website? It would save you from being innundated with so many mails, and free up your time for shooting. I'm sure it would be a great reference for any one doing shoots on any of those 200 subjects.
7328
« on: November 30, 2008, 17:26 »
Aside from the last line, seemed like serious post to me. Why do you think his entire post was in jest?
7329
« on: November 28, 2008, 23:46 »
Well I am completely bummed. I had ordered from Amazon on Sept 17. Still no word as of today (Nov. 28), which is really discouraging considering that people who ordered the same time from Adorama, Onecall, Ritz, etc. are already getting theirs shipped.
I've had nothing but silence from Adorama. Disappointing.
7330
« on: November 28, 2008, 19:30 »
Conspiracy!
It's not conspiracy is simply bullshiting like with all milestones over there. I can accept it as marketing but if you believe that there have been not a lot tweaking to the milestones you must be an idiot!
Oh, I'm sure they pick and choose for things like this, but I thought it was a pretty average photo, subject and composition wise overall. I have no problem with it.
7331
« on: November 28, 2008, 10:23 »
On istock, you certainly don't need an EL to put a picture in a book. You should check the DT license to see if that is the same.
7332
« on: November 27, 2008, 22:08 »
Yes, I had to approve it - thanks!
I'm never sure if the referral thing works either.
7333
« on: November 27, 2008, 15:52 »
Conspiracy!
7334
« on: November 27, 2008, 15:51 »
Eh, I'm tired of the latest wave of exclusive/independent yapping. Get back to me later...
7335
« on: November 27, 2008, 14:59 »
Wholly owned content, it was built for Microstock. Look into the crystal ball.
AVAVA
I doubt it. Micro was built on having a big collection from a crowd of contributors. You can't get that from a couple of pros shooting the same thing as each other.
7336
« on: November 27, 2008, 12:00 »
I'm just amazed at Chad's "It's too easy to become successful, so we're making it harder" post on the yahoo group.
7338
« on: November 27, 2008, 08:02 »
Im looking right now at a pathetic Forum thread going on at IS where as usual all Exclusives are joining up at the nons, this and that, blaha, blahey etc, etc, etc, and now and then, up pops a Admin guy trying to calm things down. Same old codswhollop.
All I see is independents griping they aren't making as much as they'd like, and despite posts from exclusives and independents that sales are pretty up and down equally, blame it on some conspiracy theory that iStock is out to get them.
Sean, that may be the general feel you get from the thread. But it is not the view of ALL independants who have posted.
Sorry for generalizing. happy Thanksgiving!
7339
« on: November 26, 2008, 22:10 »
I just went in to the forum to see where the blood letting is,
ironically, the main protagonist of this "conspiracy" you say, has a cynic named sjlocke.
maybe i read the wrong thread, but from what i could read , the thread by "CapturedNuance"
you (sjlocke) was mentioning persistently to "drive away competition "
rather than help the situation.
What ? I was merely pointing out that "loyalty" was not what the OP was describing, but, as they offered "fondness" for iStock. "Help the situation" - What situation? There is no conspiracy I can see to drive anyone from the site. A best match tweak does not equal a conspiracy.
7340
« on: November 26, 2008, 19:08 »
Im looking right now at a pathetic Forum thread going on at IS where as usual all Exclusives are joining up at the nons, this and that, blaha, blahey etc, etc, etc, and now and then, up pops a Admin guy trying to calm things down. Same old codswhollop.
All I see is independents griping they aren't making as much as they'd like, and despite posts from exclusives and independents that sales are pretty up and down equally, blame it on some conspiracy theory that iStock is out to get them.
7341
« on: November 26, 2008, 13:17 »
7342
« on: November 26, 2008, 05:43 »
It's nothing coherant, but individually, the clips are really nice.
7343
« on: November 26, 2008, 05:23 »
Can you bring yourself to watch those films you worked on.
Oh sure, I love to see the stuff I worked on. If you watch Lilo and Stitch, when Stitch goes into hyperspace in front of the huge police ship, you can see my initials on the front of the ship in the swirly texture pattern. I tried to spell my son's name in Brother Bear, out of falling fish, but the efx department ended up covering them with water splashes.
7344
« on: November 25, 2008, 23:14 »
I think the OP has a job working for budweiser.
Real men of MSG...
7345
« on: November 25, 2008, 22:29 »
the data is mute.
Moot. Or possibly Moo:
| <![CDATA[<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLwYpSCrlHU" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLwYpSCrlHU</a>]]> |
7346
« on: November 25, 2008, 19:24 »
Good CG is too much work, imo, to be able to output a variety of saleable stuff, except for the very generic stick guy on white series.
Working at Disney was great! It's the kind of thing you don't appreciate until you're not doing it anymore. Lilo and Stitch? A classic, but it sure doesn't seem like it when you're trying to get it done.
Spent 4 weeks or so, on one scene in Brother Bear. Whew!
7347
« on: November 25, 2008, 16:49 »
I don't know if you're talking about me  , but I spent 9 years working for Disney Animation as a CG modeler. Learned from the Maya manuals. Very useful stuff.
7348
« on: November 24, 2008, 20:45 »
Glad you had fun, but this looks like a good example of how to spend too much money doing a shoot for micro.
Nice results though. Where's the window in the background? Is that in the upper right corner out of frame of the timelapse?
7349
« on: November 24, 2008, 17:07 »
The argument has always been that its impossible to "police" image exclusivity ( as opposed to person exclusivity), this is ofcourse total rubbish.
How then did yesterdays large libraries such as Image-Bank, Stones, Getty, etc manage to keep full control? and thats BEFORE the computer era.
Nowdays with all the programs, softwares and what-nots it should be dead easy.
And yet Alamy can't seem to figure out they've got 10,000 RF images listed under RM as well, eh  You're dealing with 50,000 contributors from all walks of like, not a couple of hundred full time photographers. I think it's a bit different to keep an eye on everyone with that sort of contributor base, wouldn't you?
7350
« on: November 24, 2008, 11:28 »
Why not post that in the keywording forum?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
