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 - Perry
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... 57
751
« on: March 03, 2011, 05:01 »
A pretty young blond with apple and scale can be posed in many different ways; this wasn't; this was a copy, plain and simple.
So, how many different ways are there to pose this concept (scale in other hand and eating an apple with the other hand)? three? five?
752
« on: March 03, 2011, 05:00 »
The law states, "Re-creating a copyrighted photograph is a derivative use and therefore requires the permission of the copyright holder of the original image." I doubt Yuri gave this person permission to replicate his image.
But this isn't a recreation, I can see in a second that these are two different photographs.
753
« on: March 02, 2011, 15:38 »
754
« on: February 23, 2011, 15:36 »
I downsize to the minimum accepted, so I put directly the number of pixels of the largest side. 2400*1600 is the minimum, so only if putting 2400 the other side has less than 1600 I put a higher value. You can induce if the total is 4Mb multiplying (approx, because the system is not decimal, but binaric, and 1MB is not 1000*1000 but 1024*1024).
The bits and bytes doesn't have anything to do with megpixels.
755
« on: February 23, 2011, 12:57 »
I usually dowsize by percentage, and use percentages that easiest to calculate and hence - I hope - I get the best results.
For example
80% (removes 1 pixel for every 5 pixels) 75% (removes 1 pixel for every 4 pixels) 66,666666666667% (removes 1 pixel for every 3 pixels) 50% (removes 1 pixel for every 2 pixels)
(No, I haven't run any scientific tests, but I think the results are better)
756
« on: February 22, 2011, 02:04 »
If I somehow manage to lose the IPTC keywords on a batch of images, how do I get them back without clicking the "IPTC" button individually on each image? (The images are not a series and have different keywords)
757
« on: February 11, 2011, 11:00 »
Just read the customer reviews :-) http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews53167.html
So? 83 angry people complaining, that's not very much considering there are propably millions of PayPal users. And nobody bothers to write a positive review for a finance/banking company. It's always easier to find lots of negative reviews on something popular. Let's see if Toyota cars are better than Trabants http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=toyota+car+problem&word2=trabant+car+problemI have never had a problem with them, except the high fees... I think cheques are so old-fashioned, I'm from a nordic country and I haven't seen anyone use a check in over 20 years (I know people in USA still loves them for some reason I cannot understand).
758
« on: February 11, 2011, 09:56 »
when we shot isolated item, does it has to be pure white? like 0,0,255?
0,0,255 is pure BLUE
759
« on: February 10, 2011, 13:24 »
I think it's possible to develop a search system that works fairly well just by tracking customer behavior and connecting the customer behavior to keywords and images. I have developed a system (just a simple diagram on paper) how a better search could be done, without disambiguation. I won't be sharing it here, I might use it someday  I can only tell that it's a formula that calculates a "relevancy factor" for every keyword that an image has. Scenario: 1000 people search for "flower". Image #1 gets shown 200 times but only 2 clicks. Image #2 gets also shown 200 times but gets 58 clicks and 12 purchases. Result: Image #1 gets a low "relevancy factor" for keyword "flower", and gets pushed back in the search results in the future. The image #2s keyword gets a very high "relevancy factor" and gets positioned better in search results in the future. BUT, this does not mean number image #1 will be in the back of the search results, it only gets pushed back when someone searches for "flower". This ranking could also be used for keyword combinations. I'm sure some agencies have similar systems, but they don't seem to work that well.
760
« on: February 08, 2011, 08:41 »
Hmm... I had one sale in 2008. Suddenly I have three sales already this year (2011). Are things starting to pick up at Mostphotos or am I just lucky?
761
« on: February 04, 2011, 10:07 »
The images generally lack commercial appeal. I like these two the best, maybe submit these two and find/shoot replacements for the other ones. Maybe some really clean and airy images? 

The glass image may be "overfiltered", difficult to see from such small image. This one might not get trough if not submitted editorial: (I'm amazed that this is for sale at IS  NOTE: I'm not saying there is copyrighted stuff in the image, but a shot like this is like waving a red flag at a reviewer.
762
« on: February 04, 2011, 02:41 »
You also need a shoot date for your images. You cannot seem able to submit old film scans from "circa 1980" or even "2003", you need to type the exact date.
763
« on: February 03, 2011, 08:57 »
It would be very interesting what will happen to those contributors that was just over some redeemed credits target. Will these fraudulent purchased be removed from last years redeemed credits?
764
« on: February 02, 2011, 18:22 »
I got one. $24.50 removed my already sucky december sales. Grrrrrrrr!
765
« on: February 02, 2011, 18:17 »
I just had $25.40 removed from my december sales. Sucks. Hope there isn't more of this ahead...
766
« on: February 02, 2011, 17:42 »
I use my 100/2.8 L Macro for almost everything
767
« on: February 02, 2011, 17:32 »
Paying us to upload and then closing site afterwards is funny - microstock is never boring.
Was it Zoonar or Polylooks who paid us for uploading, can't remember...
768
« on: February 02, 2011, 16:31 »
Oh you mean the image with the REBELLION TOENAIL FEMALE SKIN with FINGERNAIL EXERCISING MASK POLISHES SPECIAL HERBAL GLITTER GLAMOUR?
769
« on: January 30, 2011, 14:24 »
I cancelled my exclusive contract back in 2006. Does that count?
770
« on: January 30, 2011, 08:17 »
I'm not sure about IS application criteria of today (I'm a member from 2004), but I don't think you will get in with these. Mainly too little commercial appeal. I'll criticize these quickly: (note that I cannot comment on the technical quality because the images are quite small)
Here's some tough love:
1 (The Woman) Flat lighting, no copy space, no story (-> lack of commercial appeal). The zipper has a tag that could be mistaken for a logo. Dirty snow. If this is spring, there should be sunlight.
2 (Houses) Looks unnatural ald over processed. Weird artefacts in the sky even at this file size. Composition lacks impact. Not much commercial appeal.
3 (Benches) Theres something I like about this. Clean up the thing hanging from the rail upper right. Would be better with a story, like a person sitting on a bench.
4 . Nice reflections. Otherwise a bad composition. And also a lack of commercial appeal (what would this image be used for?). The image looks like it's full of artefacts, I don't know if they show in the full size image (?)
5. (Christmas decorations) Wrong white balance, the background has a yellow cast. The focus might be better on the ball in the front. The balls have uneven "speckles" on them. Over-exposed metallic parts(?).
6. I don't know if this is going to illustrate the great looking old houses or solar energy. Too confusing.
7. (Cards) There is no separation between the cards. You should light this image from the right to get some separation by shadows. White balance is wrong, the cards look yellow. Background is weir upper right.
771
« on: January 30, 2011, 08:01 »
I would never, ever become an exclusive contributor on a site with strict terms ("all your RF stuff belongs to us, and you can't even sell rejects as RF").
BUT, I could consider submitting exclusive images/shoots to some site, but then there should be real compensation for that. DT's and FT's few-percents-more doesn't cut it.
I have been thinking about a site that sells only exclusive images. You couldn't find the same images anywhere else. The problem is to get the submissions, but if someone really started an "only exclusive images" agency, I would try them with a dozen images.
772
« on: January 27, 2011, 12:22 »
I shoot comissioned work.
773
« on: January 27, 2011, 06:33 »
They can't tell you when to work, when you are allowed to take holidays, whether or not you are allowed to wear this or that, or what your targets are That thing with "targets" sounds quite familiar...
774
« on: January 26, 2011, 14:53 »
I'm more of a "good enough" guy, and that's because I'm a perfectionist. If I would want my (microstock) images to be perfect, I would never get anything ready.
I have found the best thing is to try to shoot as good quality as possible, to minimize the amount of post-processing. Extra five minutes spent when shooting can save 30 minutes of Photoshop tweaking and retouching.
775
« on: January 26, 2011, 08:32 »
Now cross your fingers and hope that the sale won't be refunded. And that it will be paid (which country was it sold to?)
I hope you get your money and that I would get some sales that big!
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|