|
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 - TonyD
26
« on: May 31, 2023, 14:28 »
I just added one new Dropbox link to see if it works
https://www.dropbox.com/s/30pipmd5luxldef/DSC04742.jpg?dl=0
I can see this - thanks for sorting out the problem.
I suspect that the "Quality Issues" translates to "we don't want this subject matter" rather than technical flaws, but I thought I'd point out something in the details of the shot I noticed that don't look great. It may be that this is just how the camera is - it looks like it's a Sony NEX-5N from the metadata - but could be how you're processing it.
This was pixel peeping, and probably doesn't mean much for most real-world uses of this image, but I saw some "wormy" looking artifacts in some of the tree trunks and leaves that reminded me of what my Fuji RAW files look like when Lightroom processes them (I use Capture One to avoid that). To make it easier to see what I'm referring to, I've put an example together. Click on the thumbnail to view the example at full size.
Sometimes these "wormy" artifacts are made more noticeable by sharpening in Lightroom/ACR. You can turn off sharpening in RAW processing and use Photoshop's high pass sharpening instead which is much cleaner. If you're shooting JPEG, perhaps turn off/down the sharpening in camera?
FWIW, I wish Adobe had a different rejection for images they don't want because of subject matter - when they say "quality" it suggests if you'd just done it "better" it would be accepted. Then save the quality rejection for technical flaws.
Hope this is helpful.
Yes, it's Sony NEX 5n. The trees didn't look clear enough so I probably sharpened the RAW photo too much. I also saw some telegraph lines in this photo that looked like chains when viewed at about 125% after conversion to JPEG in GIMP - an alternative to Photoshop. This crop should show here:
28
« on: May 30, 2023, 13:06 »
I shared photos before on here but that was with Photobucket & they deactivated my account.
29
« on: May 29, 2023, 23:58 »
Why does Adobe reject for quality issues when there's nothing wrong with the submitted photos even viewed at 100 percent?
They just rejected all my photos yet again (a total of 7) for quality but there is nothing wrong. What's going on adobe?
I'm only mildly psychic and can't see your rejected images, so anything I'd say is a total guess. Could you post some examples for people here to see and try to help you figure out why they are being rejected?
I just added one new Dropbox link to see if it works https://www.dropbox.com/s/30pipmd5luxldef/DSC04742.jpg?dl=0
30
« on: May 28, 2023, 08:16 »
adobe either seems to turn down all my images in a batch OR accepts most of them at other times.
I can NEVER see what's wrong when they reject for quality issues even though I looked at 100% with my PC monitor set at the standard 1024 x 768 display setting. Maybe the reviews are looking at an HD monitor. I'd have to plug in my TV to the PC to get HD.
31
« on: May 28, 2023, 08:06 »
Why does Adobe reject for quality issues when there's nothing wrong with the submitted photos even viewed at 100 percent?
They just rejected all my photos yet again (a total of 7) for quality but there is nothing wrong. What's going on adobe?
32
« on: May 24, 2023, 08:34 »
They are probably paid the same as contributors ie not a lot so they wouldn't be able to afford to live in a Western country. Maybe they work remotely in the Philippines Thailand etc.
33
« on: May 24, 2023, 08:27 »
Shutterstock is now accepting virtually all of my photos. (even older ones that they rejected several times before and I gave up on) There are not even those stupid noise & focus rejections anymore. Maybe their A.I. has improved a lot or they were losing sales due to too many incorrect rejections.
34
« on: May 19, 2023, 05:45 »
My largest one-off sale on Alamy was $113 net
Is net what Alamy paid you?
35
« on: April 12, 2023, 01:15 »
I wonder what size the DPReview website would be? Probably huge, but if I could get an offline version, it would be great.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe40pxcjPpM
DPReview closure: an update Published Apr 7, 2023 | Scott Everett Share Dear readers, Weve received a lot of questions about what's next for the site. We hear your concerns about losing the content that has been carefully curated over the years, and want to assure you that the content will remain available as an archive. Weve also heard that you need more time to access the site, so were going to keep publishing some more stories while we work on archiving. Thank you to this community and the support youve shown us over the years. Scott Everett General Manager - DPReview.com
36
« on: April 12, 2023, 01:13 »
mistake
37
« on: March 18, 2023, 01:33 »
It only took me a couple minutes to figure out which zoo it was, so I'm sure the Manila Zoo would easily recognize the mural behind the elephant. (also your description on Dreamstime really gives it away).
Mural? it's a good camouflage because I thought they were real leaves, and pretty unusual for a zoo so people will recognize it even if SS (or their A.I.) didn't. It even sold on there but I think I should take it off or resubmit as editorial (there are other photos on there of manila zoo). I've now deleted the name & place in the photo on DT. The non-compliant photo below may need to be editorial so should have been marked as intellectual property which I don't qualify for on adobe. It's an entrance to a public space in the city. https://www.dreamstime.com/plate-glass-windowed-building-purpose-unknown-gold-white-monument-foreground-entrance-to-striking-modern-building-image196771116
38
« on: March 17, 2023, 08:42 »
Update: adobe just accepted the original image at the seaside with people together with a similar photo shot away from the sun. But I also had a NON-COMPLIANT IMAGE rejection which I've never had before and don't know what it means. I also got an intellectual property rejection. It's an elephant in a zoo but no one would know which zoo unless it's in the title and it actually sold on ss: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/elephant-wearing-plant-hat-under-palm-1812668992I cannot ask on the adobe forum because they blocked me don't know why. I asked support but they didn't know.
39
« on: March 15, 2023, 03:13 »
40
« on: March 15, 2023, 02:33 »
recent submissions have been either 100% accepted or 100% rejected! very strange (# submitted varies between 5 and 30)
I've had exactly the same problem but adobe has paid much better than SS so far this year: adobe = DOWNLOADS 12 EARNINGS $8.21 Lifetime downloads 39 SS = DOWNLOADS 25 EARNINGS $8.84 Lifetime downloads 322 Update: I have $3.95 for the last 5 DLs so far this month on SS (much better) I asked adobe in the past and they said some photos were rejected because of too many similar subjects in my port & if I deleted some unsold I could re-submit, which I did & they got accepted. https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/209228662/Tony
41
« on: March 14, 2023, 13:34 »
I've found some other photos that I took similar to this but shot away from the sun (so the sky is bluer) and people are further away. Below the attachment is the cloned-out people file at 100%. Maybe the pier isn't that straight but it could be a heat haze. I think I'll go back to the original RAW file & leave the people in.
42
« on: March 14, 2023, 09:51 »
Many of you do pixel peeping and says the image is OK. Because that is wat you were used to at Shutterstock. Maybe the reviewer though: "No way this image will ever sell" or "We have a zillion better images on that topic already".
I hate pixel-peeping but that's what these stock sites have forced us to do. I don't know how adobe review but people on their forum say you can examine photos at 200% if that's not pixel peeping I don't know what is
43
« on: March 14, 2023, 09:47 »
44
« on: March 14, 2023, 09:30 »
Many of you do pixel peeping and says the image is OK. Because that is wat you were used to at Shutterstock. Maybe the reviewer though: "No way this image will ever sell" or "We have a zillion better images on that topic already".
But this photo was taken in Skegness UK & there was nothing like it on adobe and was rejected on a quality issue. The reviewers are also a bad judge of what sells because I directly complained about another rejected photo which they then accepted and guess what, the photo sold soon afterward. This link goes to the DT version of the photo which sold on there https://www.dreamstime.com/english-seaside-beach-scene-sunny-summers-day-concrete-sea-defence-along-leading-to-pier-people-distance-skegness-image254457609. Oviously I had to clone out some people out of the adobe version
45
« on: March 14, 2023, 07:39 »
Probably the best thing to do is downsize your photos so they look better at 100%, then re-submit, that works for me on SS. and i think I did that for adobe too and they were accepted.
46
« on: March 14, 2023, 07:21 »
All photo's of my last batch where rejected for quality issues
I dont understand is, the are sharp, the lightning is good
Frustrating!
Yes, they are getting to be time wasters like SS.
47
« on: March 14, 2023, 06:22 »
Why does adobe reject for quality issues when there's nothing wrong with the submitted photos even viewed at 100 percent? I spend time cloning out people in the picture and I think I've done a really good job. I'm actually a former designer trained in the 80s so I am mainly self-taught at editing. Is there anyone from adobe on here? The photo rejected is too big to attach here.
I had a 12 rejected last time and about 6 accepted. I never had this rate of rejection before so you would think I must be getting worse at this but I know that I'm not. I have less than 500 photos on there due to the rejections but they seem to be selling well for such a small number, especially this year
48
« on: March 08, 2023, 04:15 »
-musk-doesnt-learn-posts-uncredited-artwork-delet-1835562881 He is even against "crediting" artists (like it matters anyway), let alone paying them....  [/quote] I really wish someone would bring this Musk down a few pegs and needs to be sued bigtime. He may be bright0 (in his own strange way) but trying to prevent artists from earning money is totally reprehensible. Many artists (including myself) are struggling to pay bills while geeks like him don't even have to think about it.
49
« on: March 04, 2023, 15:58 »
$15.47 for a DL last year on SS. This is by far the highest amount I got from any agency (including Alamy) for a single photo since I started just over 3 years ago
50
« on: March 04, 2023, 15:28 »
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
