|
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
76
« on: November 27, 2011, 13:21 »
I am looking at the Dell IPS screens, specifical;ly the U2711 27" IPS model that I have found for 400.
I have the 23" version and I like it a lot.
77
« on: November 17, 2011, 16:57 »
It turns out your tips paid off. Thanks. 
78
« on: November 16, 2011, 09:07 »
I thought that too, at first glance. But now I think it's a band that looks like a filter, and the (white) filter extends beyond the band. It's the only way it makes sense to me.
You are right. The cigarette is all white and it has that thin band that looks like a filter. Now that it was mentioned, it looks a bit confusing since most cigarettes are not like that but I don't smoke and those were the only cigarettes I had available. But don't stress too much about that photo. This thread was not about that particular image but more on the cause of that rejection category. That image was made on the spur of the moment and I was trying to understand if there was a problem with the way I was lighting stuff. What I got from this thread: - Be careful with color casts - Uninteresting images can get that kind of rejection
79
« on: November 16, 2011, 08:54 »
I think the OP might go far. He's not so stupid he thinks he knows it all, the way most beginners do.
Thanks for that! I definitely don't think I know it all and I'm here, open minded, to learn from others. That's what this thread is all about. But I wish to thank the OP for a very interesting question: we are too often discussing about agencies, percentages, money... thank you for bring back focus on photography.
You are welcome! 
80
« on: November 16, 2011, 06:02 »
Lighting. Makes photos look professional. Don't try to confuse me with the facts.
And that's a tough subject to learn, right? Anyone can put a softbox in one side and a reflector in the other or whatever but to make it like the pros do isn't easy. It involves the ability to pre visualize the image we want to produce and being able to use strobes to produce the effect we want. Light one side, light the other, light the background...
81
« on: November 15, 2011, 20:41 »
Great advices from everyone, thanks. Bottom line is I should stop trying to figure what a did wrong regarding lighting and concentrate more in producing better composed images.
82
« on: November 15, 2011, 11:24 »
Shutterstock doesn't officially allow resubmission, but I think it's actually ok if you add an explanatory note. Is that right?
I think you can if you have a reason. If you correct something the inspector mentioned, I think it's ok to correct, resubmited and mention that on the explanatory note. On the past I complained to SS support about some silly rejections and they told me to resubmit the image and write in the explanatory note "Contact support regarding issue number ##" or something like that, so I guess it's ok. What is not ok is to resubmit the same image that was rejected without any correction just to try out luck with a new inspector.
83
« on: November 15, 2011, 10:18 »
I'll try it and see if it works. It's not a great image but the WB rejection could really be due to the blue color cast, I guess.
84
« on: November 15, 2011, 09:02 »
Often it is simply the angle the image is taken from and the lens used to create a visual 'effect' that you wouldn't see with your own eyes. That's what makes the image visually interesting.
Nicely put!
85
« on: November 15, 2011, 08:59 »
- Color processing that made them stand apart (low saturation/high color contrast)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but good photos have good color. Especially when the color is critical, for example food photography.
When I browse fashion magazines and photography magazines in general, I see a lot of low saturation images (when you decrease saturation and increase vibrance) so I guess that's kind of a trend nowadays. By "high color contrast" I mean when you use strong colors that are opposite from each other in the color wheel. I don't think the photos in your link are special in any way. Good solid stock work, but nothing extremely special.
I know and that's what I meant to show. The images are of everyday stuff, with little or no set up and still they look very professional.
86
« on: November 15, 2011, 06:00 »
I've been thinking about this lately. Images from some photographers look very professional, no matter what the subject is and images from other photographers, like myself, look just ok, again no matter what the subject is. I've been reading this blog http://dailystockshot.blogspot.com/ and, to me, most of this images look great! So what is it? What make one look at an image and immediately think it was taken by a top pro photographer? Is it - perfect composition - attention to detail - low depth of field - Color processing that made them stand apart (low saturation/high color contrast) - ... what else? I know that all of those factors matter a lot but if you chose one, what would it be?
87
« on: November 15, 2011, 05:28 »
Your image has a slight blue cast. You might try completely desaturating everything that should be white or gray.
Nice tip. Thanks. I didn't noticed that. I really need to start color calibrating my monitor again. My calibrator stoped working when I installed Windows 7...
88
« on: November 14, 2011, 19:57 »
Thanks for the input. I'm familiar with isolation but I was trying to get away from that since I thought it could be boring if I over did it. I was looking at portfolios from other stock photographers I there are a lot of photos that are not isolated and that I liked. I mean the cigarettes are not floating on mid air, their are on top of a white table.  I guess it doesn't work that way, at least with SS.
89
« on: November 14, 2011, 19:03 »
Most of my rejections in SS are due to "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.". Most of the times I don't understand them since the histogram looks good and I use a grey card for WB. I'm lighting with a 100x80cm softbox, 45 left of the subject and a reflector right so fill shadows. So could you help me understand this problem and correct it? Here's an exemple of a rejection:  Thanks
90
« on: November 10, 2011, 09:56 »
DT better then usual, SS as usual (which is nice), all the rest as usual (which is bad!). I have no xmas images on SS. I made some illustrations that were approved everywhere but on SS. They said they are too simplistic. 
91
« on: October 24, 2011, 19:06 »
2 this month, for the very first time since a year 
Congratulations! I sold another one today so we are even.
92
« on: October 20, 2011, 16:03 »
It sure feels great Suemack. When I saw the popup from picNiche, I thought it was a bug! Lus, thanks and congratulations for your most recent milestone! I read it on your blog this morning on my way to work.
93
« on: October 20, 2011, 12:01 »
Just sold my first EL in SS after a couple of months there. I wonder where it will be used. 
94
« on: October 09, 2011, 17:13 »
Doesn't work with FF 7.0.1 ...
95
« on: October 05, 2011, 19:37 »
If you meant do they know when people resubmit, it appears that's a yes. IS does also. Seems I made an error and sent in a shot, (to IS) that I thought had be removed for "new rules" Copyright issues, visible logo... the second time with the logo removed. Got a reply from Scout that I should not re-submit refused images that are marked "No Resubmit"
If they do have that software, I'm not sure how good it is. I just notice I have in my port the same image twice. It has different sizes and one is editorial and the other's not. I don't know how that happened and don't know I they didn't noticed it either.
96
« on: October 01, 2011, 16:26 »
The frustrating part is the time and money spent on shoots, then they reject for LCV or some other reason. You have essentially have wasted your time (when said images never find their way onto a site) and money (prop expenses, model expenses, beer).
Those are the ones that bother me the most. Having an image selling alright on another agency and then having it rejected on SS for LCV.
97
« on: October 01, 2011, 08:09 »
98
« on: September 30, 2011, 18:29 »
when I started I got the exact feeling, agencies not keeping up with SS but hey they go up with time, nothing like SS but it is worth, you have a great start (gorgeous pictures) and you have also the gear to build a nice portfolio, wish you luck
Thanks Luis.
99
« on: September 30, 2011, 16:07 »
that will happen always if not IS, will be DT, will be FT, you will see
I know but right now I don't care much about FT or IS. I seldom sell anything there.
100
« on: September 30, 2011, 11:52 »
Thanks for the input! I'll start resubmiting then. I get frustrated when SS rejects files and then they became best sellers on other agencies since right now SS is the agency that sells my images the most.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
