Quote from: Zero Talent on July 02, 2017, 03:19
The purpose of Adobe Stock is to appeal to the US market where FT is weak, while still benefiting from a shameful currency manipulation, in Europe, through the FT credit system, which considers 1 euro = 1 US$

An increase of US market share on the FT platform, would have meant overpaying European contributors for sales made in US.
After launching Adobe Stock, they can continue to underpay US contributors for sales made mainly in Europe by FT, while growing, separately, their US business.

Obviously the profits they make by underpaying US contributors are large enough to justify the expenses incurred by the coexistence of two similar platforms.

Rest assured that if the Euro falls below the US$, FT will be shutdown immediately.

Meanwhile, you will get most of your US sales from Adobe and most of your European sales from FT.

Otherwise, from an upload point of view it doesn't matter what you use.

Good info, sad as it is. 

Just to make sure I understand, whatever I upload to FT will automatically be available on AS, correct?  There's nothing more that I need to do?

Thanks!

I read several places that for the fist submission, to limit the megapixels to the minimum required by each stock agency in order to reduce an initial rejection due to slightly soft focus or minor defects when submitting.  Well, my first batch of images have been accepted by Shutterstock, iStock, Fotolia, Dreamstime, and Alamy!   

Before I submit my second batch of photos, I hope to gain some wisdom regarding image size (megapixels).  Specifically, I am interested in your approach to sizing images for the five agencies listed above.

Thanks!

Quote from: Noedelhap on September 15, 2016, 12:50

Quote from: EricBullerPhotography on September 15, 2016, 01:38

Quote from: Mantis on September 15, 2016, 01:32
All of that info should be put in the meta data fields within the image. Are you using photoshop or another Adobe software?

My main question is the practical difference between title and description in regard to Dreamstime.  How do you approach it?

Thanks!

Say you have a photo of a barn in a wheat field with a blue sky. (I don't have an visual example so use your imagination )

A proper title would be: "Barn in a wheat field"

The description would be...well, more descriptive, like:
"A wooden barn with closed doors standing in the middle of a golden wheat field beneath a clear blue sky. Copy-space on the right side of the image."

Generally, in a description, you get more specific about the photo. Use adjectives and complete sentences to describe colors, materials, associations, feelings and emotions.

PERFECT!  That's the exact advice I was seeking!   

Quote from: Mantis on September 15, 2016, 01:32
All of that info should be put in the meta data fields within the image. Are you using photoshop or another Adobe software?

Yes, I'm using Lightroom 6.  Most of the Metadata that I input was before I realized that some of the stock sites would pre-load fields using metadata (which is nice).  I will be changing my application of metadata accordingly.

My main question is the practical difference between title and description in regard to Dreamstime.  How do you approach it?

Thanks!

I am a new contributor to Dreamstime and fairly new to stock photography in general.  With the other stock sites, it is common for each photo to have a (descriptive) title and a list of keywords.  However, with Dreamstime, they require a separate title and description, then additional keywords.

I'm hoping someone can share the best approach to completing these fields to maximize effectiveness.

Thanks!

Eric

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 14, 2016, 09:32
By the way, glass objects are one of the hardest things to light correctly. If you are going to shoot still life with glass in it you need to study how the lighting should be done and get lots of practice until you can get it right almost automatically. For one thing, your background here was under-exposed, you need to light a white background separately from the main subject, so move the background further back and use a slave flash that's shielded from the subject to get the background white. You can't just increase the power of the lightbox  (or open the aperture) to make the background white because the inverse square law means that correctly exposing the background from a single light means that the foreground will be over-exposed (because there is a significant difference in the distance of the two from the light source).
If you use daylight you don't have the same problem, because both the subject and the background will be 92 million miles from the light source and even if one is six feet further away from the sun it makes sqat-diddly difference as a percentage. But then you have issues such as diffusing the light and getting it coming from the correct angle.
Oh, and don't light the subject from straight in front, light from an angle to emphasise textures, and use reflectors to balance the fall-off in light across the frame.

Great Advice, thanks!  How much do I owe you?   

Quote from: charged on September 13, 2016, 23:43

Quote from: EricBullerPhotography on September 13, 2016, 21:39

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 13, 2016, 19:06
Yes, that's much better.  Now you need to learn about "commercial value".

I'm open to any resources or advice you have to offer, Sean.   

Go look at any magazine or website and see what images they use. Images found there often have (high?) commercial value. So if you were going to take photos of small objects, it should be things that are often used by people in real life. For example, smart phones, beer bottles, cup of coffee, coffee beans, small plant, post it pads, pen, food, vegetables, fruit, notebook, clipboard, laptop, monitor, stack of towels, different color pens together, etc.

Thanks for the constructive feedback.  I will definitely take this into consideration as I make my shoot list.

Quote from: CJH Photography on September 13, 2016, 23:33
One tip I read on a ss board that has helped me with commercial value issues is to come up with 3 things that the image could be used for.  Ask yourself why somebody might want to buy it.  If it's just a pretty image, it is unlikely to sell well in the microstock market.   Hope that helps you get started!

Great advice!  Thanks for the feedback!

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 13, 2016, 19:06
Yes, that's much better.  Now you need to learn about "commercial value".

I'm open to any resources or advice you have to offer, Sean.   

Quote from: MatHayward on September 13, 2016, 18:29
Good for you on thinking outside the box (no pun intended) to get the shot you want! A bathtub and a tee shirt...use what you've got to get it done. I love it!

Your second sample the white balance looks a bit worse than your first unfortunately. It's very green on my monitor. The sampler tool you are looking for looks like an eyedropper. Select that tool then click on a spot in the image that is white. In this case, click your backdrop. It's not perfect but it will get you more in the ballpark for correct white balance. Adjust it accordingly.

Good luck!

Mat

Ahhhh!!!  Thanks!

OK, so I did as you and Chichikov suggested and it made a big difference.  Both the temp and tint were adjusted, which I think took care of the green (I am stuck using a laptop monitor, but plan on picking up a 24" Dell Ultrasharp when I'm back in the states in a couple months).  Anyway, after the improved white balance, I dropped the exposure from +.70 to +.55.  I think that is better, but you can judge on your monitor better than me.   

Thanks a million!

Quote from: Chichikov on September 13, 2016, 17:14
In Lightroom, go to the develop module, chose the sampler under the white balance, click on the background on your photo.
Set your exposure, add a little vibrancy/saturation and maybe 5 points of clarity.
(That's all)



__
You also can try to set the WB to auto in your camera

Hmmm... I went to the Develop Module, but I don't see anything called "Sampler" under white balance.  I am using Lightroom 6.  Maybe there is a sampling option on CC?

Here are the changes I made:
-Dropped white balance from 7350 to 6600
-Increased exposure from -0.20 to +0.70
-Increased clarity from +10 to +15
-Increased vibrance from 0 to +20
-Increased saturation from 0 to +10

I placed my cursor on the white background to see the effect my changes were making on the RGB values.
Before:
R- 79.2
G- 80.7
B-73.6

After:
R- 89.6
G-91.2
B- 88.3

This shows the background data is much closer to 100 in each category, which I would assume is perfect white, so it is a good improvement in that area.  However, as you can see from the attached updated photo, it makes the subject look a little blown out (but maybe it's just in comparison to the original edit).

In looking at the RGB data for the white background, it makes me wonder if there is a target I should be aiming for.  Does anybody else look at this data when editing light box photos?

Any other thoughts?  Advice?

I just submitted my first photos to Shutterstock and three of the six submissions were accepted.  I am happy about that, but I have questions about two of the photos that were rejected (one is attached). 

Both of them were shot in my homemade light box and were rejected for "Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance" and "White Balance -- The incorrect white balance setting was used".  My light box is a fiberglass bathtub that I cut in half and painted with flat white latex paint.  The light source is a single 40w florescent bulb in a 16" galvanized metal reflector, with the light diffused by a white cotton t-shirt (I know, I know, but I live in a developing country in West Africa).  The photos were edited in Lightroom 6.

So, based on that, I have two questions:

1.  Is there anything I can do in Lightroom to rescue these photos?
2.  What do I need to change in my light box setup to improve my results and reduce post-production time in Lightroom?

Quote from: Timbrke on September 02, 2016, 20:10
I use own release samples, compiled by myself, on the basis of several examples from different agencies. Since they have all the information needed about the model - fullname, address, phone number etc, information about the shooting time and location, description of shooting, and the widest extent of rights is transferred, no one finds fault with the form
Even Istock 

Hey Timbrke, thanks for the advice!  After waiting two weeks for a response, I ended us just doing the same by printing out and comparing Model Releases from the top five stock companies.  It took a few hours, but the end product should satisfy most or all the stock companies.

Again, I appreciate your response. It was a bit discouraging as a new member to post a sincere question to this forum and receive zero responses... until yours!  Have a great day.  Eric

I am just getting started in stock photography and have a question regarding model and property releases.  I am planning to sell photos on multiple stock sites and am hoping that I can use a generic release form that will be accepted by all.  Or maybe there is a release provided by one of the major stock sites that will be accepted by all the others?

Any advice?  Thanks!

Eric