|
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 - peep
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10]
226
« on: April 01, 2008, 02:12 »
So really - absolutely NOTHING positive so far? Has anybody ever sold anything there?
227
« on: March 31, 2008, 10:09 »
Well, it is not exactly a new site then. I must have missed the above thread at that time. And the site has not been mentioned in the "New Sites" since. So I must conclude it is not worth. Thank you leaf.
228
« on: March 31, 2008, 09:44 »
Exactly what I am afraid of. Another SnapVillage? But on the other hand, they could profit from the similarity of their name to shutterstock. And they offer to sell by images instead of subscriptions. . . Some people may prefer it. But anyway - such people would not buy much, otherwise they would buy a subscription elsewhere.
229
« on: March 31, 2008, 09:22 »
Anybody has any experience with them? Are they worth trying?
230
« on: March 31, 2008, 09:20 »
Neither have I. And I do not know about the fact they could reverse their decision about accepted images later... What would happen if some of the "on the second thought" rejected images were added to a lightbox or worse - sold in the meantime?
231
« on: March 31, 2008, 06:20 »
So have I. No sales in 2k8 so far! I have about 500 pictures there. I am going to give them up as a bad job unless they manage to sell something by the end of April.
232
« on: March 31, 2008, 05:42 »
What is shutterfarm? I have never heart of them. Does anybody have any experience? Are they worth joining for people who are already with shutterstock?
233
« on: March 31, 2008, 05:22 »
Speaking of the rejections - what is "Custom"  I have loads of pictures rejected for this very reason and I do not even know what it means.
234
« on: March 26, 2008, 08:50 »
Exceptionally well said! If you dare so much as to criticize some Swedish idiot, you are given a lot of 1 s and then are blocked. Nothing sells there anyway. I gave them up long time ago.
235
« on: March 18, 2008, 02:45 »
In fact I have had pending images there for more than a week.
236
« on: March 17, 2008, 11:25 »
I have only very few rejections and I have a lot of "over white" pictures.  On the other hand - I have near to NO SALES there. >:(So I am going to give them up unless they start selling.
237
« on: March 17, 2008, 05:01 »
Well, I try to keep the prices balanced from about 5 to about 20 USD. Almost 50 USD seems to be too high anyway.  Congratulation on your sold image.
238
« on: March 16, 2008, 10:18 »
I think so. It is more than a month. And they review about two pictures a week from the batch of about seventy I uploaded a month ago. And in addition I have just found out they use a very strange price system - some of my images have 49 USD for RF!!! I had to change it all. I wondered why nothing had been sold so far, checked my portfolio - and this was the reason! Why should anybody bother to buy for 49 USD when the same picture is possible to buy at SS or IS or anywhere else for a fragment of this price.
239
« on: March 13, 2008, 10:05 »
And how long does it usually take you to review the pictures? About two weeks? More? Less? I have a few waiting there for rather a long time...
240
« on: March 13, 2008, 10:03 »
And your Nr.1 seller is....?
241
« on: March 06, 2008, 18:05 »
Are you sure about it ? ?
242
« on: March 04, 2008, 08:27 »
There has been a brief dry spell. I didn't sell a single picture for the whole weekend (SS,IS,FT,DT,SX,123,BS,FL). Then yesterday the sales started slowly again. And it has looked almost normal today.
243
« on: March 04, 2008, 07:06 »
Really? I haven't noticed anything like that. But I DO hate their rejections like "type of photo"!
244
« on: March 04, 2008, 06:08 »
Do you really want to say you have more problems with Fotolia? They accept almost anything of mine. On the contrary Istock refuses about half of the pictures I send there and they are really choosy. And I only send them pictures accepted at DT and Crestock.
245
« on: March 04, 2008, 03:12 »
Thank you all very much. So in general - you all agreed downsampling (if any) should be done as the very last thing in PS - using bicubic interpolation (or b.sharper or smoother - whichever will look better and work better for me) and NOT in camera raw before editing.
Thank you very much and have a very nice day.
246
« on: March 03, 2008, 07:49 »
Well, I do not know about him this very moment, but I have just had a look at my camera raw and there is some default setting for sharpening 25 and colour noise reduction 25. Shall I just turn it down to zero? BTW. in the very rare case I do some sharpening myself, I always use only the Lab Colours and the L channel only. And then the "unsharp mask". But I like the trick with the blending new layer you spoke about. I am going to try it right now.
247
« on: March 03, 2008, 06:44 »
Thank you very much - I usually do it exactly the same way, but a colleague of mine insists on resampling the image in camera raw from 10 to 6 Mp. Then he sometimes does the downsampling AGAIN in PS, which I think is a nonsense. But he keeps telling me he gets much sharper images that way.
248
« on: March 03, 2008, 06:11 »
Hello everyone,
I just wonder - do you usually downsample large images (say 12Mp) before uploading them to e.g. Shutterstock?
If you do, then I would like to know whether it is better in your opinion to change the size of the image in camera RAW before opening the picture in PS, or after all changes made in PS using the Image Size - Resample - Bicubic?
Thank you for your help.
Have a very nice day.
249
« on: February 28, 2008, 10:44 »
BTW - I have just sold a picture of a Christmas Tree... :-)))))))))))
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
