Watching it live
http://www.servustv.com/cs/Satellite?pagename=Stratos/Layout

Quote from: tab62 on October 12, 2012, 17:31
I am in the exact range as Dan the Man! 750 pics across the board except iStock...

Same here, on iStock i only have 330. Main reason being the upload limit and secondary reason that i keep on making excuses not to upload, because i just hate the upload process there

I'm in the same boat. Also a student who just want's to make a bit of pocket money to buy extra photography equipment.
I am now at about 600 - 900 pics across the sites and make roughly 200$ a month. Am quite happy about it, since i also have fun photographing and editing the pics. Only thing i hate is keywording and submitting!

Quote from: captain on October 10, 2012, 04:57
Check IS this morning and found 45 more USD into my account but the sales only 5.XX USD in the latest download list.
How it happend and what  I should do?

Same here got 20 USD more without showing up on sales

Quote from: leaf on October 07, 2012, 14:35
perhaps it would be fun to start a poll.. I just had a mass 'rejection' / 'acceptance' on shutterstock and the day is...monday, tuesday etc.
Then we could fish out the day that the strict review works lol
unless their schedule is sporadic of course.

good idea!

Quote from: lisafx on October 05, 2012, 22:49

Quote from: fotografer on October 05, 2012, 22:43
I use firefox and don't remember ever having a problem.

+1
No problem here.

+1

NEver had a prob

Quote from: ShadySue on October 05, 2012, 12:22

Quote from: noodle on October 05, 2012, 12:11
Just get an iphone - those other cameras cant text or make any calls - can you say 'useless?'

A father was visiting his son and asked for a newspaper.
Incredulous, the son said, "No one buys newspapers any more. We just check on our iPhones."
Disquieted, the father said, "OK, give me your iPhone then!"
The fly never knew what had hit it.

Quote from: rimglow on October 03, 2012, 20:28
I never trust Save for Web in PS. Can be buggy.

I also just double checked and it says sRGB.

Maybe you accidentally converted it after opening the file. Usually a menu pops up if you wan't to convert it into the standard workspace.

Quote from: rimglow on October 03, 2012, 20:09
I opened your images and found that the Color Profile is Adobe RGB (1998). You need to convert your Pofile to sRGB IEC61966-2.1.
Posting images on the web in Adobe RGB will wreak havoc on your color. Only use Adobe RGB when submitting for print.

Are you sure? I definitely exported into sRGB using lightroom and even downsized them for the forum in PS using Save for Web (with convert to sRGB selected).

Quote from: SIFD on October 02, 2012, 12:30
the color looks odd besides being too red, check on the woman's shoulder area.

did you shot in JEPG?

Images where shot in RAW and post processed in TIFF using ProPhoto color-space (standard when using Lightroom with Photoshop). I then exported the images in lightroom into sRGB.

Quote from: leaf on October 02, 2012, 12:14
My eyes aren't super great with colors but I can see that the images you posted look pretty red, yeah.  That said, when I drag them into photoshop, they look quite fine.

This is exactly whats happening to me. In photoshop & lightroom they look fine and everywhere else they seem wrong.
I must be doing something wrong with the color management.

Quote from: kikkerdirk on October 02, 2012, 12:21
The colors are indeed quite red! You can use LAB color values to check colors. Skin tones for caucasian people should give positive A and B values where the B is at least equal to the A or higher. For red haired, kids and natural blondes the B value may be a little lower than the A value.
Your models are dark haired so the B should be higher than the  A. The values on your images read approximately  L= 70 A=28 B=23 (first image) L=70 B=28 C=19 (second image) These are measurement on the forehead. Correct colors should be something like a= 23 and B=26

The LAB color system is the best for color correction. If you want to know more about it you should read "Professional Photoshop" by Dan Margulis or check his classes at Kelby training.com

Thanks for this tip! I can never really trust my monitor or eyes !!
If i understand correctly, B must be higher than A and thats not the case in my images?

Quote from: ShadySue on October 02, 2012, 12:22
Hmmm. I only tried the top one, where the doctor's face is, to my eyes, the most red. But I copied it into PS, made the window fit the image and compared it to the image on my browser in the thread and they looked the same.

I just did some reading and firefox seems to use the calibrated settings, whereas Chrome and Internet Explorer don't,
This will most probably be the reason why they are showing the same.


Thanks for all the help. There is definitively somewhere something wrong with my settings. Now i will just need to find the issue 

Funny enough, the Agencies where still accepting most of my images

funny enough, when i view the images on the site here, they look a lot more reddish then in PS. Is it because Google chrome doesn't use the calibrated settings?

Hi,

I bought a new monitor a few weeks ago and am unsure if the colors are displayed correctly.
I bought a Dell U2711 and calibrated it with my spyder 3 pro.
The colors seemed a bit of at first, but i thought it was just the wide gamut display displaying the colors correctly now.

Thing is, whenever i look at my images from another pc (or phone etc.) i have the feeling that the skin-tones are way too red.

Thats why i am asking you guys & girls for advice. I know a lot of you have calibrated monitors and that i can therefore trust your opinion.

I attached three images. Are the skin tones too red? Are they way off or just a bit?

thanks in advance

Got over 100 images accepted on Saturday  .

Only had 2 new image sales on Sunday. At least now on monday they seem to start to sell!! But i still think it would have been better if they where accepted today.

BTW: Images showed up in portfolio right away! Not taking 2 days like they used to.

Quote from: Drexxle on September 28, 2012, 15:17
From a developer.

FTP is one part, this is a file to folder action nothing more.

Once the files are on the server at the other end, they sit in a folder, nothing more.  A script will need to run to pull all EXIF data out to store into a dbase, as it does this it will either move the file or store its location in the dbase.

When you click the front end, the front end reads the dbase, looks for file data, and then loads it into the web site.

This is two specific and different actions, FTP your files, then migrate the files into the dbase.  If there are shitloads of files in queue, then the script to migrate into the dbase might take a while to get to you.

the migration script would likely run on a CRON causing it to be triggered probably every hour.

Thanks for the info!
Very interesting!

Ok, now 2 days later the files are suddenly showing up.

So it wasn't the ftp software.

Can't understand how a site like Bigstock cannot manage to get the upload part of the site right.

Hi,

yesterday i thought I'll give Bigstock another chance, after having stopped uploading because of various problems with the upload system in the past.

So the files uploaded via FTP without a problem, but they don't show up on the site.
Even one day later they are still not showing and when taking a look at the FTP protocol, it states that my last ftp upload was in January.

Is this a common problem? What can i do?

Also thought about using the on site upload, but it seems very old fashioned, since one needs to select each file separately !

Am i doing something wrong?

Quote from: Wim on September 27, 2012, 10:20

Quote from: Dantheman on September 27, 2012, 10:04
I know this is an old topic, but was just wondering if most of the agencies now accept adobe RGB?
Just asking because i have a whole batch of files where i forgot to convert the files to sRGB and am thinking of just uploading them as they are??

As far as I know they have always accepted aRGB, thing is, and I have this with all my older uploads, that they will look flat (less saturated/darker) because the thumbs on site are displayed in sRGB.
So if you want your work to look at it's best I suggest you upload in sRGB.

Hope that helps mate.

Thanks for the info!
Guess i will convert the images. Isn't that much work anyways. Just thought that if it works well, that i would in future maybe upload all images in aRGB. But i guess that wouldn't be too clever, since the way the thumbs look, is one of the most important things!

I know this is an old topic, but was just wondering if most of the agencies now accept adobe RGB?
Just asking because i have a whole batch of files where i forgot to convert the files to sRGB and am thinking of just uploading them as they are??

Quote from: WarrenPrice on September 26, 2012, 13:49
I read an interesting post there by HHLTDave5 (I think he may be a moderator?).  He said an older study had shown that 1000 images was the level you needed for a steady income -- no definition of "steady income" attached.

However, he feels that number has more recently increased to 1500 images.

I have around 500 files and am lightyears away from a steady income. Don't know if even 1500 would cut it?

Are there any specific settings that help when making a lightbox?

I just started making lightboxes for each individual model. So that if a buyer want's more images from one model he can find them easily.
When i go to the lightboxes menu,  under the my uploads menu, it just says image is in a private lightbox.

Is this right?

Can buyers actually see and use the lightbox??

Hi,

i also use prostockmaster and am also getting the same error message.

Quite surpised that hardly anyone seems to use this programm

I think it would be a really good idea. The main problem seems to be that people are not even aware that tehy are violating copyrights. Of course those people who pirate all their stuff, will keep on pirating.

But some people steal images without even knowing and exactly these people might learn something from a video like this and start buying their images. For example a mom who made a flyer with an image from google and thought it might be legal etc.

Well, i have two ssd's in my pc.
With ssd's the whole system feels way faster, but for photoshop there isn't a huge difference. Of course it starts up way faster, and if you change some setting in photoshop, so that photoshops working file uses the ssd, then you might feel a small difference when using a large file with many layers. The thing is, that it really only needs the SSD, if your ram is getting full. If you have 8gb or more, this won't happen to often for normal photo retouching. So more ram will def. help more than an SSD!

I would still recommend a ssd. The PC is just more fun to use and Lightroom also feels faster!

Quote from: cgartist on September 13, 2012, 13:34

Quote from: Dantheman on September 13, 2012, 13:27
Where did you get the info on market share from?
Today on the Radio they where talking about a 20% market share from Apple (iPhone) and around 60% Android.

woops!! I just read some blog yesterday.



Its regarding iPad not iPhone. I will have to agree that Android is really kicking up the market now.

Ok that makes sense!

But one shouldn't forget that the Android market share is from a whole lot of different Cell Phone producers and not just one firm like Apple. So the Apple market share is still quite big!