MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Show Posts

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 - Tazzy

Pages: [1]
Shutterstock.com / Re: New Contributor TOS at Shutterstock
« on: July 01, 2015, 20:36 »
If you are not able to get rid of the pop up window when you click on "I UNDERSTAND", do the following.  Click on one of the links in the popup and look in the upper right hand corner where you see log out.  Log out and then log back in.  The pop up window will pop back up, but this time when you click on the "I UNDERSTAND" button, it will go away.

StockXpert.com / Re: Login - Problems?
« on: November 13, 2008, 18:47 »
I work 3rd and when I got home this morning, I couldn't stay logged in either.  So, I clicked on Support and sent an inquiry to them.  Later in the day, I was able to stay logged in.  Well later in the afternoon came the real shocker.  I actually got a call from StockXpert asking me if I was still having problems staying logged in.  Apparently they were having some kind of problem and when they felt they had the issue resolved, they called a few people that reported the problem to see if they were still having problems.  Now, that's what I call customer service!   :o

Shutterstock.com / Re: 2nd attempt and rejected again
« on: October 27, 2008, 17:12 »
Tazzy, this is the first time i 've heard of StockXpert imposing an SS month 's wait
for rejected images.
don't you mean SS?

Nope, it was StockXpert, here is the whole message.

Dear Tazzy1,

We regret to say that your artist application was rejected. We're very sorry but at the moment we are not looking for pictures like the ones you uploaded. You will be able to submit your work again in a months' time.

Thank you very much for your understanding.

Best regards,
The Stockxpert Crew

wow, i'm speechless. this is new to me.
maybe it's a change of management. luckily for me, i have been getting better approval percentage than before, and now gets approval within 2 hours.

my suggestion to you is to look at the most recent images to get an idea of what they "are looking for".  off my head, i would say, forget about nature, sunset, flowers,animals,etc.
if you can do product shots, this would be your best option.

good luck next month. i like StockXpert , they're very consistent, and always fast to help.
even when rejected, i am told why, and then resubmits with correction done,  are accepted just as quickly.
don't give up. StockXpert is good to have.

LOL  You must not have read my whole post.  That was from August of 2006.  I decided to try again a couple months ago and they have taken everything I've submitted, including the ones I had originally sent them 2 years ago.

Shutterstock.com / Re: 2nd attempt and rejected again
« on: October 27, 2008, 07:05 »
Tazzy, this is the first time i 've heard of StockXpert imposing an SS month 's wait
for rejected images.
don't you mean SS?

Nope, it was StockXpert, here is the whole message.

Dear Tazzy1,

We regret to say that your artist application was rejected. We're very sorry but at the moment we are not looking for pictures like the ones you uploaded. You will be able to submit your work again in a months' time.

Thank you very much for your understanding.

Best regards,
The Stockxpert Crew

Shutterstock.com / Re: 2nd attempt and rejected again
« on: October 26, 2008, 20:11 »
All I can say is don't give up and keep trying.  I was lucky and got in on my first try and they took all 10.  But, I have not been so lucky on other sites.  Take StockXpert for example.  I applied there at the same time and this is the reason I got for not accepting my application.

"We regret to say that your artist application was rejected. We're very sorry but at the moment we are not looking for pictures like the ones you uploaded. You will be able to submit your work again in a months' time."

Well, I decided it wasn't worth my effort to try again.  Well, over 2 years later, I decided to try again and not only did they accept the first 10, but they have accepted everything I've uploaded so far and I'm sure some of those were in the original 10, 2 years ago.  LOL  After you do get in, you might try downsizing the rejected ones and see if they will take them.

I have had more then my share of rejections lately from Fotolia as well.  And, probably 95% of the rejections I get from them are the Overabundant catagory.  Don't they think their customers deserve some fresh new work, or are they going to just lock in the old stuff.  I think they need to weed out some of the stuff that has been on there a couple years that hasn't sold and make room for new work.  Just my 2 cents worth.  I could understand if my photos were being rejected for a technical reason, but it just gripes me when they tell me they are tuning it down just because they already have enough of that subject. >:(

Shutterstock.com / Re: Sutterstock Super Fast reviews!!
« on: October 04, 2008, 06:43 »
Superfast alright. Superfast REJECTIONS. So far maintaining 95% rejection rate of late. Don't know what . is going on. Very frustrating.

I had noise rejections, focus rejections, or not focused where they thought it should be. Then I read on the forums that downsizing the images would make them more likely to be approved. Since then I started following that advise and pictures passed. No rejections for noise or focus anymore. They still reject crap and if I tried to get something through that I should have kept at home, they bounced it.  :D

Try downsizing to 2100 x 1600 Aprox, which is just over 4MP and maybe you'll get a surprise.

Of course if they are rejecting for lighting and the subject matter, then no one can help.

If you size to 2100 x 1600, that is 3,360,000 or 3.36MP which would not be big enough if the minimum requirement is 4MP  To get 4MP, you need to make the longest side 2500 which would make the other side around 1667, at least for my files.  That would give you 4,167,500 or 4.16MP

Yaymicro / Re: That does it. Closing account.
« on: September 19, 2008, 23:34 »
I don't think anyone has covered this reason to back off from any new sites until they show a reasonable success possibility.

Say you upload 100 images to New Site "A", and good selling sites B,C, and D. And over the next few months you had 10 downloads on A. Then they went belly-up. You hadn't reached payout on A. So you've gotten zero money for all that effort. The flip side is that if you did not have those images on A, some percent could likely have found your images on B,C, or D.

Well, if everyone had that attitude, then the new sites wouldn't even get off the ground because they wouldn't have any images to sell.  Am I right?  The more images they have to offer in the beginning, the more chances they will sell something and start to build a customer base.  If everyone just holds back to see what will happen, nothing will happen because nothing can happen if they have nothing to offer.  I still do not understand why some people are so impatient.  If you are expecting good sales from the very beginning, then you will be very disappointed.  I'm guessing it will take several more months before we will really see what Yay is capable of.

Yaymicro / Re: That does it. Closing account.
« on: September 18, 2008, 06:47 »
It just amazes me how impatient some people can be.  I'm sure it took some of the bigger names in stock photography time to get their site off the ground.  If you took the time to upload your work, why not just let them stay there for a year and see how things go?  That's what I plan on doing.

I did ask them to review it and told them that this was the original.  They took it that time.  I never even thought to take some pictures in color.  I just thought the scene would look good in sepia.  I used the in camera settings as I could never get sepia to look just right converting it in photoshop.  Funny thing is, all the sites (7) that I contribute to have taken it.  I recently joined Crestock and they rejected it for artifacts and compression flaws.  LOL  I didn't upload many to them as they were rejecting my photos right and left and these were ones that were selling well on my other sites.  I emailed them and told them this and then they took most of them.  But, I decided it just wasn't worth my time to have to email them every time I turned around.  I don't have that much spare time.

This is the only sepia photo I have in my portfolio and it has done fairly well.  I remember it was rejected by one site saying it would be better left to the person buying the image if they wanted it is sepia or not, to resubmit the original version.  Well, I took the photo with the sepia setting in the camera and it was the origianl version.  LOL  So, maybe you are better off submitting the original version if it was in color and let the person buying it decide whether or not they want to convert it into sepia.

General Stock Discussion / Re: I'm a Douche Bag
« on: June 25, 2008, 19:17 »
LOL  Well, you could always look on the bright side.....it could have been worse.  Your picture could have been used for an article on STD's, (Sexually transmitted deases) and the caption under your picture would say something like, this guy just might give his date more then just roses tonight.  LOL :D

Dreamstime.com / Re: DT keyword issue
« on: June 08, 2008, 18:54 »
your statement "I don't think it's that big of a deal to borrow keywords here and there..."
Implies to me that it's ok if you use other people's words due to you inability to come up with words on your own.

And you think it is morally ok? You use the word "borrow" I believe so as to avoid the word "Take".
Borrow sounds less imposing and minimizes your actions. I appreciate you honest confession, but I wont accept your justification for doing it.

Now I realize it is perfectly legal, and that no laws are actually broken. However I think it wise to remain silent and keep it to yourself.
There are other means of obtaining help in gathering Keywords other than surgerically removing them from fellow photographers.

Cranky MIZ

The last time I was aware, nobody has a copyright on words.  I don't go around copying and pasting the entire list of keywords from someone elses photo.  Sometimes I see a word here and there that I didn't think to use, and I use it.  Take or borrow, I think some people are getting a little too upset that they feel someone else is using their keywords.  Also, you can't take something away from someone if they don't own it.  

Dreamstime.com / Re: DT keyword issue
« on: June 08, 2008, 13:39 »
Personally, I don't think it's that big of a deal to borrow keywords here and there.  When I'm keywording a photo, sometimes I have a hard time coming up with what I think is a sufficient amount of words.  I will search for similar photos and see what keywords they used.  And, sometimes I will borrow a word here and there that I never thought of.  And, I certainly wouldn't mind if someone did the same thing to me.  Because ultimately in the end, it's the photo that sells, not the keywords.

Shutterstock.com / Re: Non sale event
« on: May 31, 2008, 11:18 »
Go take your medicine.  LOL  I haven't had a sale in 2 days now, not that that is not normal for me as I still have a small portfolio.  But, I think you just have to expect a few slow days here and there.  BTW, I love your avatar, Green Crested Turacos are very pretty birds.   :)

iStockPhoto.com / Re: Is country name a trademark?
« on: May 25, 2008, 17:32 »
I am just taking picture of an object and my job is to deliver photo.

That is the part that gets me.  That is only part of the job.  If you even read all the boxes you check when you are submitting a photo, some of them are that you are the copyright holder to the image, that you have a model release for anyone in the photo, that there are no visible trademarks or logos visible in the photo, etc.  Plus you have to follow their quality standards like no noise, good focus, no artifacts, correct lighting, etc.  So, if a photo is rejected, then you didn't do your job.  And I think a lot will agree that it can be tough to always meet their criteria.  But, this is a job you took on and you have to learn from your rejections and move on.  If they give you the opportunity to correct a problem they see, then it's your job to correct this and resubmit it if you want that photo in your portfolio.  If you're going to have the attitude that you shouldn't have to take the time to correct something they call out, then you had better prepare yourself for more rejections down the road.

iStockPhoto.com / Re: Is country name a trademark?
« on: May 24, 2008, 16:46 »
I'm guessing that they rejected it because it says Polska on it.  They are probably thinking that this is some kind of souvenir, along the lines of spoons and shot glasses.  I'm betting that if you clone that out, it will be accepted.  Is it really important that it says Polska on it?

I do mostly nature related photos.  As far as which sites are more likely to accept them, in my experience these are the acceptance rates I have.

Shutterstock 90%
Istock 76%
Dreamstime 72%
Fotolia 82%
Bigstock 97%
123RF 97%
I also started submitting photos to YayMicro and they have taken everything so far.

As far as sales go, this is how my sales have gone.

1st Shutterstock
2nd Istock
3rd Dreamstime
4th Fotolia
5th Bigstock
6th 123RF

Of course, everyone's experience will be a little different, but this has been mine.

Bigstock.com / Re: New revievers
« on: May 23, 2008, 12:41 »
LOL  Joyce!  I had to laugh at your comment about the bird because they did a similar thing to me.  I have a picture of two rhinos sleeping in the mud.  They rejected it and said I should use a color enhancing software to bring out the colors.  I resubmitted it with a note to review it again and said if you don't like these colors, then what colors do you want me to make them because this is exactly what colors they were.  I never got a reply, but in a couple days they accepted it.  LOL

Microstock News / Re: 2008 Orphan Works Bill Introduced
« on: April 28, 2008, 07:57 »
GeoPappas, if you read the first link you provided, this is what it states:

There are thousands of artistic creations around the country that are effectively locked away and unavailable for the general public to enjoy because the owner of the work is unknown.  Identifying the owner of a copyrighted work is difficult in many cases and represents a huge liability to those who would bring the work into the public domain without permission, Hatch said. This bill represents a commitment from Congress to unlock orphan works so the general public may once again enjoy them.

Too many valuable works are unused because their creators are unknown, and potential users fear excessive liability, said Berman.  We must act to lower the legal barriers that keep these works from the public.

Millions of copyrighted works are effectively locked up and unable to be enjoyed by the public due to our current copyright system, said Smith.  As a result, investments in new works and expositions by libraries, museums and others are frequently not undertaken due to the possibility of lawsuits and large statutory damage awards.  By placing reasonable limitations on liability, while ensuring that owners receive compensation for the use of their works, the bills introduced today will help reduce uncertainty and encourage creativity.

I see no reason to get everyone all excited about this.  This is about works of art that the copyright owner can not be found or no one knows who owns the copyright.  

Microstock News / Re: 2008 Orphan Works Bill Introduced
« on: April 28, 2008, 06:56 »
Before we all get into a panic here, we need to understand what this bill is all about.  It's not about making every piece of work orphaned so anyone can use it.  This bill is designed to free the copyright to work who's owner can not be found.  And, before anyone can use that piece of work, they must document what steps they made to find the owner of that piece of work.  Obviously when we submit our photos to the stock agencies, we own the copyright on those photos and when someone purchases the rights to use that photo, it does not give them the copyright to it, it is still yours.  And of course, if they use it in a way that violates the contracts with the stock agency, legal action can still be taken as long as you can prove you own the copyright to that photo.

Print on Demand Forum / Re: Moo Yay!
« on: April 08, 2008, 19:56 »
My daughter has ordered the mini cards twice from them and was very pleased with them and they look really nice and are very sturdy, not like the usual business card.  Not sure either whether you will get the mini cards or regular business cards, but what ever you get, you should be very pleased with them.

Pages: [1]


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results