|
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
Pages: 1 ... 307 308 309 310 311 [312] 313 314
7776
« on: January 31, 2008, 23:43 »
I, for one, appreciate and have learnt a lot from RJMiz's tutorials (some techniques were easily translated into my PSP7). So please, RJMiz, don't stop posting your tutorials.
Regards,
Adelaide
It isn't some secret. Just go to his website occasionally. It doesn't change.
7777
« on: January 31, 2008, 13:13 »
Is Yuri the first (non-exclusive, that is) to hit that mark? He certainly has shown what you can do with hard work, good models and excellent images.
Lisa, with about 14K licenses to go, you're within striking distance of that milestone too!
BD is 200,000 downloads - Lisa has about 114,000 to go.
7778
« on: January 31, 2008, 07:26 »
That's what I figured, and the OP is probably experiencing the same, thus the lack of concern for still supporting the effort to get rid of subscription sites, or for posting.
7779
« on: January 30, 2008, 14:53 »
he was opted back into subs on StockXpert.
Reaaaaly?
7780
« on: January 30, 2008, 08:22 »
my problem is the way you make out that you've discovered something new, well in actual fact it's stuff that is available in any Photoshop book or across many Photoshop tutorial sites,and have been for years, they certainly aren't 'Secrets'
... and post about it daily.
7781
« on: January 30, 2008, 08:20 »
I have had no increase in income for the last four months. None. I am actually down with about 5%
How'd the advice from here work out?
No comment?
7782
« on: January 28, 2008, 18:46 »
I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm up there.
7783
« on: January 28, 2008, 11:54 »
Sean hates it when we trying to pull back the curtain and try and find out what is going on...
No I don't. Of course there are lots of things in there, but keywords and description ain't one of them. Or two of them.
7784
« on: January 28, 2008, 04:30 »
So you may end up with say 10 entries having all the keywords, 10 entries having one less than that and so on.
How do you sort this when you want to apply other criteria such as views, downloads, ratings? One option is to give the keyword match the absolute priority. In this case you would be right. However it is not the only option and I would believe that in fact the sort by best match actually depends on how many keywords from the search you matched and that this mixes with other criteria that applies during the mix.
I'm just talking about iStock, since that is the only place I know of with "Best Match". The search returns all matches for all the keywords, and then it is sorted by your choice of sort.
7785
« on: January 28, 2008, 04:29 »
It probably was as clear as mud since I didn't quote Zorki, but I was actually agreeing with you Sean. There's always a first time. 
Sorry - I wasn't paying attention to the author of that one - thought it was the same 
7786
« on: January 27, 2008, 20:10 »
That's kinda round-about logic. best match is applied to search results after keywords are used.
Well obviously. Best match is just a sort method applied after the keyword match search. Same as "most downloads","age", etc.
7787
« on: January 27, 2008, 17:22 »
It's been a while, but a bunch of us on the Yahoo Microstock group tried to see what influenced IS Best Match searches. It seems to be decent keywords and description, obviously.
There's no way keywords and description can directly influence Best Match.
7788
« on: January 27, 2008, 09:02 »
I would suggest trying a bit smaller, getting it right, and them moving up to something larger. Anyways, now he knows the issues with this set.
So, congrats on the effort. Keep working on the results.
7789
« on: January 27, 2008, 09:00 »
A photoshop pro was offering you help. If you don't want the help move along instead of trying to pass judgement and insult.
Is that what it was? I'm not sure what his posts are trying to do sometimes. See, this seemed like a duplicate of this post: http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=3210.0So I thought we were looking for critiques again.
7790
« on: January 26, 2008, 21:37 »
Sorry, those all look a little 90's to me.
7791
« on: January 26, 2008, 18:26 »
StockXpert just rejected 2 of those three images, BTW, for poor lighting. I guess there needs to be a "notes to the reviewer section" like there is in SS so I can explain that the lighting was created on purpose to add to the somber mood and not an accidental flop. I created the one with more light on his face because I figured that some stock sites wouldn't get the whole "mood lighting"
People say this at times, but I don't get why you'd have to explain. Either the image works for the reviewer or not. Intentional or accidental, if it doesn't work, it doesn't.
7792
« on: January 26, 2008, 18:14 »
Are you asking for a critique? I think the biggest thing is the poor lighting setup. You can see the umbrellas all over the place and the ceiling is blown out all over. Second would be it looks extremely fake and setup - a very obvious staged event, unless that's what you were going for. Also you have a lot of poor compositions. I think 700 images of this is waaaaay overkill in uploading. If that's how fotolia's acceptance process works, I can't say I'm sorry I'm not there.
7793
« on: January 26, 2008, 18:09 »
I'll just say guess it's the background. You have to work too hard to figure out what it is.
I say, put them in your white leisure suit and spats on black.
As well, I don't think it illustrates any of the three themes you mentioned.
7794
« on: January 25, 2008, 14:12 »
I have had no increase in income for the last four months. None. I am actually down with about 5%
How'd the advice from here work out?
7795
« on: January 20, 2008, 12:27 »
what exactly are we debating here now? perhaps we agree with eachother!
I'm saying that you can offer previously offered RF as RM, since there is no guarantee of exclusivity, unless listed as RP.
7796
« on: January 20, 2008, 11:52 »
and... ? See - nothing about exclusivity, unless you offer RP.
7797
« on: January 20, 2008, 11:30 »
That person who purchased the RF license could use it as they please, while buyer 2 thinks he is buying exclusive rights in europe, or even the world and paying BIG $$ for that, only to find out he doesn't have exclusive rights.
As I said, I don't of anything promising exclusivity rights, unless the agency specifically mentions it. All you are granting is permission to use X image in Y capacity for Z time. Of course, you couldn't offer it with the exclusivity clause if it was RF before.
7798
« on: January 20, 2008, 11:28 »
So what happens if you sell an RM image for use only in one country and the person who has bought it sees it being used by someone else?
So what? There is no promise that I know of of exclusivity in any sense.
7799
« on: January 20, 2008, 08:51 »
So in short. If an image has EVER been sold as RF you CANNOT EVER sell the image as RM
I forget where, but we were discussing this. I was of similar opinion. However, I now agree with the other person who was saying that unless the RM agency you are listing with makes some guarantee as to the history of the image being available, you can do this. Mostly because you are making no claim to what else is out there, and just that Mr X. now has permission to use it for 3 months on a cover. I wouldn't offer it concurrently, however.
7800
« on: January 17, 2008, 16:26 »
The system picks the first meaning if I don't pick one? OMG, that is awful.
Sure, if you don't pick a meaning, it has to pick something as a meaning.
Pages: 1 ... 307 308 309 310 311 [312] 313 314
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
