|
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 - MikLav
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 28
376
« on: June 01, 2009, 03:01 »
Hard to believe anyone has actually sold anything on that site, let alone reach a payout limit.
When there are only few sales it's the best among us who grab most of them...
377
« on: May 28, 2009, 14:08 »
Just so you guys know, I posted about this on NiltoMil and Shutterstock almost immediately contacted me offering to answer any questions I can't find answers to (previous life I was in law)... so if you have questions, try to accumulate them here or post them to N2M and I'll submit them when I reply to them. Hopefully having a direct line to some answers will help everyone.
thanks - I posted my questions there 
378
« on: May 28, 2009, 05:24 »
EDIT: looks like Yuri Arcurs also signed this petition with threat of removing all his images (look at #97)---it's fake
that one looks fake EDIT: you updated is sooner than I commented
379
« on: May 25, 2009, 02:06 »
The name of the game on DT is image level, just like on SS it is image recency.
I am not sure what's exactly the role of image level in search. Some weeks I see most sales are from images with low level; other weeks majority is with high level images. Indeed that has to do not only with image level but also with buyer preferences, but it looks a bit strange when I browse "my earnings" pages
380
« on: May 24, 2009, 08:32 »
So this is how my stats look like at this moment. Since the search engine changes everything just died off.
Anybody else having the same kind of stats? Any ideas about how to improve?
my graph is very similar 
381
« on: May 23, 2009, 16:48 »
<...>Stocksites are like Ebay and do not own the goods only act as a merchant<...>
no, stocksites aren't like eBay: * eBay is the tool, but every purchase is a transaction between the seller (not eBay) and the buyer. Yes, eBay takes commission from the seller, but there is no sale contract between eBay and the buyer * stocksites do sell to the buyer, not the photographers. There is sale transaction between the buyer and stocksite, not between buyer and photographers. This makes it fundamentally different - as stocksites do sell something, they are responsible for what they sell.
382
« on: May 19, 2009, 11:21 »
How does Controlled Vocabulary work?
You are already on iStock, why do you ask?
383
« on: May 16, 2009, 09:01 »
My sales at 123rf were low and flat ($15-20) for the last 1.5 years despite growing portfolio; and in the last 2-3 months it's became even worse. Only once or twice I had an EL sale...
384
« on: May 15, 2009, 10:11 »
No names of people from the organisation, their experience or qualifications. No contact details. No street address. No thanks.
and no payment method details; and no contributor agreement anywhere (except during application); and copyright on the site is dated 2007. Doesn't look very professional.
385
« on: May 14, 2009, 15:58 »
Interesting site, what is funny is that the manufacturer made a wireless device that needs to have a power cord attached.
The manufacturer didn't had photo camera in mind They designed it for use with less portable devices such as printers or external hard drives... Anyway wireless USB is still a new technology and there are very few products on the market so far - I am sure it will develop further and the prices will drop, and fully portable solution will appear too
386
« on: May 14, 2009, 14:38 »
It's not just "corporate America" you need to do some research before you blow smoke.
<...>
This is true around the world, not just corporate America.
1. It originated from corporate America 2. It went far beyond reasonable limits and is now ridiculous 3. It has nothing to do with the subject of this thread
387
« on: May 14, 2009, 10:22 »
My tip: generate yourself the first view (you just have to log out and then display each 0 view image). I do it for a few months now and it seems to work quite well : my images get views quickly as soon as the first view has been triggered.
That's exactly what we are not allowed to do... mentioned by admins on forum.
Patrick H.
I tried it a few times with a few pics - not to abuse the system but just to see if it works - and I didn't see any difference. May be I should have tried with just freshly uploaded pics (I tried those having 0 views for already a while). I uploaded a batch this week after not uploading anything for several weeks - again 0 views, no change in sales pattern. So I'll probably delete this batch altogether.
388
« on: May 13, 2009, 10:15 »
Why would they use Nikon lenses on a Canon body?
this was discussed in another thread. In a nutshell because Canon doesn't allow aperture control in video; and autofocus is virtually not there - so any lens with manual aperture ring would do the work; and often Nikon is chosen.
389
« on: May 13, 2009, 09:28 »
390
« on: May 06, 2009, 16:18 »
Some time ago I felt that rejections by Fotolia were rare and random. However recently I've noticed increase of rejections and some regularity: - virtually all of my non-people shots are rejected (accepted by all other microstock; they are architectural photos; textures; street views, flowers, and landscapes);
- virtually all my studio people shots are accepted (except those where I play with side light, strong contract etc);
- outdoor people shots are partially accepted / partially rejected - kind of fifty-fifty. Those that are more "alive/candid" to my eye; and those that have "creative" kind of lighting (some strong shadows, high contrast) are rejected.
I wonder if others have similar observations (please do not complain about high rejections rate; the question is about regularity of rejections in order to understand what Fotolia wants from photographers).
391
« on: May 04, 2009, 12:12 »
Has becoming a microstocker indeed made you a better photographer?
Definitely yes. I can only second what Lisafx has said: Absolutely!
I am much better able to produce technically good images. If you can meet the microstock standards for noise and focus you are way ahead of what photojournalistic or event photography requires. Also, I have learned way more about lighting and working with models.
And of course there is the much better gear it has helped finance 
393
« on: April 28, 2009, 09:25 »
I have heard many times about problems with buying expensive software cheaper on ebay. I believe the only reliable way to buy a second-hand copy of photoshop is from somebody you know in person, or you can at least meet in person and verify.
BTW there doesn't seem to be a problem with second-hand computer games
394
« on: April 26, 2009, 16:27 »
At 300% every image with this subject will have this amount of purple fringing. Anyway, there is no agency that ask of us to submit images that look good at 300%
I guess you will find PP on this image as well, but it's already accepted at IS
I do see it at 100%, I only made it 300% for you to see it too It is not huge amount indeed, probably it's on the border line for inspectors - that's why it was accepted somewhere; and that's why some similar images were accepted too. I don't think it's a subject for a discussion though - the fact is that yes, it does exist there so you can't blame istock inspector being blind 
395
« on: April 26, 2009, 04:48 »
Actually Miklav, if you think about that part of dark clothes behind him, that's purple too. It's part of the parachute. It's where it was before opening That's why you can see purple edge around it. Pants are dark blue, almost black. I don't see there any purple fringing, only soft edge
But maybe the reviewer also thought it was fringing.
No, I am talking about the fringing around pants, along lower shoe, and on some other contrasty edges. click to see it at 300%
396
« on: April 23, 2009, 16:11 »
I checked it in 300%. Those are bit soft edges, probably due to motion blur because the parachutist moved his leg, but there is no trace of fringing. Maybe it's on some other place...
This is 100% Click on the image to see 100%
sorry to say but I see plenty of CA around black clothes and along the lower shoe. I clearly see it at 100% which means it's too much.
397
« on: April 22, 2009, 04:35 »
I started in fall of 2005 with istock, after reading a critical post on one of photography forums
398
« on: April 17, 2009, 03:27 »
no difference so far
399
« on: April 15, 2009, 08:09 »
How do you go back and edit 6 million photos for keywords, extended redundant series shots, or potential infringing content?
However istock is just doing that. How? Little by little...
400
« on: April 14, 2009, 13:53 »
Just tried Lookstat a little and the one feature that I would be really interested to see is tracking of groups of images. It was mentioned before - the idea is to track not individual images across sites but results of complete sessions.
Tracking individual images like it is possible in the current version is nice for some analytical work but I don't see it very useful in routine day to day work.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 28
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
