|
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 - davey_rocket
26
« on: August 11, 2009, 11:31 »
Depends on what you want to shoot, but there is A LOT of nature up here.
Some places I highly suggest
1. Redwood National Park in CA
2. Oregon Dunes National Monument
3. Crater Lake National Park
4. Cape Perpetua area near Yachats
5. Cannon Beach
6. Portland Rose and Japanese Gardens
Other than that there's a lot of other good opportunities. Portland is an interesting city with unique architecture and a certain 'personality'
I live in OR so that's what I Know the most about but as far as Washington goes I highly recomend the Olympic Peninsula or North Cascades National Park.
Have a good trip, It's beautiful up here! Look forward to seeing some pictures.
27
« on: August 06, 2009, 09:57 »
Online since June 01:
50 images and 8 sales so far. I really like this site and its personal touch. So happy to be a part of an agency where I feel I'm not just a drop in the ocean, and where the owners are actually communicating with its contributors  A very special agency. Hope they never change!
Yeah me too. I've really been impressed with the responsiveness of Jamie. Good to see that some people have sales with just a few images online. It sounds like it's going to be a while before the que shortens since they had such an influx of contributors.
28
« on: August 05, 2009, 16:16 »
Jamie got my first batch of illustrations online today and I'm sure it will take a little while for them to hit the search results but I'm curious how some of the other new contributors are doing there. There was quite a bit of excitement over them several weeks ago but haven't heard anything new, but it sounds like they're pretty backlogged with new images.
29
« on: July 15, 2009, 19:29 »
Yeah, Thanks Kaycee, I did just like you said. There was no gamut warning and when I select->color range-> out of gamut nothing shows up both when imported into PS in RGB and in CMYK. Any other suggestions?
30
« on: July 15, 2009, 14:56 »
I'm still having this problem but I'm noticing it mostly with greens. Uploaded pic at FT  I can't seem to upload a copy to any internet site that doesn't create the color shift, but the leaf in the bottom right corner should be a darker green to a cooler green gradient, but as you can see it comes out as just a bright green. This file was created in CMYK with colors from the default color palette in AI. Also the rest of the colors are somewhat accurate but have a brighter (not in a good way) tinge to them. Any AI experts out there know what I am doing wrong? Please!
31
« on: July 13, 2009, 18:11 »
When I was using Inkscape I don't remember there being a whole lot of problems saving the file as .eps. Inkscape defaults to .svg but there is an option to save .eps. I then imported that .eps into photoshop and rasterized it.
Regarding the opacity, are you talking about gradients? The Inkscape gradients do not translate to jpegs for some reason so if you're planning on selling the files on microstock you need to avoid using gradients and transparencies.
You can fake a gradient by drawing two boxes of different colors and then blending them using the interpolate tool.
32
« on: July 11, 2009, 23:28 »
Hmmm...
So is it better to work in CMYK in Illustrator?
33
« on: July 11, 2009, 19:05 »
I've uploaded a couple of illustrations and when the jpg preview shows there has been a color shift but only with certain images. It seems brighter colors are uploading as a nauseating day glow color that makes me sea sick just to look at. I'm working in RGB in illustrator and PS, and the files look fine in both.
I haven't been doing anything out of the normal in my work flow and upload methods but I have begun to use swatches from kuler.
I've had colors shift to a slightly duller tone before but not this, anyone know what's going on? I'm guessing it has something to do with the swatches I'm using but one color of one swatch is affected in one jpg and not another.
I'm on a PC running Vista BTW.
34
« on: July 06, 2009, 13:12 »
Legal copy of PS CS3 and Illustrator CS4 purchased with student discount ~$400
It's a double edged sword, photoshop is the most pirated software in the world, and the major reason for that is the prohibitive costs. If it sold for $100 or so piracy would probably decline.
On the other hand open source programs like Gimp and Inkscape are incredibly useful and getting better. Maybe one day these programs will advance enough to serve as competition for adobe and force them to lower their prices.
35
« on: July 05, 2009, 10:50 »
They look pretty good for stock worthy photos, the golden egg one is underexposed IMO.
36
« on: June 26, 2009, 14:14 »
I haven't had a sale at DT in almost two weeks (granted I have a tiny port.) but I'm already at BME (almost twice as much as second highest) at SS and I haven't uploaded a thing to them in almost a month. Seems kind of backwards to me.
37
« on: June 09, 2009, 00:44 »
Oh yeah, I'm not sure if people outside of the US are familiar with The Onion. It's basically a tongue in cheek, fake newspaper... the stories are made up.
38
« on: June 08, 2009, 22:06 »
39
« on: June 02, 2009, 23:31 »
If anyone votes for Istock, Fotolia or Dreamstime they should immediately be banned from the forum as either a) crap stirrers or b) insane. 
Nice  I'd like to see some streamlining of the vector submission process. Some sites want an EPS file(some ver8 some ver10 some whatever . you feel like), Some EPS zipped with jpg (some with large jpeg some with small jpeg, some with specific sized jpg), some just the EPS file zipped, some uploaded separately, some read IPTC, some don't, some require all vectors to have one category as "illustration." This is the only thing that makes me wish I was iStock exclusive (well that and the fact that vectors sell really well there)
40
« on: June 02, 2009, 00:14 »
Hi,
You have prominant contributers giving feedback.
If you look through their (clipartof) portfolios you will see some popular artist.
If you think it is a problem simply as her why.
I personally don't see your point. If you look at the bottom of their home page you'll see certain information on certification.
This is not a huge funded company like the micro sites here.
I understand that, thanks for answering.
41
« on: June 01, 2009, 23:11 »
Seems like there is a positive vibe about this website. But I want to make sure.
I have been communicating with Jamie via email, has she communicated with everyone else via a gmail account?
I'm a little worried about giving up account information to someone corresponding for a website through a gmail address.
Thanks.
42
« on: May 19, 2009, 15:00 »
Ok, thanks to both of you!
44
« on: May 11, 2009, 02:40 »
I think some of the other vector artists on this site submit there and feel pretty positive about it though.
Really? I haven't seen much except for the previous threads where it was discussed and the sentiments seemed to be something other than what I'd describe as "pretty positive". I should check them out again I guess. I must have missed some major shift.
ETA:
Yeah, my original assessment stands. In addition to very low sales, they are undervaluing files, and the number of elements in some of these are ridiculous, and still priced at 1 credit. These people are really giving their work away, but seem happy because "at least they are fair and price everyone's files at 1 credit!" 
http://www.microstockgroup.com/new-sites-general/new-vector-only-stock-site/
Well I certainly apologize for having mislead this poor individual in such a ghastly and poor direction. I guess I was sorely misguided by the advice you so ebulliently contributed regarding the resizing of files for Vectorstock. http://www.microstockgroup.com/illustration-general/anyone-using-vectorstock-com/However after further investigation I realized that there was neary a thread started regarding Vectorstock that lacked a, shall we say, dark rain cloud of disapproval from you. I have followed this site for quite a while and have never been disappointed by the certain negative slant you put on everything. While all I have to go on is the iStock speedometer below your name, since you have not allowed your portfolio to be public, I assume that you are by far the best vector artist that ever lived and I take every word from your keyboard as gospel. From now on I shall seek your approval prior to answering a single thread for fear of upsetting you. So kudos Mr. Whoever; your contribution to the "art" and science of microstock photography shall forever be remembered.
45
« on: May 10, 2009, 23:14 »
I agree, I guess it really depends on how well they sell (it'd be the same commision from vectors at SS). I've never taken the time to figure out how to submit vectors there. I think some of the other vector artists on this site submit there and feel pretty positive about it though.
46
« on: May 08, 2009, 09:56 »
Many U.S. federal government, state government and local government agencies are forbidden by law to copyright anything they produce or have produced for them. The fear being that agencies would use copyrights to prevent dissemination of information to the public.
Ah yes, but then there is classified, and redacted documents.
47
« on: May 08, 2009, 09:47 »
I'm also really glad they're doing this, I've always been amazed by the number of dupes I find on there. Next to correct keyword spam.
48
« on: May 07, 2009, 19:40 »
I'm not really sure why you wouldn't want to offer EL on certain files? It just costs the buyer more to use your image in a greater capacity, and you make a lot more money.
50
« on: May 04, 2009, 18:23 »
I'm getting an "internal server error" message when clicking on my bookmark, anybody else having this problem?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
