|
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 - tdoes
151
« on: April 09, 2007, 08:20 »
Doesn't make sense to have different size prices for vector files since these types of files can be reduced or enlarged without losing resolution.
152
« on: April 05, 2007, 12:58 »
Even though I get consistent downloads at Fotolia, I wonder if the inconsistant sales have more to do with the instability of the site. Somes days you can log on with no problem and other days it's frustratingly slow. That would be a big turn off if you wanted to download some images!
153
« on: March 28, 2007, 06:38 »
Wish I could say this site was doing well for me but I can't.  Guess I'll just focus on the other sites I submit to.
154
« on: March 20, 2007, 09:23 »
I agree that you should be cautious on the type of information you post in a public forum but I'm sure your idea is being thought about by many others. What's important now is putting forth a plan for the idea to succeed. This is the hard part that will keep most idea stealers and people with the same concept at bay!
155
« on: March 06, 2007, 11:48 »
Fotolia is a consistant seller for me. A good tip is that if you put your most important keywords first then this should help with your exposure if your not getting alot!
156
« on: February 28, 2007, 14:02 »
I think the added subscription plan may actually help sales here on the basis that purchasers of the plan will most likely be agencies & companies with a budget and the individual purchases will be more often from entreprenuers and the average person with the need of a photo. I also think that having your portfolio exposed to more than one subscription plan will be a benefit the same way having your portfolio exposed to more than one "pay for each download at a time" plan. This type of industry is still too new for DT & SS to take all the potential subscriber business! Besides, my portfolio varies between the two sites based on what's been accepted. This alone will atract various buyers to each site! Hope I'm right! 
157
« on: February 22, 2007, 15:27 »
Big issue I think is photographers dont seem to be able to think objectively about their own art.
Basically if the designers do not want to buy the image, it doesn't make it crap art, just a crap "product".
It is no different to any other business. Why would you continue to stock your shop with products that dont sell. You dont! Difference being you (the photographer) are the "supplier" and trying to motivate the shop keeper into justifying the shelf space just in case the market changes and all of a sudden your "products" become popular.
The problem with this statement as it refers to file deletion after a years time of a photo with no sales is that alot of images don't even get viewed within a years time! It will become more common as more members join the site and contribute pictures. I think if their concern is server space then the focus should be on upgrading it and not culling approved photos. The review process is where the image regulation should be concentrated. As a designer I feel you can never have too many choices in photos!
158
« on: February 13, 2007, 08:12 »
Wow, today four of my submitted photos were rejected at SS because of "overuse of noise reduction software"... lol, I think my SS addiction is turning into a "Neat Image" addiction too...
Exact thing happened to me yesterday on my four submissions! I really didn't use much reduction (photos of ice covered river and fruit) but maybe they are taming their noise free policy down. I do tend to focus on noise reduction more at this site then some others because of their policy!
159
« on: February 13, 2007, 08:04 »
I search by keywords first. Keywords can also be finetuned such as using phrases to better your results!
160
« on: February 13, 2007, 08:00 »
BTW, I have a question for the group here:
How do you decide what to photograph for the sites?
Thanks!
-Steve
Thanks for your question Steve. As a designer that submits stock photos, I shoot a variety of subject matter with stock in mind for various types of purposes. As it's been stated before, you can never have enough photos and photos should be reviewed for quality instead of guessing if its stock worthy. Us designers have a way of making things work if we see a use for a photograph!
161
« on: February 12, 2007, 08:35 »
I had a funny rejection reason the other day at StockXpert of my vehicle which was covered in road salt. I took the photo to focus on the dirty condition of my vehicle and it was rejected for being "too grainy". lol
162
« on: January 26, 2007, 09:15 »
I think they've outgrown their server!
163
« on: January 25, 2007, 11:22 »
How should we submit photos to you for your lightbox?
164
« on: January 17, 2007, 11:57 »
Now that's what I'm in to! I love his surrealistic photos! Surrealism is what got me interested in taking up photography so I could incorporate it with my art to accomplish similiar styled works.
Thanks for the link
165
« on: January 17, 2007, 10:30 »
My sales have always been steady at Fotolia. Average a few a day with a portfolio size now of 380.
166
« on: January 16, 2007, 09:14 »
At this time StockXpert is my least favorite site because of their rejection system. They have gotten more difficult to please and when you try to make adjustments to the reject reason given another reason for rejection usually is given. I've even stopped trying to fix the files to fit their standards because the end results would lessen the quality of the photo in my opinion. I have a few accepted photos I feel strong about but others are of mundane subjects that fit the bill of stock. I've also gotten reasons for rejections for vector files for open paths which are actually stroked lines that aren't to be closed and don't affect the usability of the file. StockXpert seems to think the file would be problematic and gave me their reasons but I gave them the benefit of the doubt and tested their theories to realize that I new what I was talking about. I create and work with these files for a living as a graphic artist!
My style and subjects don't seem to fit this site so I've given them a rest and will just keep what I have over there because of the possible payouts.
167
« on: December 29, 2006, 23:59 »
YIKES!! print? Yeah, I know this is a microsite forum, but this is anything not relating to micro isn't it?
I have a question for those more experienced than myself. I've been reading on other pro photo forums that many of the members sell prints on line, particularly fine art type prints. To my understanding, the host keeps something like 15% of digital download prices with the photog getting 85%. For prints they do, the photog gets a small commission plus an 85% of the download price. I hope that makes sense.
In general, there is a hosting fee of about $150 US for a year. The one that's recommended is "smug....something"
Does anybody here use this type of outlet for print sales? Results? As some of you may know I'll be traveling for about 3 years or more, and something like this would be an asset as most of the pictures I take will be fine art or travel related.
Any Ideas?
Ian
I've never sold any of my prints that are online but have had success selling at craft fairs, flee markets, and stores. I haven't done any marketing this year because it just wasn't a strong year for prints in general. The internet is great for showcasing your work, which is necessary! I see that you need a presence both on the net and out in the streets to successfully market your prints. Here is on site I use https://www.hometownartgallery.comYou my even consider having your own website storefront! Good Luck and Happy New Year
168
« on: December 28, 2006, 09:19 »
As an artist I personally believe imperfections are what give objects realism, especially old items.
As a designer I personally prefer dirt or scratch free objects. The same rules apply to human faces and bodies. It is better to remove even moles if they might look like spots. The same rule I have found on Alamy. I think that it is more popular opinion among other designers and stock owners/admins. It is a very simple thing to put some of scratches or dirt on the photo if design need it. Removing is much more time-consuming.
I was really referring to old items and the photo in particular that was rejected. I agree clean objects are more popular to work with but I also feel that Stockxperts strict policy on clean images shouldn't apply for every image, especially if takes the life from an image and makes it more plastic. Some items have more strength being sterile while others gain their strength from their imperfections. Acknowledging that, if they haven't already, will give their catalog a better variety. Just my opinion! I do relate to what your saying because I'm also a designer!
169
« on: December 28, 2006, 08:04 »
Here it is.
Thanks! I wouldn't call it "lack of detail" but it doesn't have to be a real rejection reason. I can see other problem - I'm sure if you fix it (making another photos) there wan't be any problems with StockXpert admins.
ISOLATION. I strongly recommend to you plan photos like this one and do it different way. The best way is to use 4 lapmp like on the scheme below:
There is 4 lamps with softbox. Two of them illuminate white cardboar background. The rest illuminate photo object. It is possible to make it with less quantity of lamps (I think at least two). I have seen scheme of "home made" softboxes on the one of the stocks. It is possible to do it very cheap. But I'm absolutely convinced that it is profitable to invest and buy all this stuff. Higher quality of photos let you pay it off very quick. I have payed off all my equipment in first 2 months (really busy months).
About better quality and isolation - look at the picture below. Doing it this way I have pure isolation without time-consuming cutting off. Look at he needles - there are sharp and unsharp ones. It is almost impossible to cut it off correctly. With iluminated withe background you don't have problems like this.
They actually emailed me back and said there is a serious lack of detail in the hand! I just don't agree with that! I appreciate your info. on the four lamp isolation technique. I currently use a two lamp lightbox method on small items and natural light outside w/ a backdrop method on large items. I used a black background on the mic picture and gave it a clipping path to allow for further tweaking if neccessary. I have some isolations they've accepted but I notice that they like images to be free of natural imperfections like dirt, fingerprints, scratches, dents (I had a isolated dumbell weight rejected for fingerprints and blur).  As an artist I personally believe imperfections are what give objects realism, especially old items.
170
« on: December 27, 2006, 18:22 »
On this small thumb everything looks fine. Maybe the problem is on 100% view. Could you crop microphone's strainer with a little of white background and paste it here on 100%?
Here it is. 
171
« on: December 27, 2006, 10:19 »
I'll do that when I get home later today!
Thanks
172
« on: December 27, 2006, 09:52 »
Stockxpert is currently the hardest site for me at getting photos approved.
Strange because it is the easiest stock for me. I've over 1000 photos there and the only ONE photo they didn't accepted was photo of angry man showing middle finger It is a very profitable stock for me too - even more then DT is. Maybe the matter is what kind of photos we are uploading there. I prefer working in the studio with models (popular topicks like business, medicine etc.). I'm using quite cheap DSLR but with good lenses (there's better cameras with much lower noise level).
I definitely see how this site can be profitabile! Just when I think I have this site figured out I realise I don't. This photo was rejected for lack of detail but I see alot of detail. It was photographed outside and isolated later. The full size is approx. 26 x 35 inches
173
« on: December 27, 2006, 09:37 »
They reject a lot of common images, that applies to me. But I never had problems with rare images. For me that is of penguins and icebergs. Of them they reject much less then for example IS. What I think is that StockXpert is looking more for unique motives while IS looks more on quality and motive is secondary.
I think you may be on to something! I've just had a vector rejected for unclosed paths but what's unclosed are just stroked paths which is part of the design (sales chart)! This won't affect the files usage which is why I don't understand that reason given.  the unclosed paths are the lines forming the blue grid minuse the border.
174
« on: December 27, 2006, 08:25 »
Stockxpert is currently the hardest site for me at getting photos approved. They have a fine acceptance balance between noise issues and detail that, in alot of cases, I see as being too nit picky considering how the photo may be used. I see it that way because I coming at this from the designers perspective first!
I'm always working to improve my photography but I still think they've set their standards higher than some other sites. Am I mistaken?
Does anyone with success on this site believe this is the case? What subject matter do you have the most success at this site with?
Thanks for your help
175
« on: December 08, 2006, 14:22 »
Bit of a newbie question here ...
I understand that making adjustments in a different layer does not change the actual image. But then some agencies require that the images submitted have just one layer. So you have to combine the layers you've been working on ... and the image is changed, no?
So what's the advantage of working in layers?
As a final step, you need to combine all of the layers in order to generate a JPG. But this should be saved to a separate file (as well as all other edits). So the original image should stay the same. But the new JPG has changed from the original.
The advantage to using layers, is that you can also save the layered file (once again as a separate file). This will allow you to go back and tweak the image or make additional changes.
I like to add to GeoPappas statement by mentioning if your new to Photoshop that you can easily combine layers by only having the ones you want to show in the jpeg file set to visible. You accomplish this by selecting the layers in the "layers" window. When you do this a icon of a eye will appear beside those selected layers and images on those layers would become visible in your image window. To deselect layers you just click on a particular layer and the icon would then dissappear and what was on that layer will no longer show on your image screen. Layering also allows you to easily make variations of an image!
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
