|
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 - heywoody
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... 58
876
« on: October 09, 2012, 06:27 »
This is all true but it's like specifying the volume of an object by saying it should displace 1000 Kgs of water when submerged instead of saying it should be a cubic metre. 
877
« on: October 09, 2012, 06:03 »
I use paypal and have no complaints, cheap, effective and good customer support when there is a problem. Obviously can't compare them to a service I haven't used.
878
« on: October 09, 2012, 03:56 »
At least when you're in, the files that got you in are there. On IS, your exam images have to be resubmitted for the main collection with a better than average chance one or more of the three will be rejected.
Apart form a few dodgy model release / keyword rejections that were easily sorted, I haven't had a "what moment" with an SS rejection yet.
879
« on: October 09, 2012, 03:42 »
Liz, you are right about the 24 MB uncompressed, but I am afraid you are confusing compressed MB (not Mp!) as in your .jpg example above with Mp.
8.4 Mp - as an approximation of 8388608 pixels - is not totally irrelevant, it's just another way of saying 24 MB uncompressed.
Correct and everyone (well nearly) understands image dimensions in pixels. On the other hand, everyone does not understand how this directly affects the image size in RAM (where a plain colour takes up the same resource as something with loads of detail) so folks end up sending tiffs.
880
« on: October 08, 2012, 16:32 »
24 MB = (24*1024*1024) bytes
Since each RGB colour pixel requires 3 bytes, 24*1024*1024/3= 8388608 pixels
Ain't it easy?
PS:
For 4:3 ratio (Olympus), x * 4/3 x = 8388608 --> x = (8388608*3/4)^0.5 = 2509 pixels on the short side;
for 3:2 ratio (Nikon, Canon), x * 3/2 x = 8388608 --> x = (8388608*2/3)^0.5 = 2365 pixels on the short side;
for square pictures, x = 8388608^0.5 = 2897 pixels on each side.
Yeah - I was wondering why it was taking 3 bytes per pixel on 8 bit colour but suppose the RBG channels need 8 bits each per pixel? Of course if they just said 8.4MP it would cause a lot less confusion for their submitters and the condecending explanations on the site wouldn't be needed.  I can do that size but just not willing to invest the render time needed on my present kit.
881
« on: October 08, 2012, 07:39 »
8,2 MP isn't a high resolution requirement....
Not for a camera and probably not too bad for renders with simple shapes, textures and lighting but some stuff takes hours even @ 6MP and just not practical for the kind of returns that the site appears to produce. there were long discussions here about that, its actually 8.4 MP
Probably correct, was looking a memory size > 24,000 K but dividing by 1024 the MP dimensions would have to be bigger.
882
« on: October 08, 2012, 05:47 »
Was originally going to ask about whether RF or RM was a more appropriate model to aim at but if the min file size in RAM is 24 MB which means about 8.2 MP, all existing work is just too small and will need a serious PC upgrade to generate new stuff that size 
883
« on: October 07, 2012, 05:32 »
Thinking not so much the zombie market as the severed head market....
884
« on: October 05, 2012, 15:18 »
885
« on: October 05, 2012, 11:40 »
Anyway...
Accepted by SS (sort of figured that)
Accepted by FT (big surprise there)
Rejected by 123 (sat in the pending queue for a day or so while someone looked for a 2nd opinion)
DT - I'll know in another week or so could go either way
Must have a look at Alamy - dunno how interested they would be in my stuff but might be a replacement for 123 in the new year.
886
« on: October 05, 2012, 08:22 »
887
« on: October 04, 2012, 18:40 »
So, really just like "favourites" on DT?
888
« on: October 04, 2012, 17:56 »
This may (or may not) be similar to something I posted sometime ago. I had noticed that earnings reported by microstock analytics were higher than what I saw on IS. I found that certain sales had been double counted by the analytics tool and the IS figures are probably correct but I'm convinced that there is more than one instance of the same data and the integrity is flawed.
889
« on: October 04, 2012, 17:46 »
...- Upload limits and stupid rejections: see my buyers experience in another thread. Where I found on a generic search term more than 100 pages of results in Depositphotos as well as in DT I found a whopping 6 (six) pages in istock. I go where I find what I need...
I have often seen the argument that buyers are frustrated having to wade through pages and pages of crap to find what they're looking for. Did you notice more tightly focused and higher quality in the six pages or similar quality but nothing like the range of choice you were looking for?
890
« on: October 04, 2012, 17:34 »
Agree, they are pretty close to free at subs rates anyway. Love FT's approach as you can get rejected for the main collection and get extra humiliation by get rejected for the free section on top of that
891
« on: October 04, 2012, 10:01 »
No, right at the bottom of the heap @ 15% but microscopic port might be a statistical anomaly (more likely the crazy acceptance criteria mean that the good producers of this type of image dont bother so less competition). Last payout took 5 months (including PP) with an average of 25 images on the site and next should be a little quicker with a few more online.
892
« on: October 04, 2012, 07:13 »
I tend to agree - have you misplaced a decimal point somewhere? My earnings from IS are averaging 80c per approved image per month with not particularly commercial images that just about scrape past the inspectors.
893
« on: October 04, 2012, 05:02 »
You have it completely wrong ELs just extend the uses to which your image can be put. Selling the rights is a different story.
894
« on: October 04, 2012, 04:20 »
.... is the approval rate more lenient when you have become a contributor ? .....
Unfortunately no, not uncommon to have one or more of the "exam" shots rejected when you pass the test and submit them to the main collection.
895
« on: October 03, 2012, 08:58 »
Just for fun, decided to do a "video nasty" image and have submitted "... blood spattered mutant zombie carrying severed head and machete..." to SS, DT, FT & 123. I expect rejections. See how well you know the sites and guess which ones will reject because of the subject matter 
896
« on: October 02, 2012, 11:42 »
Nope, no people. The batch was a mixture of orangutans, floaty bubbles and OOF flowers.
They are people, I bet. I know I am no floaty bubble. I do however have red hair.
Oh *.
897
« on: October 02, 2012, 11:40 »
Thanks to NASA for providing us with these wonderful images. These images are created by NASA but you are allowed to use them in your commercial projects. PeopleImages has digitally restored and cleaned each of these images manually and spent hundreds of hours fixing scanning lines, sensor dust and noise problems. Enjoy!
http://peopleimages.com/search#shoot-id:780836
Credit where it's due, they seem to be available for free
898
« on: October 01, 2012, 16:19 »
It can take a while but, if later approved images show up, you need to take it up with support.
899
« on: September 30, 2012, 17:48 »
900
« on: September 30, 2012, 17:40 »
Lately new stuff seems to appear in port / be visible in searches pretty much immediately
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
That's about all I know 
