|
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 - Waldo4
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9
126
« on: March 04, 2008, 14:02 »
What I like about IS, is they take more artistic pics
Agreed on that. When I was hunting through their photos to see what sells, especially with certain types, I was kinda shocked that many of the better selling shots are quite artistic and not the typical FT shot. The main place I was looking was architecture, the bestsellers at IS look nothing like the bestsellers at FT, much more artistic, most of those shots I would have expected FT to reject.
127
« on: March 04, 2008, 13:54 »
Would you use your big strobes if they were always set up and you had a dedicated studio? Just takes a little repositioning (maybe, I figure there would be a standard small object isolation layout). Then again, I don't have a huge amount of interest in just finding small objects around the house and isolating them, though a white or black background is key for most of my ideas.
128
« on: March 04, 2008, 13:19 »
How do you get past shadows and the directional light of a flash? Even bounced a flash leaves bad shadows (my current (soon to be obsolete) setup is a white sheet attached to a wall draped over a small glass top end table with attached white sides and a very low ceiling (the top almost touches it)). If the object needs front light, the shadows are bad in the back, from above the shadows are bad in the front (plus the underside of objects are heavily shaded). I shoot with the remote release on the tripod, move the flash around, then combine several exposures into one with layer masks and blending modes. I get good results, but it is very tedious.
I'm switching to 2 strobes with modeling lights with a few light control means (umbrellas, softboxes, barndoors, grid) (really didn't cost too much either, they're fairly low power, cheaper than a 580 flash), dropping the sides on the setup, hanging the sheet from a curtain rod and getting a few other fabrics, and moving my flash under the table for isolations (goodbye shadows). I'll be able to take my camera off the tripod and HH it so I can move around and take less sterile pictures, plus I'll have the light and space to do so much more. Heck I've got the space, I've got an unused finished attic just waiting to be used for something (my studio). Most of my ideas just aren't possible or are very difficult to pull off good with a single flash and camera tied to a tripod. I've spent hours pondering how to pull off some shots, even then it is iffy so I haven't tried with the more challenging stuff (and failed on a few things to get results that I liked). I always came to the same conclusion...if I only had proper lights and a less restrictive space.
129
« on: March 04, 2008, 12:54 »
My acceptance is about equal at both, it seems that IS is more open to subject but more harsh technically, FT on the other hand is very closed with regards to subject but easier going technically. FT has only rejected one or two of my shots for technical reasons, but about 75% are for type of shot. IS on the other hand has yet to reject a shot for type, all relate to technical reasons (gotta drop the sharpening and somehow use less noise reduction than none). The more I like the shot, the less likely it is to be accepted at FT, likewise that increases my chance at IS (they take my personal faves, I guess they like my shots too).
130
« on: March 04, 2008, 12:32 »
Sure, images have to be technically good in order to be accepted
. This would be the crux of my problem. Sans having a studio to do any studio work or a model to do any shots with humans, I have been relying on shots out and around the town to this point (  ) or limited stuff that is possible with a single off camera flash (I figured out some great ways to fake a fancy studio with PS with multiple exposures and an off camera flash, but several hours of PP work per shot is way too inefficient to be reasonable). I don't have a problem getting the studio type stuff accepted, but my setup is way too inefficient to do much with (very creatively stifling as well, all the creativity goes into faking proper lighting), but that will change shortly, I've got some studio lights on the way, so I can begin to act on my little black book full of ideas that has been filling up but has little checked off the list. The meterstick thing is a means to test the focusing of your lenses (response to the first reply), tilt a meterstick, aim at the 18" mark with the camera on a tripod from about 5-8 ft away, let it AF with the lens wide open and take a shot. If it is focusing correctly the 18" will be sharp, other #'s will be blurry, if it has front focus or backfocus problems a different # will be sharp. I learned this with my first lens, which was a Sigma 18-200. Darn thing could not take a sharp shot. Checked it on the stick and it had a severe backfocus problem. I didn't want to go through the hoopla of getting it fixed so I returned it and got a Canon lens (2 actually). First thing I did with those is check them too to make sure the focus was correct. Both were perfect. My 70-300 is a Canon not Sigma or Tamron (I'll probably never get another 3rd party lens after the first Sigma incident). I learned right away that some of the first shots with a new lens (especially an internet purchase) should be to test its focus, and this is a quick and easy way. My 50mm though, taken straight on at a wall from 10 ft away on a tripod will be pure blur in the corners (RH side much worse than the left) and sharp in the center at less than f/5.6, so bad that all shots at less than f/5.6 have been rejected for focus. Every landscape shot that I have taken has been rejected for this (landscapes are tough, the degree of technical perfection must be higher than a great idea in a studio). I typically shoot landscapes when the sun is getting low, I can HH a 1/60 f/3.5 shot fine, but they will all be rejected for the corners. I'll post some little example 100% crops of this and my red bleed later (I need to check if it is an ACR problem causing the bleed, might not be present if I use Canon's program). I get the feeling though my 50mm is just a bad copy, heck it is an $80 lens, can't expect them all to be perfect, just have to stick to isolations with it until I upgrade, I'll have a superwide for the landscapes in not too long anyway. The question that prompted the thread though has been answered. Skip the sharpening.
131
« on: March 03, 2008, 12:39 »
I have checked my lenses with the inverted meterstick test, they focus perfect, though my 50mm plainly has absolutely awful corner sharpness at less than f/5.6. It may be perfect in the center, but get out to a corner with fine detail and it is blurry at 100%. Even at f/5.6 it is noticeable, it really takes the f/8-f/10 band to be in peak performance, which means it requires ungodly amounts of light to handhold a shot no matter what (no magic hour shooting by hand).
Thing is, if it takes an unsharpened 50mm prime shot at f/8 just to be good enough, how on earth does anybody with a PnS or non-L zoom or prime ever get a shot accepted?
Could be though that my 50 is just a piece of crap and I need to get a new one though, my 70-300 has noticeably superior IQ in every respect.
One thing I noticed with respect to noise, is my camera's (350D) red channel is pure garbage. With a circular polarizer on the red channel is essentially noise, and I took a shot that finally confirmed what I have suspected. Whenever manipulate the tone curve at all, I typically get muddy gray halos around detail in high contrast areas, yesterday I took a shot that confirmed that it is nearly 100% isolated to the red channel. The color was bleeding all over the red channel. In a straight camera-raw-CS2 conversion (no changed settings at all (the shot was frustrating me so I wanted to check it out)) the green and blue channels were perfectly sharp in the greyscale of the channel, the red was just a bunch of bled blobs of color with almost no detail. it was some Cherry blossoms set against the blue sky, any attempt to enhance the sky just enhanced the gray blobs surrounding all of the blossoms that came from the red bleed over. Is this known to be a common XT problem? It seems like this would be caused by poor interpolation of the pixels by the processing chip, so this should be present in all Canon digic II cameras unless somehow my chip is a piece of crap too.
132
« on: March 03, 2008, 11:01 »
I am having trouble with different agencies acceptance/rejection and have somewhat come to the conclusion that much of it has to do with sharpening and how much to use, if at all.
For example SS rejections for out of focus - not they were not, they were unsharpened. Sure a smidge soft at 100%, put a usm of 100, 0, 2 on it and it is tack sharp, at 200%.
On the other hand, IS has essentially rejected everything (including my test images that were accepted for the test), all for artifacts. 1 was unsharpened, the others had less than 100, 0, 2 sharpening, and I suspect that sharpening was the reason. On a sidenote though my most commercially viable image was accepted, and it was sharpened more and had more "artifacts" than any image that I have submitted.
If I was a designer I would probably prefer completely unsharpened images because of the higher quality of heavily editing an unsharpened image vs. a sharpened one, but I fear that they all will be rejected for "out of focus" some places. To completely process different for each site is absolutely ludicrous IMO.
If the artifacting came from something else, I really am at a loss. I always overexpose half a stop then recover in RAW editing to maximize the low-noise portion of the sensor. I keep the NR levels in ACR set at lum 70%, Cr 50%, is this too high? Rarely do I do much editing aside from some clone stamping (aside from isolations and creating a clipping path) outside of the RAW editor. What else could generate an artifacting rejection on a 100% unsharpened image? I always LAB sharpen on the lum channel to avoid sharpening colorization.
Do you sharpen your images, if so, how much, and do you produce copies with different levels of sharpening for different sites?
133
« on: March 02, 2008, 22:16 »
Really, nature shots? That is a genre that I have been told to avoid, both in writing everywhere and by FT rejections ("....is intended for brochures....."), then again I've kinda just come to the "screw it, I'm gonna take the pictures that I wannna take, and see if they get accepted, to hell with my acceptance ratio" realization. It's not like I'll be submitting bad work, quite the contrary, I'll be submitting my best work, is it stock? We'll see (it was prompted by seeing similar stuff on IS that was heavily downloaded that I knew that I could at least equal), but I tend to take better pictures when I don't force things (taking pictures for someone else that I don't necessarily like myself, instead of "wow, love it" shots).
134
« on: February 29, 2008, 22:39 »
Yeah it took all of two days for those 7 images to almost outearn all other sites combined (just FT and DT really, still haven't looked at my first batch at IS, finally looked at 'em at BigStock yesterday), for the whole month, where my port is 3x and 5x as big respectively, if it wasn't for an EL on FT, it would have outearned both combined, in 2 days (actually without the EL it would have beat them both combined the first morning)! Just about every time I look at it I have a new DL, as opposed to waiting days between DL's at the other sites.
BTW - Let me guess, your textures are selling like hotcakes? The texture that I had in my app has now sold 20 times, much more than the rest of the files combined. It seems like they like textures at SS, a lot.
135
« on: February 29, 2008, 15:47 »
Well it looks like I've got some uploading to do then.
136
« on: February 29, 2008, 11:26 »
What I am saying is that getting good quality photos that will be accepted at most microstocks is more efficient approach. I am talking about "good quality photos" meaning "photos suitable for microstock". If you understood "good quality photos" as blurry/grungy/out of focus "creative" pictures - this is your problem, I didn't say that and I didn't mean that. If you understood that as "sterile" images made with F32 (which is technically challenging with most lens being not so sharp when completely closed) this is also your problem - I didn't mean that. Creativity aside, there are two specific things that many agencies, SS especially (from my limited experience and the wealth of knowledge shared by others), will deny for, that are aspects of many good photos, the use of shadow as a compositional element (poor lighting denial), and isolating the subject of the photo from the surroundings to a degree using DOF (out of focus denial). The first one can be frustrating as it is something that you seek out. I have seen many a shot, and taken, where I thought "oh man, taken at this time of day when the shadows are doing this would be 10x better" I will often see one, take a quick snap, than plan a journey to go back and get a good capture when the light is just right. The second category is at the time of capture, where a shot may look great with DOF isolation, even just somewhat (not a total blur) so that the gist of the setting remains but it lacks the sharpness to detract from the subject. For many lenses this is often in the peak performance range, from f/5.6 to f/8. This too micros don't seem to like (thus buyers as well as the discussion had veered to), for these subjects you just have to close up the aperture to the minimum (well beyond the point where sharpness degrades) just to get the DOF the micros are looking for, or do something radical like put on a tele and start backing up (not always possible). I do find with isolations, to get an object sharp from front to back (sharp as in no DOF effects) I have to close my aperture well into the 20's often times, even then I have gotten DOF rejections. Maybe I'm doing something wrong? Generally I shoot as far away as I can frame the shot with my tele at 300mm allows.
137
« on: February 29, 2008, 09:45 »
Seren - Just by browsing through your galleries I kinda figured that you used a 50mm prime. Does it still get mounted to your 5D? Seems kinda ridiculous, but then again, IQ is really all that matters, so who cares. I wonder, for all the people that started with a 50mm prime or got one at some point, does it still hold a prominent place in the bag and get mounted often? I know that about 70% of my shots are taken with it, and I figure, no matter what I have, even a 24-70L, etc..., my 50 will still get quite a bit of use. Especially if I had the f/1.4 version, I bet that lens would have a big place in the bag (well little really, it's not like it is a space hog) for the next 20 years+, even though it is versatile enough to do most everything OK, it has a niche that it does better than any lens (honestly is there a better street/crop body portrait/non-flash indoor (like a museum) lens)? Araminta - I have pondered what lens took that shot, such a great shot. If Canon I figured it had to be either the 100mm or the 180mm as those really are the first class in Macro photography. I've had my eyes on getting a 100mm at some point, seeing that that shot was taken with a 100mm really sealed the deal. When studying lenses I always find it humorous that when comparing IQ the lens that almost all are compared to is...Canon's $80 50mm prime, and the phase most often used (for good lenses) is "image quality almost as good as....", it is very, very rare to read "image quality better than...", that 100mm Macro is one of the few lenses where I have read that, most L's even come up short. I have found that, unless you tend to do most of your photography while traveling, versatility really isn't that big of a need. I can see things where I think "wow that would be a cool shot if I had X lens", but for the most part I take just as many pictures, I think that they are just as good, I just keep to the limitations of my equipment , it is much easier to "look" for a good 50mm shot than it is to "look" for a good 10-300mm shot. I just look for what I can do. Instead of taking and looking for pictures like this:  Taken with a Canon kit lens at 21mm I look for shots like this:  Taken with a Canon 50mm prime, because of the low light (indoors), flash limitations, tripod limitations, a 50mm prime is one of the few lenses that would work here (though a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 could have taken it, I needed f/4 as a minimum to handhold it), but I took a lot of other shots that day with the lens wide open at f/1.8 just to hold it. Take both of these examples with a grain of salt, neither is a stock worthy shot, just an example of what can be done with different lenses. This shot was also done with a 50mm prime, + an off camera flash  An off camera flash is a very good thing for stock, if I had to choose between a versatile lens with zoom range and close focusing capability (I'll save the Macro term for true 1:1), or a prime and off camera flash, I'd take the prime and flash any day, lighting is extremely important to stock photography, and your lens performance is only as good as the light it is getting (no matter how good the lens, all lenses take crappy pictures in harsh midday sun). This is a flower shot, but not a Macro (taken with my Tele at 120mm, but my 50mm could have taken it too), but many people would attach the Macro term to it (incorrectly):  This one is pretty much a macro shot (my 50mm with an extension tube, very close to but not actually 1:1)  This was taken when I was still new to the world of SLR photography so bear with the awful IQ, it is a pretty bad shot. This marigold all the way across is no bigger than one of the larger petals on the Dahlia above. The Tamron you are considering could take every picture above but the last one, though an off camera flash is needed additionally for the water one.
138
« on: February 29, 2008, 07:36 »
Congrats, wow, all 10, great work. In the little over 24 hours my images have been in my gallery I've already had 16 DL's, on 7 images!
139
« on: February 29, 2008, 00:09 »
Waldo - thats interesting you say Sony and Samsung. I agree - I always thought Samsung had a nice picture on their lcd's. I wonder who makes Dell's monitors?
I guess I really didn't research Sony's that much for monitors (can be a bit $$), but when it come to LCD TV's, there are Sonys, Samsungs, and everybody else. It really is a pretty big gap too (at least when I got mine a year ago). But when I got my monitor, I researched what was out there in my price range, heavily favoring Samsung because I really love my TV (it is pretty darn noticeable how much better the picture is than a cheap LCD TV), they were a bit pricey and pretty much out of my range. I only read good things about Dells (though I have a Dell at work that is nothing special, basically the el cheapo model in their line), and mixed things here and there about the rest, so I was gonna splurge and get the cheapest Samsung, much to my surprise they had a big time sale and I got an open model so I managed to get a decent step up (nice and big) from their bottom of the line monitor.
140
« on: February 28, 2008, 23:47 »
My ultimate goal is to thoroughly enjoy myself while producing images that I like to make. That I can be paid well for doing something I would gladly do for free is serendipity found.
First of all, outstanding post. The enjoyment of it, the fact that it is a hobby that produces income and not a primary occupation will always keep the photographer had on first, sure microstock is on the mind, but producing a great photo is job #1. Like a lot of people my biggest struggle will be finding my way in the market, the age old question "what is a good microstock photo?". I can spot a wallhanger in the blink of an eye, and the technical aspects, though daunting at first, really aren't that difficult to grasp and overcome, there are a heck of a lot more difficult things out there than taking a technically flawless picture. Like Tom said, I'm not retiring on microstock sales, but it is a nice way for me to earn a couple of bucks on the side to support my photography habit, to supply the best equipment for me to take the kind of pictures that I enjoy. And getting better at MS photography already has noticeably improved my photography in general IMO, definitely not a bad thing. With that said, I think that there are two kinds of images when it comes to microstock, "Wow is that one gonna sell like hotcakes," and "I hope this one can pass the inspection." Sometimes you're wrong when you do you're own evaluation (objectivity is a great thing to have, detachment from one's work), but it seems that inspectors can spot the first category even better than you can often times (sure they might miss one that will sell 5-10 times, but I doubt many inspectors are gonna miss a 100x seller), when they see a technically perfect photo that honestly isn't that great as a MS photo, they are gonna look long and hard for a good reason to deny it. There really isn't much reason to be trying to take pictures that might pass inspection and sell 1 or 2 times other than improve your skills technically (using the MS reviewers as critics), taking shots that are going to be 100x sellers is really what you should be gunning for, but channeling the creativity and technical know how into making one of those pictures is the real challenge. I think that I have the ideas for a few 100x sellers simmering in my head, been pondering the angles, lighting, dof, setting, props, etc... for a while, eventually I'll get around to shooting them, a far cry from some of the crap I found when out and about and thought "this may make a good stock photo," took a technically perfect photo, and hoped it passed inspection.
141
« on: February 28, 2008, 12:24 »
Half the time it seems like they don't review images, they just have some dice and have a key for what each # means, first roll, what gets in, second roll, rejection reason.
142
« on: February 28, 2008, 11:05 »
Thanks, yeah I found it. A little surprised on 1 of the rejections (noise?, I pretty much consider it the most noise free image that I have anywhere in my portfolio, oh well), but I can see their reasons on the other two, not that I think that they are defects, but higher key and the use of shadow as a creative element are frowned apon now I can see.
Holy cow though, there is action on SS. Though I only have 7 in my gallery, I already have 4 DL's today, my first day (the day is still young too), as opposed to 3 total on DT since the start of the month on a port that has grown from 0 to 32 (tons of views though, nobody seems to buy anything), and 5 total on FT on a port that has grown from 0 to 22. Wow.
My pitiful little gallery is posed to take over a DT gallery (100% file overlap too) that is nearly 5x as big and been growing over the course of a month, in earnings, in a matter of a few hours, it has already eclipsed it in DL's.
Though for some reason I think that my portfolio on DT performs especially poor (averaging about $0.10/image per month right now, as opposed to a FT average of of about $0.60/image per month, with close to 100% overlap (DT has taken everything that FT has but 1, but not vice versa)). Weird thing is that I have yet to sell a file on DT that has been accepted at FT, every photo with a DT sale was rejected at FT.
143
« on: February 28, 2008, 09:32 »
Most ppl have trouble with SS, surprisingly I have much more problems with DT. My average acceptance at SS is about 70%, last 50 pics got only 2 rejections. Weird, FT is by far my toughest critic, 40% there vs. 75% at DT, though my sample size at SS (7 of 10) and IS (0, though passed the test) is too small to draw any meaningful conclusions. I think your are focusing on a wrong point with your question. Instead of thinking on how to get more pictures at SS, it would be more useful and efficient to work on "how can I produce better photos". Just MHO.
Never got single image refused for noise or artifacts. Most refusals are "poor light/wrong WB" or "focus". In most cases it seems to be just excuse for "we dont like this". Poor light usually occurs with more creative images and out of focus mostly happens with shallow dof images. I must admit that about 30-40% rejections were correct reasons - the rest was obviously nonsense.
So better avoid any specific or creative light conditions or shallow dof, they seems to go beyond "SS reviewer guidelines" and become rejected.
These two quotes tend to run directly counter to each other, especially if one considers themselves a "photographer" and not a "microstock photographer", as the use of creative lighting and selective focus/DOF effects are primary elements of good photography in general. I don't really consider taking every picture at an aperture of f/36 just so I have maximum DOF to be good photography, I consider it sterile photography, though it still has applications in normal photography. I suppose that I will always struggle with pictures that I consider to be good as I will always consider myself to be a photographer first and thus will treat my shutter with this kind of respect, taking a few sterile ones will always be an afterthought.
144
« on: February 27, 2008, 23:28 »
I think that generally refers to the companies like Getty and Corbis that are Macro Stock Agencies, as opposed to the micro agencies, which a almost a whole different universe. On the subject of lenses, Macro isn't really an option for a lens, it refers to the closest focusing distance and thus maximum magnification the is capable of achieving. Macro used to mean 1:1 magnification (magnifies to the size of 35mm film, huge once printed or on digital), but this has been completely diluted and it is a term that really has very little meaning other than focusing close up on small things or small parts of big things (3rd party companies tend to use the term for any lens that can focus halfway decently close, the main manufacturers (Canon, Nikon) tend to only use it for a 1:1 lens). That said, having a very close focusing range is a very useful thing for microstock photography, even if not true macro. I had been looking intently at a Sigma 17-70 f/2.8 lens that recently came out that has been very highly regarded, which, though not a true macro, has well above average close focusing range, though I opted to save up the pennies and go for Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 IS, steep on the wallet ($1000), but there is no better lens to put on a crop body IMO. Keep in mind with lenses, versatility isn't always a good thing, a specialized lens is almost always better than a versatile lens, and thus will last longer (and a good specialized lens is usually cheaper than a comparable quality versatile lens). I have no kit lens or standard zoom, instead getting a tele and Canon's 50mm prime when I first got my camera (over a year ago, more than 12,000 pictures ago), and haven't upgraded yet. I feel the crunch a little and shortly will be getting an ultrawide (10-22), and eventually a Macro, before getting a standard zoom and faster prime. Finding the money to actually expand my lens collection to what I really want is why I initially got interested in microstock in the first place. You would be truly amazed at how versatile Canon's 50mm prime is (I also want to upgrade to the f/1.4 from the f/1.  however. Your legs can usually do the zooming, but it can go places (dimly lit) that no other lenses can go. Plus the cheepie is $80, the nice one is $300. There is a big school of thought for learning photography to start with a fast prime, because it forces you to take off the auto training wheels earlier (fast apertures like 1.4 or 1.8 have huge DOF effects, thus you tend to see the effects earlier and gain an understanding of it, coming from a non-SLR, it is very hard to grasp DOF like an SLR has, picking up a camera in auto with a fast prime on and pointing it at a group of people and taking a picture generally has very poor results because of the DOF, much of it will be blurred, you learn quick to always look at your aperture and think about the effect that it has on the DOF). Having to use your legs more forces you to think more about your framing than relying on just zooming, another thing that improves your photography faster than it would otherwise, you get in the habit of thinking about the composition of the shot before taking it, because you have to.
145
« on: February 27, 2008, 21:29 »
Actually I didn't use the transform at all, I kept trying different things and nothing was working quite right, until I realized I wanted more sky. I increased the canvas size at the top and painted it in, first getting a good gradient by using the colors at the top (the vignette in the upper right is very noticeable when trying to paint in a sky) by rough painting, giving it a good blur, then fine painting with a lighter sky tone at 3% opacity going over it lightly to get a nice smooth transition between tones. The sky probably couldn't pass inspection at a tougher site right now, I kinda quickly did it, but with a bit more meticulous work, good results can be achieved. I also used a light, wide radius contrast mask (45% opacity, 110 blur radius) to even out some of the harsh shadows and improve the lighting a touch. A contrast mask is a duplicate layer, desaturated, inverted, blurred, and overlay blended (not sure how much of that Gimp can do, but I know PS elements can).
146
« on: February 27, 2008, 19:20 »
 Here you go, added a bit of sky to the top, and rotated it a little more. Notice how the eye is immediately drawn to the spray, then follows the spray down to take in the rest of the scene. The person on the right is very secondary, I wish that they were slightly to the left of directly under the umbrella, they would interact with the spray much more.
147
« on: February 27, 2008, 16:59 »
I will try to convince you again , try with 3-4 interesting textures , you cant go wrong there , noise is almost invisible , and on SS they don't reject photos for "we have too much of those " reasons.
Again , avoid skies , especially avoid processing images with sky , don't take unnecessary risk.
Good luck
I just got in a few hours ago. I used 4 white isolations, 1 true and 3 with light shadows, one of the ones with light shadows was rejected. I had 1 cityscape, approved http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo4/2261674159/in/set-72157602933123778/Much different processing, honestly the processing on this Flickr image looks like crap, overfiltered and oversaturated. This was part of my IS application as well, a rejection on the first try prompted the reprocessing. 1 texture, approved 1 shot of some really interesting gas meters (honestly) on a brick wall approved http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo4/2238384500/in/set-72157603843108654/Also part of my IS application 1 shot of ice being dropped into a glass of water, strobed in the dark on a dark surface approved http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo4/2262379956/in/set-72157602938076813/1 architectural shot denied (for shadows, though one of the main interesting points of the shots was the shadows) http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo4/2270316132/in/set-72157602934009472/1 shot of a landing airplane, denied for noise (has to be on the plane, the sky is actually a flat color (IE painted), once I blurred for noise I got banding, the sky was uniform enough though so I just painted the whole thing). http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo4/2275824639/Part of my IS application The IS application shots I listed were all approved. Not all my shots are on my Flickr account (sorry, I don't post isolations or textures, Flickr is for my actual artistic photo pursuits, not my stock pursuits, though there is a little overlap, almost all Flickr shots are a slightly different processing than my stock shots). If anybody has the time to look at my "abstract architecture" set. http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo4/sets/72157603438672995/I'd love to know if you think that some of them are stock worthy, or it is a stock worthy style, it is my favorite type of photography and IMO what I am best at.
148
« on: February 27, 2008, 15:48 »
I can see the corporate buying pattern over time of day very well on ShutterStock where you have many downloads per day. On the West Coast are the most voracious buyers, and in Europe (CET) just 10%.
Though my DLs everywhere are absolutely pitiful (I still have no photos showing at IS or SS, though I'm approved at both), almost every DL has been at the strangest times. I expect to get them while at work during the day (ET), but this is not the case, I have gotten most of mine late night (after 12pm, before 6am) or on the weekends, when I least expect to get them.
149
« on: February 27, 2008, 15:14 »
Heck it's approved, they think that it is good enough. 
150
« on: February 27, 2008, 15:05 »
I waited a little bit until I was real confident that I had 10 that could pass any inspection, and got in on the first try at SS (7 of 10). Is that unprecedented these days?
I got in at IS a few days ago on the 2nd try, 1 of 3 approved the first time, redid 1 and submitted a different one (only a few hours after the denial) and was approved in about 3 hours, I thought there was a waiting period? Though I have had no files actually approved yet for sale, still waiting on the checkers.
I wish StockXpert would have given me something more than a "we aren't interested in the kind of work you do", they didn't say if any of the files were any good, or reference the files at all (I completely forgot which ones I submitted unfortunately, so I can only submit new photos taken after my last try the next time, oh well).
My question: How long does it typically take for things to show up in your SS gallery, mine is still empty, aside from the 3 on the latest approved bar on the side, I have no way of knowing which 7 of the 10 actually were approved. I am away from my email (always on pop3 client at home, the webmail version of my account stays empty because of it), they probably sent me a message, I am assuming?.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
