|
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 - lephotography
76
« on: March 14, 2009, 23:20 »
I will download it and try. Thank you so much! 
77
« on: March 14, 2009, 21:18 »
I think that is it ... thank you
78
« on: March 14, 2009, 16:56 »
Does anyone know what plug in is used to make this water reflection? I found alot of tutorials but they are all pretty cheesy looking. Here is an example picture of what I am looking for. dolgachov uses them all the time. 
79
« on: February 08, 2009, 01:56 »
Thank you all for your kindness. So maybe I am not crazy and Crestock is rejection crazy? I just got done reading another thread full of Crestock rejections about them over-rejecting everyone.
Why is it taking some people months to get their things reviewed? It took mine 1-2 days to go through. Not long to get rejected.. Sometimes it has taken only an hour or so to get rejected. I am getting very disappointed in Crestock. From having a very good AR to never getting anything accepted. I am wondering if they are wanting me to quit uploading and give up. I guess if I deleted my account then there would be no loss.. I never make anything there.
80
« on: February 08, 2009, 01:04 »
good job.. someone was in a good mood.
81
« on: February 07, 2009, 17:17 »
btw these were also accepted at the other agencies..
82
« on: February 07, 2009, 17:15 »
Yes the other agencies accepted them. They have rejected everything I have uploaded the last 4 times I uploaded.. here are just a couple from some of the batches...dont want to bore anyone with my beyatching LOL.  The image was rejected for the following reason(s): * This image does not meet the creative standards of Crestock.  The image was rejected for the following reason(s): * Composition
83
« on: February 07, 2009, 16:51 »
take some images of things that are not of trees, skies, plants or landscape. Agencies have so many of them. You need to show them diversity.
84
« on: February 07, 2009, 16:46 »
 The image was rejected for the following reason(s): * Composition * Over / Underexposed  The image was rejected for the following reason(s): * Composition This was by Crestock Now granted..they have been accepted by other agencies...and lately Crestock is rejecting everything I submit and I have a really good AR everywhere and did have at Crestock until lately when they started rejecting EVERYTHING. Everything is straight.. used the ruler tool so it is not crooked and the lighting is not off at all. For night shots, they look great and have no grain or noise.
85
« on: February 07, 2009, 10:29 »
As long as you dont have any copyrights in the image as their name in lights, etc.....
86
« on: February 06, 2009, 23:50 »
hair looks better but you have a shadow on her face from her glasses
87
« on: February 06, 2009, 23:45 »
I think it depends on which agency you are talking about.
88
« on: February 06, 2009, 23:37 »
If someone has a 80-99% then what is the big deal how much they are uploading? Then obviously they are not uploading snapshots.
When I upload, I do them in big bulk and hate to spend days doing it. That drives me nuts to spend several days to a week uploading just to one site when I have quite a few to upload to and don't want to count them out trying to remember who takes how many per day. I am going senile.. I don't need more numbers to keep in my brain. That just means I have to forget one more thing to remember one more thing.
89
« on: February 06, 2009, 23:26 »
I would not totally agree. I had one of my pictures of a model used for a strip club called Club Skin and just so happened to be in our local area... My model told me and was very upset about it and I felt so bad. I called the stock agency which sold it and they were on it. Being it was used in a manner which to defame or hurt models image. Their legal team was on it immediately and the man that purchased it was a designer and seized and stopped the print of the ad. I was very happy how they handled it.
This is something that will never be able to be completely controled. You never know where your images are being printed and used. I like that FT lets you know who purchased your images. I think they all should supply that information.
The models do have rights and so do the photographers. The Stock agencies will stand behind you if it is used wrongly.
I have also had our images used on a front cover of a magazine as my model as a character with problems and she found it but did not take it personally and just used it in her portfolio so it worked out for everyone.
90
« on: February 05, 2009, 23:25 »
Give them everything you got and enjoy your first two newbie months and watch the cash roll in.
91
« on: February 05, 2009, 23:15 »
This has changed again. Why? My AR is 80.6%... so I can only upload 50 images per day.
* Users with an approval percentage higher than 80% can upload the maximum amount of images and can use the FTP feature. This applies for the first 50 submissions if you're a new photographer.
* Users with an approval percentage of between 50-80% can upload the fifth part of the maximum amount of images and can use the FTP feature.
* Users with an approval percentage of between 30-50% can upload the tenth part of the maximum amount of images and can use the FTP feature.
* Users with an approval percentage of between 0-30% can upload the 30th part of the maximum amount of images and can use the FTP feature. FTP is disabled for users with more than 250 images online and below 30% approval ratio.
92
« on: February 05, 2009, 23:06 »
Larry, I think you need to sign up under me. LOL I dont have a referral for DT.  I made a $20.30 sale today on DT for one of my images. I was excited. YEY! You will like DT They are wonderful. They are on of my highest sales.
93
« on: February 05, 2009, 22:52 »
sometimes when a reviewer sees a image, they have to think about "Is this keyworded and described and named pertaining to what is in the image." If you see a abandoned fishing boat on the beach and it is described with keywords as a vacation getaway... and keywords are sometimes wild and no where describing the image... that is an easy call to know what to do.
If you see a child and they look normal and in no way looks handicapped or shows a child looking different but shows in the image as a normal looking child in a normal pose or atmospher. what is a reviewer to do?
94
« on: February 05, 2009, 22:08 »
First of all, I don't like the lack of detail in dark areas. I'd rather have something like this:
That looks too overexposed
95
« on: February 05, 2009, 21:57 »
full image:  What I would be looking at is how the light hits her and if the eyes are white enough. Skin color looks great. You have shadows caused by the glasses.
96
« on: February 05, 2009, 03:05 »
hum? What? I did not say that. LOL
97
« on: February 05, 2009, 02:54 »
I'm on for three months now... I only got $1.85.... DS is far behind....
Looking at your DT you have 100 uploads with 15 being this month. It is all about quantity and more return. Keep uploading every month to have fresh material and you will see a vast difference. (I dont get to upload like I would like) DT is good to me and I believe i only have around 930 accepted images. I get a payout aprox. every other month or so. Sometimes I let it sit after I could get a payout till I need the money so it can keep getting bigger. DT is a great agency.
98
« on: February 04, 2009, 16:14 »
I dont upload much in the winter. Sales should pick up soon.
99
« on: February 04, 2009, 16:07 »
The clincher with SS is that for the first 2 months... your sales are the best you will ever do.. so upload as much as you can right away. I am not sure but is like you get more exposure the first month or two then it dies down... I have seen it happen over and over with people.. and myself as well when I started.
All I can say is that when you join SS.. upload everything you have! Good luck and enjoy being a newbie!
100
« on: February 04, 2009, 16:00 »
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
The model in this was told about this magazine cover and some of these other issues and I never got copies.. which is ok
It is funny that these magazines use stock pics for fake stories and make up characters with them.
