|
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 - MiguelAngelo
51
« on: January 26, 2007, 05:44 »
I saw them, Thank you
52
« on: January 25, 2007, 19:24 »
53
« on: January 24, 2007, 20:39 »
feel free to add me too
user: MiguelAngeloSilva
54
« on: January 23, 2007, 21:00 »
Hi I have a few pictures at Paxxion and already sold one. 5 euros (better than USD) directly to my paypal. Sweet. Just hope to sell 10+ of those a day!! 
55
« on: January 22, 2007, 12:50 »
As it looks this is not a mass seller site. So I went there and priced all my images at 30, and submitted one collection with my underwater pictures with a nice discount of 40%.
Maybe I'll get some luck like this who knows...
If it happens to sell something with this new aproach I'll report it here.
56
« on: January 22, 2007, 07:25 »
Unfortunatelly this is the only one where I've never sold 1 pic but keep uploading "against my good sense".
I don't know if it's my pictures, something I'm doing wrong or they don't really sell too much. My "huge" earnings are on the $0,02 thanks to a referal.
57
« on: January 21, 2007, 19:27 »
Great job getting all the info Leaf Instead of giving a commission for each sale, they pay a flat rate of $10.00 for accepted image... that's all.. that's it. For me this is mostly "giving" the rights to use my images for $10.00. This kind of deals it's BAD for the photographers. I've never checked the small box to sell the rights of one image for 200 or 300. I don't see the point. Images are all a photographer can have to earn him money to the future. Sell them for 10USD seems a really bad idea. The bad thing is that I believe they will get rich in a short period because there are many people in desperate need of money. And this can be a fast earner.
58
« on: January 21, 2007, 16:15 »
I wonder if people do start complaining at the StockXpert forum like I did, maibe we can get some answers.
Ok, I'm not really expecting answers from someone who just gives as a rejection reason "we are not looking for this kind of images", but maybe if we are plenty of photographers doing it they will come out with something usefull.
I do not want to tell them how to run theire business, but since the way they run theire business have efects on the way I run mine I guess it could be a good thing if they come out with a good list of what they are looking for.
59
« on: January 19, 2007, 07:44 »
Leaf,
I was refering to SS.
At IS I always upload the full size image with none or very small corrections on noise/grain, as I like the Extra income from the XXL size. I've learned the hard way that I must be carefull with noise correction at IS because of the overprocessing thing.
60
« on: January 18, 2007, 20:50 »
I just do what they want me to do.
Plastify my dear pictures and send them to evaluation.
If you have noisse and grain issues, just go after Noise Ninja or something like it.
61
« on: January 18, 2007, 19:40 »
Just to say if it helps.
My best seller at IS is a scanned 35mm film from Provia 100. It was accepted at full res (scanned at 4000dpi) and it sells almost every day a XXL version.
To get the same file aprooved at SS it took me 3 or 4 attemps and had do downlample from 5400 plus pixels on the larger side to 3000.
All of my underwater pictures are scanned film (maybe if I can sell my F5 and housing I'll buy the housing for D200 in a short term) and I always try to submit the full res for sites like IS where size counts. Regarding SS I always downsample those files and I get a lot of rejections for grain /noise.
62
« on: January 18, 2007, 19:27 »
IS any one reporting this kind of stuff to Alamy?
63
« on: January 18, 2007, 19:11 »
Hey,
As I understand it, your image can be a bit blury and if you downsample it, maybe the bluryness will be less evident.
It's not the best practice, but see it as a small trick. ;-)
64
« on: January 18, 2007, 06:17 »
It looks like some sort of view camera to work with large format polaroid film.
It doesn't make sense but we never know!
65
« on: January 17, 2007, 21:32 »
I don't want to play god, just because I'm not the best pick for the role, but as I see it:
Your picture look really good in my screen and I like it as it looks now, but maybe if you light it up a bit on the mid tones it will look more "plastic" and will be accepted. Since we are talking about StockXpert, I will not bother because maybe they will find a "really good" new reason to reject your image.
66
« on: January 17, 2007, 20:30 »
If plastic is what the world wants, plastic is what it gets. As long as us old, grumpy ones are allowed to retain small fractions of the real world in our little boxes and drawers, I suppose I can live with that.
So do I, but I'm not tired yet to point it out...
67
« on: January 17, 2007, 18:50 »
They also get the award for the bigest colection of plastified noise free images  congratulations !!!
68
« on: January 17, 2007, 18:41 »
As I could see the histogram is OK at least for me, despite you can lighten a bit the mid range.
What color space are you using? If it's Adobe RGB 1998, maybe that's the reason to make it look darker on some browsers.
Yes, it's Adobe RGB. I consider converting all photos to sRGB before submitting to microstock. The thumbnail conversion done by most of the agencies takes away too much colour and contrast. The original version of the photo in question is more saturated.
I've been a graphic designer for more than 15 years and had my own design agency for the last 5, and all designers that I have worked will prefer to do the final adjustments themselves. There is no such thing as a ready-made image from an agency, since the need for saturation, contrast and brightness will vary depending on the final output form.
But maybe people are getting more lazy. For a couple of dollars, many may actually expect to be able to insert the photo directly into the document, no PP needed. I wouldn't be surprised.
Epixx, Try the sRGB. I've had a few rejections for the same reason and all ended up when I've done a PS action to save them to my upload folder with a conversion to this color space. For me it worked just fine apart that I do not agree that this is the best procedure. sRGB works a lot better on uncalibrated monitors and browsers not supporting color spaces so your pictures will look better on browsers. Pictures eventually will be worst for printing, but products do not be the best ones while in use, because if they look really awesome on shelf people will buy them. It's the package that counts. OK I'm being sarcastic but I'm from the time where film used to have grain, and we used different films and developers for different kind of grain. It was a lot more fun than just getting rejections for grain and noise, and having to "plastify" pictures to have them accepted. But i do not also agree on using software like Noise Ninja at this stage. Maybe it's OK in the final adjustments before printing but... i really don't know. I'm a photographer for 20 years and for the last 5 I also do two printed magazines, and never had to used noise reduction software for any image. People usually say my two magazines are very well printed, so this is all new to me. By the way, at least around here in Portugal, you can trust me that mostly no one do PP before printing on editorial. At the magazines I work with most of the PP is done by myself and has been working just fine.
69
« on: January 17, 2007, 12:44 »
Miguel, that's even a front-page candidate. Makes one wonder. This one as most of the pictures I have on microstock sites have been shoot in editorial assigments published and sent to the shoebox for sometime. This one have been published in one full page and I can assure you that it looked real fine and the subject was not to miss. Here's one of my rejects. "Photo too dark". What am I missing here?
As I could see the histogram is OK at least for me, despite you can lighten a bit the mid range. What color space are you using? If it's Adobe RGB 1998, maybe that's the reason to make it look darker on some browsers.
70
« on: January 17, 2007, 11:49 »
This one is new at least for me. Reject - Reason: Subject not visible. I guess this only can be from a sleeping reviewer or a bad mood one!! But I found it so funny that I had to share it with you guys. It was accepted in every other place I've submitted it Here is the picture: 
71
« on: January 16, 2007, 18:18 »
Adelaide, I just submitted to FeaturePics this weekend and am still waiting review. I was at a loss as to what to charge. What's reasonable, what's not? What license to go with....
Do you mind if I ask how you rate your images? peace - tom
Hi Tom I never sold one at FP, so I may not be the best reference, but all my images there are priced at 5 with the option for diferent prices to diferent sizes. I really don't know why I keep feeding FP as I never sold one (my only income there is one referal) but I guess that's just because it's easy to upload and they don't reject my images too much.
72
« on: January 15, 2007, 20:55 »
I just only wish to know why inspectors should need to like or dislike our submissions. I know I'm not an inspector but I can see a good picture that I don't like. Those are very important concepts. What is a good image! and what I like just because it's appealing to my taste. What I'm trying to say is, as this is a global thing, people are very different one from the others and have different cultural backgrounds. This tend to make differences of judgement and what is appealing to me may be a very disgusting image from someone from the other side of the world. When one image is inspected, it can be done from someone from Tonga, US, Finland or from Pakistan. This can really as I understand make a big difference , but it's not the only one. I had a few rejections were I got the exact same feeling. And usually those images sell very well on other sites. Adelaide As I'm not an inspector, so I can say I like all 3 of them
73
« on: January 15, 2007, 06:46 »
Great...
Here it is one open minded vision of the business.
74
« on: January 15, 2007, 06:31 »
I'm with you Leaf on this. I don't go to church, and I'm not a religious person and never add religious education. But as I see it, they really should get permission. If someone ask me for some pictures to use on a sermon I'll be glad to allow it's use for free. If someone just still some of my images for the same pourpose, than we have a problem. I can understand this "fair use" concept. But can a presentation in a sermon be considered a public presentation? ok, thanks for the explanation.
I would be upset if the church used the photos (and it was illegal) because they should be setting an example. if they can steal images why can't I.
75
« on: January 14, 2007, 15:07 »
My home church in canada frequently used images in it's sermon to illustrate a point. Images PLASTERED with watermarks from gettery, jupiter... you name it ... ouch. I think that was a pretty clear example of someone not really knowing what the rules were.
I haven't been there in a while, but if i see it again i think i will inform them of what is illegal and not, and maybe give them a give of a starter $20 at dreamstime 
What they're doing isn't illegal, at least in the US. It's called fair use.
Isn't this a public presentation? As I understand images can't be used for public display without paying royalties. At least around here in Portugal.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
