|
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 - ruxpriencdiam
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42
901
« on: June 20, 2012, 23:42 »
Excellent 3 for $120 each WOW!
902
« on: June 17, 2012, 10:31 »
actually the smiley face was invented by harvey Bell in 1962
refreshing my memory from wikipedia
"In 1967, Ball's design was used in an advertising campaign for Seattle-based University Federal Savings & Loan. This was later used when the man behind this campaign, David Stern, ran for Seattle Mayor in 1993"
Yes, but follow this link. I didn't have time to find the outcome. Just that there's some cretin in France with Smiley World who claims the rights to the smiley face in the yellow ball.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/05/business/worldbusiness/05smiley.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
And here is more info. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiley
903
« on: June 08, 2012, 19:10 »
ja, and I miss SS, but they wont let me back.
Who are you!?
Russ, the other Nevada
Russ!
PHlange & PHence
Now we just need Perry and evanders
Let me guess, you guys hang out in the SS critique forum and offer workshops or have aspirations of offering workshops!
Nope. Just guys I know from the SS forums. Comment is an inside joke. As to aspirations, I don't have any beyond what I'm currently doing (retired and loving it). I taught photography at college level for several years. Don't any more, don't offer any workshops nor do I have have any plans to. I'll post a critique once in a while if I think the OP shows some talent, but that's about it. Nothing regular. I'll let the others speak for themselves as to whatever their aspirations may be.
No workshops here either! And you forgot about Furrow. I help in the critique forum why not?
904
« on: June 08, 2012, 13:25 »
ja, and I miss SS, but they wont let me back.
Who are you!?
Russ, the other Nevada
Russ!
905
« on: June 08, 2012, 11:21 »
Jens are you allowed to read any of the threads or not?
906
« on: June 08, 2012, 11:19 »
ja, and I miss SS, but they wont let me back.
Who are you!?
Not fair!
907
« on: June 08, 2012, 10:43 »
What has that got to with reviewers? are you saying that they would be reviewing using a web browser set at a higher than 100% zoom?
You got it what if they are reviewing at a larger resolution then 100% screen view which then makes the image go OOF or soft? We have no idea but it is a possibility.
909
« on: June 07, 2012, 21:30 »
yeah it started last night and i thought it would be fixed but still not yet.
Good to know it wasn't me.
910
« on: June 07, 2012, 19:23 »
The problem is, the same thing is happening as last year, they started with unjust(ified) rejections, with no grounds whatsoever. The most reasonable explanation is that some students either without a clue or with some issues are doing it (could be, as I already said and some others have to, to reduce competition, rejecting good, selling files, no one will buy $hit anyway). I mean the time is right, summer time 2nd year in a row. Absolutely true almost exactly one year ago to the day is when it started. And I get your point about showing some samples. I'd be skeptical about taking someone's word, who I don't know if he's even a half decent tog, for granted. But what would be the point of being anonymous then? Anyone, or more importantly any agency can just image.google your a$$ . So you'll either have to believe me I'm half decent, at least that much to be able to tell if a photo is sharp at 100% or just dismiss me as a total wanker 
And i as well as others do most the critiquing over there and if it is OOF i will tell you plain and simple almost nothing that is OOF i cant see and i dont care about being anonymous because my avatar and username is the same here and there. Here is what has been said about me. God I am glad you are not a reviewer, we would never get anything accepted LOL.
911
« on: June 07, 2012, 17:36 »
Better to be pissed off then pissed on  And i didn't do anything everyone else did and Leaf locked it not me!
913
« on: June 05, 2012, 16:05 »
Well it looks like a few of the Snobs with your greater then God attitude finally got what you wanted.
You had one of the better photogs willing to help if needed close his account because of your Attitudes.
What did he really do to you personally that was so bad that all you could do is put him down?
All he was doing is what i am sure most of you all do as well except you dont do it here or on any other MS site because of some reason unknown but you are probably doing it on the side on some other Blog you have or Facebook or even Flicker so big effn deal!
This man would help you and be a valued friend if you could get off your EGO trips and take some time to listen and discuss things instead of having that God almighty attitude.
Well enough said he is a friend of mine and shall be missed on this forum by many while others are celebrating.
914
« on: June 05, 2012, 09:40 »
I have a little bit of inside first hand knowledge that you will not like what you are going to hear about rejections and the reviewers and the process.
So we are in for a long ride people so buckle up.
915
« on: June 05, 2012, 09:23 »
I think you should insert some red on CanStockPhoto because Jane and I had a discussion with Duncan over POD's and they do allow POD's unless you opt out of it.
916
« on: June 04, 2012, 17:01 »
Hi All,
I've been discussing this with the team and should be able to follow up by end-of-day tomorrow.
Thanks for your patience!
Best,
Scott
Excellent thanks for the update.
917
« on: June 04, 2012, 09:55 »
918
« on: June 04, 2012, 08:14 »
Scott: In case you missed it on the Shutterstock Forum,
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:56 am
I would like to call for an end to the Limited Commercial Value rejection. As a contributor and buyer for many years, that specializes in isolated objects, I know what sells. I know that everyday objects, isolated, and photographed well, are much sought after. I've done very well here and on all of the top eight microstock sites selling such objects.
Within the last few months, I've been getting this rejection for the first time, even when the same photo is accepted and sells on the other top seven agencies. Obviously Shutterstock has undergone a shakeup in the reviewing process. The rejection email gives a link to Shutterbuzz, that tries to explain "the most commonly questioned reason of all for submitters" It goes on to explain that the reviewers are well trained and that they are artists and photographers themselves. Therein lies the flaw for this kind of rejection. They are not in marketing. They may well know technical merits, but not have clue as to what buyers are looking for. It's a different side of the brain. Artistry versus Marketing.
Therefore, I respectfully call for the end of this kind of rejection, and stick to judging a photo on it's artistry and technical merit, and not speculating on what the graphic community is hunting for. As a buyer, I can testify that you just never know what the next project is going to require.
A Big +1
919
« on: June 03, 2012, 17:32 »
Hi folks,
I'm looking into this one - I'll post what I find out.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Shutterstock
Thank you because there have been a bunch of Bogus rejections as of lately. Isolated on white rejected for poor lighting, shadows and or WB and then there is the old LCV of images that by far have very good CV, there are even case where releases were with images and the reviewer still rejected for no release? Hows that? Any help is appreciated. Is there any way we can do away with LCV because what is seen by a reviewer as LCV (because he/she doesn't like it) turns out after numerous resubmissions to become a number one seller in ones port!
920
« on: June 03, 2012, 09:10 »
Tis the Silly Season once again!
Attila has reappeared almost exactly one year after his/her first appearance last year.
Attila has run many regulars away with what are deemed by many ridiculous rejections that are unwarranted and done by someone who has no experience at all.
Or they are testing a new computer reviewing program?
921
« on: June 01, 2012, 20:07 »
Drugal i am wondering do you have any sites you submit to? And if so how about the links to them i am sure that some here would like to see your work that is if you have any!
So could you post us some links so we can see what you have?
922
« on: May 30, 2012, 00:37 »
Just a bug that will be fixed quicker then anything else anyhow so dont get used to it.
923
« on: May 29, 2012, 21:11 »
924
« on: May 29, 2012, 12:01 »
NO ONE, is defending anything here! I have just told WUT, to contact them and try again! see, this is what happens when one doesnt follow or read the postings properly.
We all know that fighting rejects doesnt lead to anything. In all my cases, sites, I have very, very few rejections, but if a reviewer can not give solid proof of rejections, then Im not interested, dont matter if theres one reject or 20.
i've tried contacting , but either ignored or boilerplate responses
most recently, a reivewer rejected a series, but said they should be resubmitted as editorial - did so, with note to reviewer - all rejected why bother telling us to resubmit?
another frequent case - old maps, anatomy illustrations, previouslt accepted, now keep getting "tell us the source" rejections when the info is all there in the description! again no response
Some reading about Maps for you when you have the time. http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=122257&highlight=mapshttp://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=120088&highlight=mapshttp://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=111802&highlight=mapshttp://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=79807&highlight=maps
925
« on: May 28, 2012, 21:12 »
I just got 50% of my last batch rejected, a batch that has 100% AR everywhere else. Is the same story, the one that was happening around the same time of the year last year, happening again. Rejection reasons were the most standard Focus, but in most cases it was composition. This came on top of what I reported 8 days ago:
Are any of you getting illogical trademark rejections? I mean there were none left I doublecheked the files. And I've had identical photos, just with a different model accepted a couple of months ago. And the first part of this series a few days ago. I pointed that out when I resubmitted the images and they've all been rejected for tm issues and what's even worse all of the photos from 2 other series. Needles to say they've been accepted on all the other sites. That's what you get for being a "smartass". Because they don't make mistakes. And it's not the first time it happened either, I just never pointed out the accepted photos/batches. It's so unprofessional to take it out on someone else for your own mistakes
Say what you want about IS (or any other top 4 site for that matter), at least they are consistent. And that's what matters the most consistency, so at least you can adjust to their standards (you obviously want to have the highest possible AR with your best selling site). And I also understand better you arguments against exclusivity now. Imagine this lack of clear set, any set of standards of inspection, topped with a search engine shakeup. It could lead to a disaster.
Ur anonymous, drugal is anonymous, wim is anonymous, JPSDK is anonymous how do I know you aren't all the same person or that any of you have any pictures on ss? You could all be fake trouble makers.
You are on SS your name is familiar and i can vouch for JPSDK and probably get you the link to his port on SS, he is the bug man that can see noise from a mile away.
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
