|
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 - Dreamframer
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... 81
826
« on: March 04, 2010, 17:50 »
This is the email I got from support:
"StockXpert is not closing to our contributors.
Please note that requesting your final payout will also close your StockXpert account.
Your files are eligible to be featured in the new subscription site - Thinkstock.com. If you choose to keep your contributor account with StockXpert, you will continue to accrue royalties from any sales through Thinkstock.com. The royalties will be added to your balance monthly, and as usual, once you reach 50.00 USD you cash in your earnings.
Of course, if you decide at a later date that you would like to terminate your account, you can do so at any time and all royalties earned will be paid to you.
Please let us know how you would like to proceed.
Thank you."
827
« on: March 04, 2010, 17:48 »
... First I improved, and then I started to stagnate...
Yeah, that's what everyone does. I think it's a 'path of least resistance' thing.
One of the things that helps me is to divide my time into three distinctly different parts: making shots, processing images, and managing my portfolio. All three are very important, and I spend my time with them according to the mood I'm in. This helps me find the joy in each part of my job, and also adds a little variance in how I spend my days - the last thing I want this job to become is a job, if you know what I mean.
Yes, I know exactly what you mean.
828
« on: March 04, 2010, 00:30 »
Yes...I'm gonna try harder in future. Lately I just upload without putting so much effort in making really good image. First I improved, and then I started to stagnate...
829
« on: March 03, 2010, 19:46 »
I agree with you Lisa. Few days ago I lost my temper in one thread... It doesn't happen often, but it happens. I think this is happening because of bad things in microstock industry. We are getting paid less and less, because of subscriptions, more tax for non-Americans, decreasing credit value, and bad economy situation we experience everywhere.. All this makes an atmosphere of too many fish in the tank, and some fish tend to eat smaller ones to get more space for them selves.  I really hope this will end someday. If you watch American news you will hear it's betting better, but if you watch any international news you will hear that America has deficit in tens of trillions of dollars, and no one really believes the crisis will end so soon....unfortunately...
830
« on: March 03, 2010, 14:58 »
They have to check every photo for a duplicate at IS, and they have to erase duplicates.
831
« on: March 03, 2010, 04:23 »
subs everywhere, not only at DT...
832
« on: March 02, 2010, 01:29 »
Thanks for laughing at me - I appreciate the honest recognition of my effort. You know, I used to hold out some potential for you - you always seemed earnest, forthright, and willing to learn. After today's interchange, I now see you're getting exactly what you deserve from this industry.
Sorry again. I didn't laugh at you. I guess I just cooled down, and I realized this thread is going nowhere, and I realized I was too stubborn. If you are willing after one angry thread of me to kick me to hell, ok. I can understand that. But you must admit that in most times I'm among people who are cooling down "too hot" threads. So, I hope you guys will find a way to forgive me that I was the one who pushed your buttons this time.
833
« on: March 02, 2010, 00:51 »
I can't believe you're still fixated on an image I spent less than two minutes with, and only to illustrate my point, which you've completely and utterly missed. I don't know whom I'm more angry with, you - for being so stubborn in your thinking, or myself - for wasting time and energy trying to help you out. On the bright side, at least I got something out of it: That'll be the last time I offer advice to someone who doesn't really want it.
Good luck, Whitechild, you need as much of it as you can get.
 Sorry Sharply. I got the point of course, but I guess I'm having hard day. Sometimes I am a jerk, I admit. Thank you for your advices and I agree with you. Don't be angry! Just keep giving good advices to people. I really mean that.
834
« on: March 01, 2010, 22:30 »
I'm sure he was just playing with it because he was bored, but looks funny anyway
835
« on: March 01, 2010, 21:23 »
That is where you are wrong - it's not simply a matter of taste, it's a matter of understanding the commercial photography marketplace, and what differentiates a commercial image from a snapshot. Had we been there together and made this same shot, I can say with confidence that my (more commercial) version would outsell yours by a wide margin.
Agree completely - actually went BACK on the thread to find where someone (ends up being you) said this. The shot on the right, other than slightly oversat. is a WAY more commercial shot. Great stuff sharply
The only problem is I am sure the image on the right would be rejected at IS
836
« on: March 01, 2010, 18:00 »
I want to learn from my mistakes of course, but the problem is I don't see the logic in FT rejections and I don't know what to improve when other agencies accept my images much more than FT. The only image that has good sales at FT is image of isolated ants. Second image has almost 6 times less sales. There is no way for me to predict even closely what will be accepted at FT, which is not the case with other agencies.
If you can't understand rejections, then stop looking at them. Start looking at sales. What images of yours are selling? Why are they selling? Can you make more that will sell using these same themes/techniques/subjects?
Here's a starting point.
You've got an isolated shot of ants that sells well - that's great. Why aren't you doing something with it? The ants could be in single file, spiralling in on something. The ants could be arranged in rank and file, ready to invade. The ants could be spelling the words "ants". There could be a horde of smaller ants following a much larger "boss" ant. There could be a bunch of red ants with only one big black ant. There could be an imminent battle of black ants versus red ones.
There are so many possibilities to capitalize on, yet you are happy with only one image. You need to ask yourself why that is. This is what I mean when I say you need to take a step back.
Honestly, I got several rejections for similarity at FT. That happened with most of my parachute images, even tho all images are different. That's why I didn't want to experiment with various shots of ants.
837
« on: March 01, 2010, 17:57 »
The shot was in wild. I have a witness for it. It was in Cactus garden in Palm Springs. The bird was on the branch, right in front of me, because hummingbird feeder was close. I didn't have my SB-800 with me. The bird was there for several seconds, so I made few shots, and the next moment it was gone.
You're missing the point, the whole idea of wildlife photography is to take images of the subject in it's natural environment and make it look so, you can use flash but you need to do it in a way that it isn't obvious that flash was used, or of course there can be professional studio shots of wildlife done with professional lighting. Your images are neither of these and as such I can totally see where FT were coming from when they said it didn't reach their required level of aesthetic quality, it looks like a snapshot done in a zoo. A quick search on the web brings up many images of this bird ( a lot of them as public domain images) which are far superior to yours, so why do you think FT should take this shot.
Out of interest what lead you to believe this species is endangered, on all the sites I saw none of them mentioned anything about it being endangered, in fact quite the opposite.
Erm..I read it's endangered on some website about hummingbirds, where I found info about this bird. I didn't want to add any wildlife background because this way is easier for designers to isolate it if they want.
838
« on: March 01, 2010, 17:22 »
... and that is just because they accept 10-20% of my images, and almost always images that are rejected elsewhere.
Where is the logic?
As was said before, which I agreed with: if your imagery is commercially borderline (and from what I've seen, it is) then you should expect reviews to seem more whimsical. Instead of making images the same way and complaining about what you see as random rejections, I think you need to take a step back and examine what it is you are doing and how you are doing it.
You've been at this for two years. Where do you want to be in another two - still complaining about nonsensical rejections, or having learnt from your mistakes, making enough money to support a nice family lifestyle? A pretty simple choice, I think.
I want to learn from my mistakes of course, but the problem is I don't see the logic in FT rejections and I don't know what to improve when other agencies accept my images much more than FT. The only image that has good sales at FT is image of isolated ants. Second image has almost 6 times less sales. There is no way for me to predict even closely what will be accepted at FT, which is not the case with other agencies.
839
« on: March 01, 2010, 16:58 »
I'm not sure IS would accept the image with so green branch. It looks oversaturated, you must admit it
Gimme a break: I spent two minutes on it - a trivial amount of time and effort.
Look at the point I'm trying to make, not the image.
If you don't change the way you think about your imagery, you are dooming yourself to a low selling portfolio.
Is that what you really want?
Of course I don't want that. I am just saying that all this isn't really the reason for rejection, because if it was, most agencies would reject those images. I know what is retouching and I do it a lot. You can see it here, but when there are so many threads about FT random nonsense rejections, few people who sell nice there can't prove me that my images are ugly because FT doesn't like them. All those images rejected at FT are sold on other agencies. But because of lots of rejections, I sold almost 10 times less on FT than on SS. So, obviously I'm the one who is at loss, but the one who is also at loss (even more) is FT...all because of few weird reviewers who can't distinguish good images from poor ones just because they see thousands of images of similar subjects. No one can prove me it's normal that FT, which is among big 6, earns me some 4% of total. That is not normal, and that is just because they accept 10-20% of my images, and almost always images that are rejected elsewhere. Where is the logic?  
840
« on: March 01, 2010, 16:32 »
Nice work, but I think it's just a matter of taste. Someone could do it another way. I didn't want to touch-up sky, because it was cloudy, and IS sometimes doesn't like this kind of manipulating.
That is where you are wrong - it's not simply a matter of taste, it's a matter of understanding the commercial photography marketplace, and what differentiates a commercial image from a snapshot. Had we been there together and made this same shot, I can say with confidence that my (more commercial) version would outsell yours by a wide margin.
I'm not sure IS would accept the image with so green branch. It looks oversaturated, you must admit it
841
« on: March 01, 2010, 16:23 »
What about this image. This species of hummingbird is endangered.
It was rejected for: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality."
Yes, I'd agree with that reviewer's sentiment, too.
The shot of the bird itself is fine, but the image as a whole needs work. If it was me I'd crop and rotate the image so that the bird was vertical with his beak pointing to the top left - this would give him a reason to be placed where he is. Next I'd get rid of the other branches and clone out the distracting spots on the remaining branch. As a finishing touch I'd make the sky light blue and use levels to make the branch a dark green, which would give the image a nicely strong graphical element. Here's what two minutes in Photoshop can do:
Nice work, but I think it's just a matter of taste. Someone could do it another way. I didn't want to touch-up sky, because it was cloudy, and IS sometimes doesn't like this kind of manipulating.
842
« on: March 01, 2010, 16:20 »
My God...Who said it was in cage? It was outside, in the garden, totally free.
Nobody said it was in a cage, but your shot certainly suggest that it is, there's no wildlife environment included in the shot and these birds are not known for their patience while a photographer walks around taking shots using a flash. If this was shot in the wild why did you use such a harsh flash setting?
The shot was in wild. I have a witness for it. It was in Cactus garden in Palm Springs. The bird was on the branch, right in front of me, because hummingbird feeder was close. I didn't have my SB-800 with me. The bird was there for several seconds, so I made few shots, and the next moment it was gone.
843
« on: March 01, 2010, 16:07 »
You should have captured it. I hear they're endangered, and likely very valuable!
lol No, I adore birds. I raised few crows, one eagle, one awl, one dove and few sparrows when I was a kid, but I let them fly away when they grew enough.
844
« on: March 01, 2010, 15:58 »
What about this image. This species of hummingbird is endangered.
It was rejected for: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality."
They should have also added that birds shot in captivity require a property release.
Just having a rare subject does not qualify an image as being a good stock image, it's shot sitting on it's perch in a cage using what looks like an on camera flash.
My God...Who said it was in cage? It was outside, in the garden, totally free.
845
« on: March 01, 2010, 15:56 »
846
« on: March 01, 2010, 15:54 »
What about this image. This species of hummingbird is endangered.
It was rejected for: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality."
Looks like you used your pop up flash.
Of course I did. You can't expect a hummingbird to pose for you when you see one standing in the front of you once in several months, especially if it's endangered species. This image was made totally by surprise, and it's worthiness is ecological.
847
« on: March 01, 2010, 15:51 »
It is already most popular image in my port, even tho its uploaded seveal days ago.
You should really remove your portfolio links before making a statement like that 
It's of course accepted at IS, DT and all other sites I work with. And I am sure no one can say this is not stock worthy image.
I'd say it has an editorial stock worthiness but agree with sharply_done it has the appearance of a roadside grabshot which is fine for editorial,did you take any others from different perspectives/angles?
To be totally honest I'm surprised you had it accepted at iS and SS as RF without a property release DT however I'm not surprised about.
Ok, today it's second popular after dinosaur footprint (which was also rejected by FT , and accepted by IS, SS...
848
« on: March 01, 2010, 15:45 »
What about this image. This species of hummingbird is endangered. It was rejected for: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality."   
849
« on: March 01, 2010, 15:41 »
The rejection was:
The image contains one or more technical problems:
* Blurry or out of focus
* Over/Under exposure
* Framing problem
* Over or under saturated colors
* Problems with contrast
* Noise or Pixelation
* Quality of routing
* Interpolation problem
Obviously some FT reviewers don't know that far objects can be slightly distorted because of warm air rising from the ground, and that this natural phenomenon can't be avoided even if the day is cold if there is a mix of clouds and sun. As we see here, IS, DT and SS reviewers know that. Find me someone who doesn't trust more to IS reviewers that to FT reviewers.
850
« on: March 01, 2010, 15:32 »
Yes, I'll give you that it may be 'stockworthy', but this looks like a snapshot to me - like you were driving along the highway, saw the turbines, stopped the car, and made a few camera clicks. Looking at it even closer leads me to think that because the turbines aren't all facing the same direction, some of them aren't working - not exactly ideal conditions, don't you think? The minimal effort put into this image is easily apparent, and given the number of almost identical images to this available, as a reviewer I'd have rejected it. Sorry to be so harshly critical, but in my eyes you don't have a leg to stand on by complaining that images like this are rejected. If you want to increase your income, you'll need to put in more effort than you've shown here.
You want to say that IS, SS and DT accept snapshots?
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... 81
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
