|
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
26
« on: November 18, 2013, 11:40 »
Stills doesn't work here. Let's me log in via https but then show the chain again.
27
« on: November 13, 2013, 05:15 »
...I deleted them. Is this a bad thing,to delete them without any approval from shutterstock?
They probably don't delete them. They just take them offline. Don't worry too much. Everything will end up ok.
28
« on: June 25, 2013, 04:28 »
Ignore it and carry on shooting and producing new images. I was like you when I started. Everytime I got a rejection from SS, I put much thought into it instead of ignoring it and carrying on with my work.
29
« on: June 06, 2013, 05:25 »
Thanks for sharing Leaf. Inspiring!
30
« on: May 06, 2013, 08:18 »
95 very simple pictures done in 2 hours (shooting) with zero editing (model on white)
95 images in 2 hours? That's almost 1 image per minute! wow! I want to be like you! I'm far from that and I have to do a lot of post afterwards.
31
« on: May 02, 2013, 11:07 »
Yes, I looked thru a few sites with my proposed scenario but white background is most feasible now due to location cost.
You can shoot in a white background and then add backgrounds later in PS. You should start building a background library to do that. And regarding the idea about paying models based on sales, in the long run you'll spend more time tracking down sales then shooting new images.
32
« on: April 22, 2013, 10:05 »
If the pictures are good, then why not put them online? If I were you I would tag them the best I could even if they are generic. If you have someone at the beach looking at the see and just tag according to that, then you won't reach someone who's looking for a picture of the Maldives or whatever place you took that image in. I have some travel pictures online and even though most of them are far from being unique, they sell from time to time. I even have a pretty standard tourist image of the Empire State Building in NY, that earned me a decent amount of money and there are TONS of images like mine online (and most of them are better). The only certain think is that those images will not make you any money if they are just sitting on your hard-drive.
33
« on: April 02, 2013, 05:18 »
I never even close Filezilla. I open each agency in its own tab and when I want to upload, I drag the files to each tab and Filezilla queues them all up while it uploads two at a time. I never tried any other software but I'll probably give it a try to stockuploader.
34
« on: March 21, 2013, 05:43 »
Just red your eBook. It's easy to read and there are some ideas there that can be useful for someone starting out in the microstock industry. There are some typos and not so good phrasing here and there that can be easily fixed but what I think can really be improved is the design of the eBook itself. You have a great portfolio. Why don't you use some of your images to give some examples of what you are trying to say and to make the ebook more appealing?
35
« on: March 20, 2013, 05:54 »
Amazing portfolio!! I'm waiting for the confirmation email and I'm going to read the book later today.
36
« on: March 12, 2013, 09:53 »
I recommend the DELL Ultrasharp. I a 22" have one and I think it's very good, specially given its price range. In my opinion, you should only consider IPS matrix monitors if you plan to use it for image editing.
37
« on: February 21, 2013, 09:19 »
I uploaded 20 files yesterday, still haven't shown up yet. I can see them sitting in my ftp account at SS, but they just don't seem to be getting processed. Frustrating.
Same here. I had to delete them from my ftp area and upload them again via browser.
38
« on: January 21, 2013, 11:08 »
The other day I had a focus rejection that made me roll my eyes. It was a photo of a model holding something in her hand (I think it was a test tube or something like that), in front of her eyes, focus tack sharp on the object and low depth of field so the eyes and face where out of focus. That was enough for a "Focus is not where it feels right" rejection. I guess the reviewer thought the eyes where more important that the object that was the centre of the image itself. I resubmitted the photo and added the comment "Rejected for focus issues but the object is tack sharp so I don't know why it was rejected". A couple of day later, it was approved. Go figure.
39
« on: November 28, 2012, 10:04 »
Sounds like I'll never see that app on my phone.
40
« on: November 28, 2012, 09:27 »
How can someone located in countries other than
"Download restrictions: Amazon Appstore is available to customers located in the United States, France, Italy, Germany, Spain and United Kingdom "
get it?
41
« on: November 13, 2012, 11:05 »
Got the money just now.
42
« on: November 09, 2012, 05:22 »
Still waiting for this months payment on Paypal...
44
« on: September 20, 2012, 10:00 »
@riugsantos: are you not or were you not an admin at DT?
Has that changed?
I never was an admin anywhere, Warren. Actually I only have one year and a half of microstock photography.
45
« on: September 20, 2012, 09:57 »
Is it really that hard to write:
"model wearing casual sports clothing shot in studio on white background and outside on sports track"? Or whatever.
Sean, that's pretty easy and that was what I did. But I guess the reviewer thought it was too easy and gave me a "Please provide a Real and Specific \"Shot DESCRIPTION\" rejection. And I get it. Something in the whereabouts of what you (and I) wrote is pretty far from being specific.
46
« on: September 20, 2012, 09:36 »
Take it further: Why not submit one release for each single photo (to protect buyer, photographer and model) because it could be that the model may be offended posing with a banana as opposed to posing with an apple.
But that's pretty much what IS is requiring me to do on the last batch of rejections I got. In the shoot description I listed the sets of clothes used in that shoot and now they say I have to be more specific. Either I'm not getting something or I got a really sour reviewer.
47
« on: September 20, 2012, 08:14 »
Well, what did you write?
"female model in business/casual clothing on white/red backgrounds, holding various props (phone, briefcase, etc)".
The "extra value" is for your and the buyer's protection.
Well, yes. More or less that. I really can't be much more specific than that without making the model sign several model releases during the shoot... I'm about to quite on IS since it takes me a LOT more time to get files online than on the other agencies. 
48
« on: September 20, 2012, 05:18 »
Thanks for the tip Sue.
49
« on: September 20, 2012, 05:00 »
To teach us to keyword properly. After a few annoying keyword rejections, we should learn to do it right first time.
I don't really think it's a question of us knowing or not knowing how to keyword. It's rather a IS personal taste, I guess. I submit the same images to all agencies with the same keywords and they are accepted. Some of the images that were rejected in IS because of keywords are selling well on Shutterstock and clients are searching for that same keyword. Go figure!
50
« on: September 20, 2012, 03:45 »
I guess they just don't like me. After following Sean advice, I got this rejection:
Please provide a Real and Specific \"Shot DESCRIPTION\"
My shoot are long and shoot the model in several different clothes and props. I can't provide a model release with a specific shot description for each image I make. Again, I don't understand what extra value this adds to IS.
Oh and I don't get either the rejections where they don't like some of the keywords. Why don't IS just remove those keywords they don't like and accept the image?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
