|
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 - ruigsantos
101
« on: September 29, 2011, 18:54 »
Turns out I attached a PR release to those pictures, the tablatures and the wallpaper, and they got refused with the same "trademark" reason. Go figure! I send an email to support asking why but I'm still waiting for some kind of reply.
102
« on: September 29, 2011, 18:49 »
When you have a file refused, do you resubmit the same file again some time after that to see if you have more luck with the next reviewer? Do they know what files we submited before?
Just wondering...
103
« on: September 29, 2011, 18:43 »
I only wish I have my first EL EVER! 
104
« on: September 27, 2011, 10:30 »
Not me unfortunatly. 
105
« on: September 23, 2011, 06:54 »
I'm there for only a month and have only 10 images online because they are SLOOOOOOOW reviewing files. Still I made 3 sales and made $5.95. Not much but considering I only have 10 files up... The good thing is, I think, they pay more than average.
106
« on: September 15, 2011, 08:19 »
No. I've never even seen let alone used a grey card. Ever. I always leave WB to Auto and I shoot JPEG. It saves time and storage and works just fine for me.
I had no idea the Auto WB would work with (only) strobes... Thanks everyone for your replies!
107
« on: September 15, 2011, 05:58 »
Also I have about 20 images waiting for review for many days now which is also (almost) an abnormality. I understand more are experiencing this.
Same here. 50 images waiting for review for almost a week. Reviews are usually fast so I don't know what's taking them so much time.
108
« on: September 15, 2011, 05:56 »
Hi!
When I'm shooting indoors with studio strobes I shoot in raw and use a grey card to set the white balance later. Every time I change the power of the strobe or the distance from the strobe to the model, I take one shot with the model holding the card. My question is: is this necessary or I just need to take *one* image with the model and the grey card in the beginning of the shoot? The color temperature of the strobe is the same no matter it's power settings or distance to the subject or am I wrong here?
109
« on: September 14, 2011, 05:59 »
Or just do what a lot of us do, leave all our photos out of Crestock.
That really is a good point. I find myself wasting a lot of time uploading to several agencies that don't give me any money at all, rather than producing more content to the ones that sell my images.
110
« on: September 14, 2011, 03:42 »
Not for me unfortunately.
111
« on: September 14, 2011, 03:40 »
it is just a pic, other agencies want it to, canstock per example, nobody will see it, just to help you out assigning pics to MRs
They say it will be visible to the public. If it's only to help us out, why is it mandatory? I get your point Luis but it doesn't work for me. For now, I will leave my photos that need MR out of this agency.
112
« on: September 13, 2011, 16:39 »
I don't think it's only the name...
"Upload a nice, representative picture showing only the model's face.
This picture will be visible to the public. Minimum size 270 pixels."
I don't get it. My models are ok to have photos online where their face isn't recognizable so they are NOT ok with me puting up a "nice, representative picture" of themselfs. Why does the site need this??
113
« on: September 08, 2011, 06:34 »
Thanks for the tip. 
114
« on: September 08, 2011, 05:51 »
The only useful info I can glean from my own experience is that typically European images seem to do a lot better there.
Thanks. What do you mean by "typically European images"? Landscapes? Popular landmarks?
115
« on: September 08, 2011, 05:28 »
I'm trying to figure out what sells on FT with no luck. I'm new to this game, my sales and climbing in SS and DT but I can't sell anything in FT with the same portfolio. What do you think works best there?
116
« on: September 08, 2011, 03:50 »
Maybe you need to make a release that says, "I created this, it's my own, I didn't use someone else's designs..." Since I do photos and nothing like this, here's hoping someone who does has the right answer. Stumped!
I can't understand it either. I'm thinking about making a release saying something like you said but then again if it is like that, shouldn't I do one for each photo I submit? They are refusing this image also for the same reason:  With all the songs in the world, how many have those four notes in that sequence? Can the song be identified? Can't I write a song with those notes?? I don't get it really. The funny thing is that if you search for "hendrix tablature" you can find what are obviously tablatures of known Jimmy Hendrix songs so how are those songs there? Editorial? I can't even submit my image as editorial!
117
« on: September 07, 2011, 17:15 »
Who's going to sign the release? If they are infringing it's not because you created them yourself and there are no issues? In other words, they would still be infringing.
Link to a sample so people can see and maybe give a better answer? You can't release someone else's copyrighted designs, logos or work.
Myself, I guess, since I made it. Even the logo in the pattern was made by me. I'm just not sure what to write in the release... Here's the image I'm talking about:  The others are color variations of this one.
118
« on: September 07, 2011, 12:34 »
I submitted some wallpapers I did on photoshop and they were rejected for possible copyright infringement. I contacted support and they toldme I had to provide a property release for them. How do you do it? Should I make a generic release and attach it to each image?
119
« on: September 02, 2011, 11:59 »
FT has been quite dead for me. I'm new in the game and my sales are increasing at SS and DT but FT is as dead as the Dead Sea.
120
« on: August 30, 2011, 06:07 »
I know this topic is a bit old but I'll answer it anyways since I had that doubt in my mind recently. Go for the Nikkor 17-55 like I did. It's a suberb lens. It has its flaws but it's the best you can find in that zoom range. Some say it's only a little better than the Sigma 17-50 2.8 and that it's so much more expensive that it's not a right choice to make but I didn't care. I didn't want to buy a sigma and then look at the images and wonder how much more sharp they would be with the nikkor.
Be aware that it's a DX lens and that its a professional grade lens, built with photojournalism in mind, meaning it's big, heavy and tack sharp in the f2.8 - f8 range and less sharp from that aperture on.
About the price, I bought mine used for about half the price you mentioned. Since it's a DX Pro lens, many photogs go for full frame and end up selling it.
The nikkor 24-70 is a great piece of glass also but on DX it's not with enough for full body shots, unless you have a lot of space.
Before the nikkor 17-55 I used a nikkor 18-70 but I wasn't happy with it at all. Maybe I had a bad copy or maybe mine was really beat up but I was giving me really soft images even at f8.
121
« on: August 29, 2011, 16:24 »
Great! That did the trick. Thanks!
122
« on: August 29, 2011, 16:12 »
Is there a way to make Picniche show a popup again? Sometimes I see a popup I would like to click, usually a forum or blog post, but I'm not fast enought to get it...
123
« on: August 27, 2011, 18:20 »
Kindly email your UID and image code to [email protected] so that we can check it for you.
I did that but still no answer...
124
« on: August 25, 2011, 19:34 »
the photos are ok ,but I see you have only 107 uploads,try uploading much much more if you want to make any money from microstock
good luck
Thanks. I'm building up my portfolio as fast as I can. 
125
« on: August 25, 2011, 14:40 »
Picniche
Great tip! Thanks!
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
