i don't see anything about paying for uploading.

i think as long as it is in GL collection, it would have featured in front pages.. but as you should notice that the front pages are refreshed with different images every time, and front pages showcase of the images in GL collections will be only few days..then replaced by other images in GL collection. that's my observations..

That's awesome. Congrats. I have 4 in the GL collection, but no where near the front page.

it is actually 52%..

Yea, but with 50% commission, it's worth a shot.

oic, i guess there is no way to turn good photographers away.

Once I had submitted my application to Getty (short mail, with a link to my website), it took them about 3 months to reply. I was offered a contract for their RF and RM 'house collections', i.e. not just 'Photographers Choice'. (In these times, I don't think I'd ever pay to place an image with any agency.)

So: yes � it is still possible to get a standard contract with Getty. But it takes some time to get there. And in my case, I redesigned my website so it only showed relevant RM type content and allowed for a good viewing experience (flash-based player or similar). And my front home page showed the best 10 shots from the past 2 years of professional work. ("If in doubt � take it out". That front page needs to have a real impact on whoever looks at it.)

Prior to being offered a contract, there was also a phone-interview during which we talked about my future plans in photography (lifestyle? illustration? travel?).

anyone using ftp?

it seems the ftp is only transferred once a day?

i would like to set it default as table, the graph is useless.. i don't see it helping anything.

Quote from: elvinstar on October 09, 2010, 20:51

When you are viewing sales as a table, the date is for the most recent sale for each photo.

thanks elvinstar....I wasn't looking at them as table. I had it set as graph.

cobalt, you mean you can't tell this is just a small section of the complete image?

What grabs my attention is the lack of focus, or extremely shallow DOF. Looks like only millimeter of that belt is really sharp. Then the next is the blue fringing.

Also if this is the final, complete image, I am not sure who you are targeting with this image. Who do you think will buy it and for which design can it be useful?

Or is this just a small section of the complete image?

hi, if you upload with ftp, IPTC data will be read. the category is still okay for me, only 1 is need.

I think they really need to get a person with brain to take a look at the user interface.

the whole image portfolio is a long list that every images got many columns stating some statistics or symbols that not one can understand, and u need to scroll down for for every pictures, in my monitor only 2 or 3 columns are displaced..and many symbols that you need to read explanations below. just give a portfolio view that we see as many images as possible in one page with some basic infos like view and downloads.

and why need so many tabs and sub-tabs, image to upload image/ image upload ftp/ image overview/ image gallery/ blah blah.. those are for machine, humans don't browse like this way.

it seems the problem is fixed, now the eps vector appears as normal.

Hopefully the change is going to implement on approved eps.

hi what do you mean? can't really get it..

I thought the purple/blue fringing on belt is not that worse, anyway guess different people got different eyes.

Quote from: patrick1958 on October 09, 2010, 07:51

Severe purple/bleu fringing on belt.

Yap there is an elephant in the room.  Oh well...

hi click_click, so u think there is a certain amount of noise/artifacts? I thought since i shoot at iso200 and raw to jpg, with outdoor light..even there is noise or artifacts in shadow area, it will be acceptable.

The sharpening i think is by default of raw converter, quantity is 25, but i hardly think a 25 sharpening may introduce artifacts.

actually this results are the best my camera can produce, i google internet of artifacts..i see maze like, i check out some samples of artifacts, i didn't really see mine is as worse as.

maybe i should try to train my eyes more! but one thing i notice that it is always the bokeh will make artifacts obvious.

I'd have corrected the fringing in RAW as well although this isn't your question...

Be careful with sharpening, it can make existing noise worse. Just import the RAW file without sharpening and then if you really have to, sharpen the important areas instead of the entire image.

You could also easily get rid of these "artifacts" (or noise) with some noise reduction software.

Personally, I wouldn't have submitted an image with that amount of noise/artifacts. Hard to tell without seeing the entire image. No idea where the focal point is.

hi all, do you think there are artifacts? is artifact happened in any shot? i shot this iso200, processed with raw files..

I am not sure is that artifacts, but i don't know what to do if a iso200 and raw file process only with default raw converter sharpening will create artifacts.

i am clueless if these are artifacts..what do you think? by the way, this image is only rejected by one agency and i asked for detailed since i don't really 'see' it.


By mtkang at 2010-10-09


By mtkang at 2010-10-09