|
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 - Stu49
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22
501
« on: December 18, 2009, 18:06 »
Read the Book ! Scott Kelby is usually a good start, I have Elements 5 book and it's very good. Now reading his Lightroom2 and CS4 books. I moved from Elements to Lightroom, and what a difference !! So much better to work with, I found Elements a bit basic (amateurish) !? What made u choose that route ? 
502
« on: December 17, 2009, 05:45 »
I've been in this microstock thing for almost two months. I'm a member of shutterstock for a month. All the agencies i'm a member of (stockxpert, 123rf, iStock, BigStock, dreamstime) have earned 6$ total in two months. At shutterstock, I've earned 55$ in a moth. So, my question is - what's the point? Or better - what's the problem?
I'm thinking of going exclusive with iStock since I barely sell anything on other sites and iStock at least gives the highest revenue - for a photo sold there, I've gotten 1.68$. On other sites, I get about 0.3-0.5$ a photo sold. Doesn't make sense. Seems just like waisting time uploading to these sites.
Does it get any better and do you have some tips about this, since you're longer in the "game"? I'm kind of getting desperate.
Btw, depending on the site, my portfolio is around 75 photos (except for istock).
Thanks
If you're doing so well at Shutterstock, why are you thinking of going exclusive with iStock !? Am I missing something !? 
503
« on: December 16, 2009, 11:41 »
Just to add : one of the images was rejected for 'Keywords' and at least two others for 'Not stock material' or 'Not required at the moment' ! I thought we were doing a Technique test, to see if we were up to it or not, but obviously not !! At Alamy this was the case, and iStock (I believe) , because u then have to upload again for stock approval. Now I am aware of this, it will effect my choice for next time
504
« on: December 16, 2009, 11:28 »
Thanks You all have made me feel better. Appreciate the the feed back.
Made me feel better too !!  Just checked back at my first and second attempts, and if you're right, I have 7 accepted and didn't know !!! Wow !  That should make the next attempt a lot easier Thanks for that. Pity it's not better advertised, or mentioned in their rejection notice !
505
« on: December 16, 2009, 05:32 »
Thanks for the advice, I can use all all the help I can get. I still think they are a little crazy, all 10 have downloads at IS. I will try back there in the 30 days and see what happens. Thanks again.
I've just had an image rejected at IS that has been accepted at FT, DT, BS, 123 and CS !! NO LOGIC in it !! ;-) I even modified it to suit them and they still rejected it ! :-(
506
« on: December 15, 2009, 17:39 »
507
« on: December 14, 2009, 11:00 »
Do I need to have sales on iStock before the guage shows ??
Was accepted there last week and have but ONE image accepted so far :-( but even so, shouldn't my iStock guage be visible !?? DT one works ok !
hmm. yeah I think you do. I can check into it soon though and fix that 'error'
I thought it would show as long as I had images on sale !? maybe not :-(
508
« on: December 14, 2009, 09:08 »
Do I need to have sales on iStock before the guage shows ?? Was accepted there last week and have but ONE image accepted so far :-( but even so, shouldn't my iStock guage be visible !?? DT one works ok !
509
« on: December 14, 2009, 09:04 »
Hey guys,
I can confirm what we said: only the pictures that are marked fail. I subsituted that picture with a new one and passed QC. BTW I submitted yesterday at midnight, and this morning at 8am I had a look and it was fine, so fast!! Last time it took a week!
Now I only need to understand the license types and choose the right thing .
Have fun!
Simone
Just did the same ! 1 new, 3 old and accepted :-D ( at last, phew! )
510
« on: December 09, 2009, 17:12 »
Question to iSyndica users: what do you see as benefits of the site over PicNiche or StockMon + FileZilla?
I use ProStockMaster + iSyndica(free sub) , best of both really ! ;-) No analytics though, shame that. Had them to start with while they were free to try, but now costs at least $4.99. Not a lot, but more than I earn ;-)
511
« on: December 09, 2009, 05:25 »
512
« on: December 08, 2009, 17:03 »
sorry to hear about that. You will get use to it iStock makes you change the way you keyword for the better. I also hated it at first but in time now I have come to see there point.
But I thought YOU said it was fine !? Don't worry, you said. Why didn't u tell me to check Keywords !??
513
« on: December 08, 2009, 11:57 »
Sounds fine to me. As long as they say pending dont worry
Obviously NOT !!Some of the keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject. Under the new controlled vocabulary system that we now use, images need fewer keywords to do well in searches. The site automatically handles translations and synonyms, so you do not have to. Please provide a set of simple, descriptive, focused keywords for this image before resubmitting. Refused for Keywords !!:-(
514
« on: December 08, 2009, 06:56 »
Congratulations!
What's all this about DeepMeta ?? I uploaded a few images (my first) and they're sitting there waiting to be reviewed. I asked on IS forum if I should do anything to ease them through and was told ; as long as it says pending then no problem. I did keyword them, I use ProStockMaster (free) at the moment. Am I in for trouble !? :-(
515
« on: December 07, 2009, 18:49 »
Indeed I am ! thanks chaps
516
« on: December 07, 2009, 15:38 »
Got my approval last week ! took 24 hrs at most ! I was gobsmacked ;-)
517
« on: December 06, 2009, 16:54 »
I've noticed this difference in appearance of images on each site...all my images are done with a calibrated monitor and using Adobe RGB profile...I think each site has it's own file processing standards...which are inconsistent with each other.
I've heard that the best approach is to assign each image the sRGB profile then they will look more consistent across the micro sites...does anyone do this?
RT wrote:
Take a shot of a popular subject and upload it to any agency, then go to that agency and do a search so that your image shows up amongst many similar others, if your colours look OK you're done, if not adjust your monitor.
You are right . . . after getting the calibration reasonable corrected. What drives me crazy is that each site presents the images a little different. It seems to me that images on SS have slightly more contrast then IS, and DT kicks up the sharpening which brightens the image . . . . or am I seeing things?
E
Always !! I thought it was general practice to ONLY upload jpegs with sRGB !? I read it was the thing to do as images are always viewed on monitors, not printed. In fact, I thought the agencies insisted upon it, or at the least requested it !? If the client wants he can always shift it to another colour space. ??
518
« on: December 06, 2009, 11:41 »
oh-oh so i did it all wrong 
i might write to support regarding that. i have started only a while ago and only about 25 pics online now, so they might be able to change it...
You should be able to edit your own images yourself, I believe Though will it really matter ?? Are they specific to a region/country ??
519
« on: December 06, 2009, 11:28 »
The company is Pantone/Colorvision, they obviously combined ar some point.
I think it's version 1 of the spyder and says it's for up to Win 2000, so must be old ;-)
520
« on: December 06, 2009, 10:11 »
Is this one any good ??
PANTONE COLORVISION Spyder Pro
Anyone use it ? Is it an old model and no longer much use ?
Any help appreciated :-)
522
« on: December 06, 2009, 05:51 »
B&H in the states do it for 45 ($76) which is great ! BUT, they charge $107 to send to UK !!! Ouch !! Anyone, on the other side of the pond, want to send me one for Xmas !? ;-)
523
« on: December 06, 2009, 05:22 »
I'm with Lisa. It works, it's good, reasonable price, it isn't complicated.
Bought one Huey pro two years ago and it works. Same as the look see or the compare or fly it by eye, but for the $69 or whatever it was, it adjusts to room light as it changes and makes things reasonable close, which beats the look and guess method. After three monitors and looking at old pictures from before, it does make a difference. Maybe a small difference, but it's worth the investment. (still a CRT guy keep that in mind)
Other reason that people keep touching on. Even though the buyer and people looking may see what they see because their system is not calibrated, for reviews it will help, for someone using it, it will be better and if someone wants to print, it will come out correct, not all strange. Meeting standards makes things more "standard"  and easier for the end user. Do you buy cheap lenses and the cheapest cards and used flashes from a bin? Why take all that effort, expensive equipment and time to make great photos and in the end, just have sloppy color correction?
Do you cook all day, making a special dinner and then serve it on paper plates with plastic forks too?
FWIW I have owned three generations of Spyders and all of them managed to give me weird color casts.
That's not a very good argument for buying a calibrator !!
If u can't even trust them, what's the point !? May as well eye it surely !?
Well, fortunately it is only the Spyder line that I had problems with. Although others seem to like them.
The Huey is cheap ($69), accurate, and so easy a monkey (or me) can use it with great results
FWIW it has made a difference in my results. Not just printing, but I had some rejections for color casts and I don't get those anymore.
I think that's a fair summing up If u can afford it (and it's about 90 over here, NOT $70 !! ) then it's worthwhile, but NOT essential !! It may help with reviews and if it adjusts to ambient light (a new one on me!) then very handy If the other guys monitor is way out, then you're no better off of course. If I find one going cheap, I'll give it a try ;-)
524
« on: December 04, 2009, 14:06 »
Well there's a revelation !! 8-) I think the phrase : ' calibrating my monitor to the extreme would be utterly pointless because every one else will see a different profile on their monitors' is the crux of the matter and takes us back to where we started I think !! ;-) Quote: Take a shot of a popular subject and upload it to any agency, then go to that agency and do a search so that your image shows up amongst many similar others, if your colours look OK you're done, if not adjust your monitor. Only problem with this is has everyone else done the same !? in which case I'm no better off ! ;-) Maybe I should compare with yours ?? But then maybe not, if u don't bother any more I think 'lisafx' summed it up nicely : FWIW I have owned three generations of Spyders and all of them managed to give me weird color casts. Think I'll live with my rough and ready manual methods for now :-)
525
« on: December 04, 2009, 06:06 »
Personally I think some people try to get too technical about monitor calibration, if you intend to print your shots then it is essential to calibrate your monitor in association with your printer, but as this thread is titled 'Monitor calibration for Stock photos' the easiest and cheapest (free to be exact) way to do it is this:
Take a shot of a popular subject and upload it to any agency, then go to that agency and do a search so that your image shows up amongst many similar others, if your colours look OK you're done, if not adjust your monitor.
Nice one !! ;-) A man after my own heart :-) I'm new to this game and one of those Spyder thingies costs more than I am likely to earn in the next 10 yrs !! Think I might try your idea.
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
