Quote from: Bateleur on February 23, 2007, 17:20

Quote from: digiology on February 23, 2007, 17:07

... I donate images to morguefile.com ...

Hey! Never heard of that site before. Interesting. I've just checked it and I'm tempted to send some in rejects.

But what a pity that they don't require that the photographer is credited when images are used. It costs nothing and would be a little thank-you to the person who took, owns, and donated the image.

Hey, why don't you donate them to the Wikipedia. It will certainly be much more usefull than sending them to any other image bank sites. And you'll also get a lot of exposure (10th most popular site in the world!) for your works. I've already sent to them some animal pics, including one that became a "Wikipedia Photo of the Day" image. If you wan't to take a look at them here are the links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pseudalopex_culpaeus.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Euphractus_sexcinctus2.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cariama_cristata.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tapirus_terrestris.jpg


You can increase even more the exposure if you include a link of your site in the photo's description section...

Best

Quote from: Daneel on February 16, 2007, 17:35
Hi all!

I've just released version 1.1 of Microstock Monitor, which adds support for iStockPhoto. It seems that iStockPhoto has no concept of monthly downloads (I'm not sure, I got accepted, but don't have any downloads yet), so the "current downloads" field shows "N/A" (as for Lucky Oliver).

It would be awesome if you could grab the latest release (no need to uninstall 1.0) and tell me if and how iStockPhoto stats work for you in Microstock Monitor.

http://microstockmonitor.unfolded.com/

Many thanks!
Michael

Well, just like you said, it shows my current balance, but not the number of downloads. But, anyway, it's great, you don't even need to improve anything else.
Well, if you really want to, maybe you could also include other sites (l123rf, featurepics...) and provide a "minimize to systray" option. As you can see, nothing you should really bother with...

Best

Quote from: Daneel on February 16, 2007, 18:54
Hi all,

due to the frustration with microstock watcher (support didn't reply to my e-mails either) and because I like programming, I wrote my own software to receiving stats:

http://microstockmonitor.unfolded.com

There is also a dedicated forum on Microstock Monitor in this forum (in the software section).

I'm looking forward to see you there.

Ah yes...and Microstock Monitor is of course free :-)

All the best,
Michael

Hello Michael,

       I've just tried it. It works great! Thanks.

Quote from: madelaide on February 10, 2007, 20:14

Quote from: Photosgraphis on February 09, 2007, 03:48
Thank you for your message. Yes, I guess there is no other option than keep trying... 

Do they say why they rejected your images?  In many cases (although they have been a bit picky lately) their rejections come with some useful feedback.  The image may not be bad, but on occasions I could really improved it as directed.

Regards,
Adelaide

Yes, but in a very subjective way, that's why I'm still without knowing what to do.  Well, i think I'll need more time to decode the "Unfortunately it's not what we're looking for" message...

Best

Wow, today four of my submitted photos were rejected at SS because of "overuse of noise reduction software"... lol, I think my SS addiction is turning into a "Neat Image" addiction too...

Quote from: tgt on February 08, 2007, 04:48
Photosgraphis.... Don't let it get you down.... I was accepted on my first try at StockXpert...  but since I've been on, they've rejected about 60% of my portfolio.. for "too dark" or " don't need this kind of photo"...   So, there's no rhyme or reason... Hang in there, you'll get on.  Rejection is part of the business.. Don't take it personal.    -tom

Thank you for your message. Yes, I guess there is no other option than keep trying... 

Best

Hey, let's try hard to improve our photoshop skills!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcFlxSlOKNI

Cheers

Quote from: XeniaII on February 07, 2007, 01:15
i realy understand you! most oft the stockagencies are "sagen wir mal" realy unfriendly... i know stockexpert.. i think i have 100 pictures there with only 25 Euro a month sales... but best think dont be angry there are so much agencies...dont worry

By the way... You've got an awesome portfolio, congratulations!

Quote from: XeniaII on February 07, 2007, 01:15
i realy understand you! most oft the stockagencies are "sagen wir mal" realy unfriendly... i know stockexpert.. i think i have 100 pictures there with only 25 Euro a month sales... but best think dont be angry there are so much agencies...dont worry

Thanks for your kind words XeniaII, but I'm not angry with them, I know they all have their reasonable reasons for acting like this. But I also know that each agency has its own particular preference and peculiarity. I just would like to hear from people that are already stockxpert members how they succeeded in becoming part of their crew.

Best

Hello,

        Well, for the second time I've tried to be part of the "Stockxpert community" but then I've failed again. I knew it was not easy to be accepted there but I didn't know it could be that hard. The strangest thing is that I am now member of all the other top microstock sites and I was accepted by Shutterstock on my first attempt, and by Istock on my 2nd attempt. So I'm still not sure what they exactly want from me. Maybe it's because I don't take photos of people or, maybe because my photos are still far from being of good quality or original.
        Here's the message they sent to me explaining, in an obscure way, the reasons why they didn´t approve my 2nd batch:

         Dear phgraphis,

We regret to inform you that your artist application was rejected. We are very sorry but at the moment we are not looking for pictures like the ones you uploaded.

Admin message: Overall quality is good. If you would have taken the time to clean the scratches and dust in Photoshop, it would of brought up the quality even more. Unfortunately, content wise, it is not what we are looking for.


I'm pretty sure that the dust/scratches issue applies to the "pocket watch" photo I've sent to them, but I would not agree that that's an important issue regarding all the other 4 photos.

    I'd be glad if anybody here could send me any suggestion so I can improve the quality of my photos before I try to send another photo sample to Stockxpert. Feel free to choose your personal "top 5" on my portfolio too.

      Thanks!

Quote from: eendicott on February 01, 2007, 13:59
I once bought a book on Lulu - 130 different ways to make Jello Shots.

It's not safe.

So, what do you think about the quality of their prints, is it acceptable?

Hi,       
  I'm not sure if this is the right place for posting this, as it's not exactly a microstock subject, but, anyway, I'd like to know if anyone has ever tried to sell images,  photo calendars or even photo books at Lulu ( http://www.lulu.com/)? I don't know if it's a good idea to try it or not...

        Thanks

Hi,

       I've found a briefly but interesting description about the differences between royalty-free and rights-managed photos at the Wikipedia site and would like to share it with you. Here's the description:

        Royalty-free (a confusing term, this does not mean the image is "free")

   1. Pay a one-time fee to use the image multiple times for multiple purposes (with limits).
   2. No time limit on when you can use an image.
   3. No one can have exclusive rights of a Royalty-free image (the photographer can sell the image as many times as he wants).
   4. A Royalty-free image usually has a limit to how many times you can reproduce it. For example, a license might allow you to print 500,000 brochures with the purchased image. The amount of copies made is called the print run. Above that print run you are required to pay a fee per brochure, usually 1 to 3 cents. Magazines with a large print run cannot use a standard Royalty-free license and therefore they either purchase images with a Rights-managed license or have in-house photographers.

Rights-managed (sometimes called "licensed images")

   1. Pay each time you use the image.
   2. There is a time limit on how long a buyer has exclusive use of an image (usually one year). This allows the photographer to sell exclusive rights to the image again when the first buyer's time limit is up.
   3. You must choose a Rights-managed license if you want exclusive use of an image. The photographer would not be allowed to sell the image to anyone else if exclusivity is part of the license. Not all Rights-managed licenses are exclusive, that must be stipulated in the agreement.
   4. Fee is based on such things as exclusivity, distribution, length of time used, geographic location of use.
   5. A Rights-managed image usually allows a much larger print run per image than a Royalty-free license.
   6. Editorial is a form of rights-managed license when there are no releases for the subjects. Since there are no releases the images cannot be used for advertising or to depict controversial subjects, only for news or educational purposes.


I hope it is useful to someone.

      Regards