|
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 - Susan S.
126
« on: February 27, 2008, 21:32 »
Can someone please answer my stupid question... who are vector artists? I always kindof assumed you are skilled graphic designers who have been to college for at least a couple years. Am I right about that, or are there Ordinary Joes out there with a copy of Illustrator (and presumably personal style)?
Given I've only got a small number of illustrations up on istock, I'm not sure that you could call me a vector artist. But I come into the "self taught" category. I've always drawn and sketched though - I could have gone to Art college, but I never took it up and went and did other stuff that was more likely to pay the rent (post graduate degree in Economics..). Stupid decision, but never mind. So being able to draw a bit seems to be enough. Illustrator is a beast of a program to get your head around I find, as it's so different from photoshop, which feels like home!
127
« on: February 27, 2008, 19:09 »
I'm exclusive at istock and my sales are down a bit on January but not hugely - they have been very very volatile though - some really good days, and some shockers. If I have a few more of the good days it's conceivable I could equal the January sales figures, but it's more likely I'll be down around ten per cent. I do have a small portfolio, which is therefore subject to swings. And my best seller has just dropped off the most popular files page so it's sales have tanked, and I expected a slow down (some mean *insult removed* gave it a 4/5, knocking it out of the top fifteen ! - but it had six months of free pimping so I can't complain)
post a link and we'll bang it back up there 
You can't! Even if 1000 people rated it 5/5, the single 4/5 rating would kill it from the most popular files page. (lots of other much better files with higher numbers of 5/5 ratings have been dropped back in the same way - if someone gives a 1/5 rating, on an otherwise well rating and downloaded file then admin will generally overturn it but a 4/5 is a bit hard to argue with)
128
« on: February 26, 2008, 17:20 »
We've all be the recipient of changes in the best match search engine. I had an image that when you typed in the word "vineyard" it was on the first line of the search for like six months. Made a ton of money off it it, then some best match tweaking and 1.5 years later, maybe 3 downloads.
This is curious about the 4/5 rating. The IS zealots will tell you that ratings have no impact on best match searchs, but in your case they did. I remember having several people rate an image of mine about a year ago and it quickly zoomed to the top of the search for that object, but over time it has slowly slipped down the best match search results. So, I think there is some type of time thing to promote newer images.
It wasn't a change in the best match positioning that slowed sales down - the file was number fifteen on the highest rated in the last three months (actually highest rated ever!) page which really givs it lots of exposure - but the way that istock calculates ratings ordering is that 183 fives and one four is outrated by a file with just one 5... So if someone wants to get rid of a file on that page (or make sure that the image of the week never makes it onto it), all that they need to do is rate it 4 rather than 5, and it will never get the exposure. And it really does make a difference to the sales - my file dropped off temporarily while some other image was rating higher and my sales went down, until someone gave another of the top fifteen a 1/5 and my image went back up into the top fifteen again and its sales picked up. I must confess that for the first few months I guarded that exposure jealously and sitemailed anyone that rated it less than five, politely asking whether they meant for their rating to bump the image off the highest rated page- and all the people concerned changed their ratings to 5s for me!
129
« on: February 26, 2008, 06:28 »
I'm exclusive at istock and my sales are down a bit on January but not hugely - they have been very very volatile though - some really good days, and some shockers. If I have a few more of the good days it's conceivable I could equal the January sales figures, but it's more likely I'll be down around ten per cent. I do have a small portfolio, which is therefore subject to swings. And my best seller has just dropped off the most popular files page so it's sales have tanked, and I expected a slow down (some mean *insult removed* gave it a 4/5, knocking it out of the top fifteen ! - but it had six months of free pimping so I can't complain)
130
« on: February 20, 2008, 20:37 »
istock will only accept flower images if they are absolutely perfect, technically speaking - they really seem to look for any excuse they can find to reject them as there are so many on the site. This one is a little soft, and also has what looks like blown highlights on the chrysanthemum petals (I bet the red channel is blown), which also removes details in those areas. It's a lovely image, but it doesn't suprise me that istock rejected it.
131
« on: February 14, 2008, 18:00 »
It's interesting how different microstock sites view this sort of stuff differently - it's just about impossible to get images like this onto istock, unless you are Really good at photoshop compositing (I'm good enough for web sized imagery but don't have the patience for it to bear the sort of scrutiny that istock puts onto files), whereas other sites like shutterstock and DT sell them by the bucket load. One of the downsides of being exclusive to istock.
132
« on: February 11, 2008, 02:40 »
Solid dark backgrounds that are clearly the result of an existing extraction, at that! And of course the technique and a million other variations of it are all in Katrin Eisemann's Masking and Composition book (figure 8.91, p277 ) It's faster to adjust a channel mask that is so uniform in colour using levels - I could do this channel mask in about ten seconds, given that the background is solid black to start with.
Edit to add - it's a useful techniqe, and this video reminded me of it, as I'd forgotten it in the time since i originally read the Eisemann book - and it is of course quite possible to come up with ideas independently, I'm not accusing the original poster of anything duplicitous here!
133
« on: February 07, 2008, 22:04 »
Actually with global warming and drought around the world, shots of dried up mud and cracks in the ground do suprisingly well to illustrate (I've got one, marginally more interesting) that is one of my better, if not stellar sellers!
134
« on: February 07, 2008, 00:15 »
No problem with inspecting at 100% or 200% if need be, but...this is not how the image is being used/viewed. So, while inspection at 100% is a chosen method to ensure quality (I have no disagreement with that) - there should be also a sellability aspect considered. If there are minor defects at 100%, but in the opinion of the reviewer the image is going to sell - why, for instance, not introduce something like "conditional" acceptance: the image gets say 1 or 2 month grace period in which it has to sell in order to stay listed - or it gets deleted. Let the customer decide.
Microstock sites do not exist to promote quality (although it is a vital factor in their continuing existence and sales) - but to sell images. At least this is my (maybe misguided) opinion.
But...I am getting away from the main subject of this thread, which wasn't my intention.
Actually its not entirely getting away from the subject at hand. In my experience, istock are pretty good at making allowances for image quality in hard to get, available light photographs. They are entirely unforgiving in set up studio type shots, and subjects like flowers where there are millions of them. Although your flower shot has a very good composition and colour, it's a little soft and not perfect quality, especially given the calibre of your equipment. I'd expect it to get rejected, as there is no excuse for not having everything perfect with this sort of set up. (Been there got the rejections to prove it!)
135
« on: February 07, 2008, 00:08 »
Just adding - on my callibrated 20 inch imac monitor it also looks very oversharpened and the stem looks odd even at fifty per cent view - this would be regarded as a fail for me even as a personal use for printing shot (it's a gorgeous composition - the thumbnail is very striking but it just doesn't bear looking at larger than 25 per cent.)
136
« on: February 07, 2008, 00:05 »
The reality is that if you want images to get accepted at istock they have to look great at 100 per cent. To some extent it's a bit daft as we all know that if an image looks pretty good at fifty per cent on screen, it's going to make a fine good size print. However if an end user wants to make a crop from it, or enlarge it to a really big print or even do some heavy postprocessing with curves etc, this quality of image won't stand up to it, and so istock will reject it. Other sites are less fussy. I'm still amazed that your camera produces stuff like that - I'd check the RAW settings for noise reduction and sharpening (the default levels on both in CS2, anyway are not zero, which they need to be for istock)
137
« on: February 06, 2008, 21:05 »
Does this mean i have to add up? Where's the calculator?!!  280 Total =16078 (I hope..)
138
« on: February 06, 2008, 21:02 »
Ouch. If that's from a 1Dmk11 I'm glad I can't afford one, as it's very very ordinary. The artifacting is worse on the stem, which looks as though it has been blurred by a noise removal filter and then oversharpened to get the detail back. There's no way this would pass inspection at istock, ever. The same problem is visible on the glass. I'd double check the settings on the RAW processor - something is doing horrible things to this image - make sure noise removal and sharpening are both off.
139
« on: January 29, 2008, 21:54 »
As far as an all purpose zoom goes, then there are several options, depending on the price that you want to pay, and what you want to shoot.
If you don't mind heavy , and are happy to pay a lot of money, and are willing to forego the wide end, the classic portrait/general purpose zoom is the Canon 24-75 2.8 L. It's fast enough and good enough quality to serve as a single lens solution for someone who is primarily a portait photographer. The Tamron 28-75 2.8 (I think that's the range) is lighter and smaller and not quite as wide, but has a very good reputation for image quality.
If you are going to stick to a crop sensor camera for the foreseable future and want to go out to 17mm, for landscape or interior shots then the best Canon offering as a zoom would be the EF17-55 2.8 IS. Good quality but expensive. Tamron do a well regarded but non IS over the same focal range for less bucks.
Further down the pecking order are the consumer zooms - I have the 17-85IS which is a fabulous range, but makes rather a lot of compromises on image quality. I've got a lot of stock shots taken with it, but they have all needed post processing to remove the chromatic aberration. I've also seen (personally) and heard reports of there being a lot of variability in this lens as far as image quality goes - my copy is much much sharper than some other samples I've seen. The 28-135IS is an older design, similar image quality, less good IS. The new kit lens (18-55IS) and it's longer range brother 55-25IS look suprisingly good on paper (and online samples I've found) for their price, but I've not used them .
As far as portrait lenses go - if you get a slower consumer zoom then fast primes are a good, and not terribly expensive additional purchase. I have the 50mm 1.8 , 100mm macro and 85 1.8. All take really good portraits. Another option, useful for stock would be the EF-S 60mm macro - it's both a very good portrait lens plus very useful for closeups and still life (microstock staples!) as well as true 1:1 macro.
140
« on: January 12, 2008, 02:26 »
I would imagine that it would be very foolish of istock not to have someone nominated to monitor forums where microstock in general and istock in particular are discussed, if they want to keep an ear to the wind of public opinion.
141
« on: January 07, 2008, 23:23 »
Artists just require a computer and software, and years of training and practice. But it's mainly reward for the time spent. Now I'm pretty slow in Illustrator, and pretty fast in photoshop, but I can do a shoot and process and upload a reasonable quantity of shots with an afternoon's effort, where I'd be lucky to turn out a single illustration (and that's an illustration where I already have a reference photograph to scan or a set of drawings/watercolor to base it on already done.)
So for 15 credits a designer is purchasing an image that would take them maybe 2-3 hours to construct themselves - in the case of the complex 15 credit vectors, maybe more. I don't know what the going hourly rate for a designer is? Maybe 25-50$ per hour? Do the maths as to why people pay the money.
You also have a supply and demand thing affecting the price. Anyone with half an eye and a digital camera and Photoshop Elements can upload photographs to microstock (I'm not saying they will do well, but they do affect the total supply of images). There is a much smaller pool of suppliers who can use vector drawing software and can actually draw a bit.
142
« on: January 07, 2008, 01:11 »
While I do have a macro flash(I have the Sigma ringflash, I find I get better results (easier to diffuse, more directional) lighting by using an ordinary ETTL flash mounted on an improvised flash bracket so it angles down near the front of the lens (you need an off camera cord for this if you are using Canon gear).
My best results using the ring flash have just been using it as fill, with the main light provided by my Sigma DG Super as an off camera slave- as the only source of light the ring flash can be a bit harsh and I suspect would generate istock lighting rejections (although I haven't used it enough to get any yet!).
143
« on: January 07, 2008, 00:59 »
The other formats are usually native formats for other vector editing programs - some illustrators obviously have Illustrator (.ai files of different flavours depending on the version) Corel Draw, Xara, Freehand, inkscape, which all have different native formats.
To upload these extra files to istock (you already have to upload a large jpg and an EPS 8 file )- you zip them up all together and upload them in the upload slot allocated for it. Not that I have bothered. I figure that a large jpeg and EPS covers most bases anyway, as the latter can be opened in most vector apps and the former in just about anything else. I don't use transparency or any of the advanced Illustrator features when I create istock files which would make it worthwhile including a more easily editable later version .ai file - it's easier to make them EPS8 compatible from the start than try to convert them afterwards. And I only have Illustrator to create vectors.
And if your drawing skills are rusty, I'd brush those up before applying to istock (unless you can do very complex coloured tracing) as that seems to be what they want in their applications.
144
« on: December 29, 2007, 06:15 »
I think there is an issue of ethics here - and lots of grey areas where we will all draw lines in different places. My view is that it's not nice to copy someone else's work substantially, even if you go and start from scratch and do the vector pen work yourself. If you can draw it's pretty easy to copy someone's vector by eye and provide enough proof in the form of sketches/reference screen shots to satisfy a microstock that it's your "work". But you are piggy backing on someone else's original creation.
I think vectors are a bit different to say landscape photographs or images of famous places, when there are only so many ways you can take the image. I don't feel any moral qualms abut posting yet another set of images of a landmark - the lighting may be a bit different from other people's Millenium Bridge or St Pauls Cathedral or the Twelve Apostles or whatever- you aren't usually exploiting someone else's ideas doing so. The business handshake and other concept shots are a bit greyer. Yes stock photograph concepts do feed off each other and everyone seems to copycat to some extent. Personally I don't like to copy someone else's concept shots - I try to put a twist on them if I can, so I'm not purely a copyist.
But vector artwork (and icon construction in particular) are a concrete expression of a particular design idea - not just the concept but the actual style and form of its expression in this case - and trying to take a free ride on someone else's ideas is just so not cool. Yes it's true you can't copyright an idea. But copying someone else's expression of an idea that closely, even if you have redrawn the lines rather than tracing them is not something that I'd be happy with doing myself.
145
« on: December 28, 2007, 19:56 »
In my view these go past inspiration. It's not just the style which is similar, its the collection of icons in the same set.
Yes it's hard to think of different ways of presenting these ideas. But just because there are lots of other similar styles of icons by different people, doesn't make it right to go adding yet another copycat version, especially when these are so close in style. I've avoided doing icon sets, because well, icons are so iconographic - it's very hard to come up with something original and I don't want to go close to reproducing someone else's work. Of course because my illustrations follow my own style it also means they don't sell. But at least I can sleep soundly in bed at night!
146
« on: December 28, 2007, 19:48 »
Illustrator is a totally counter intuitive program, especially if you have started by being a photoshop expert. It just does things in a totally different way. It took me eighteen months from buying a copy to being proficient enough to make it worthwhile applying and getting accepted at istock . I learnt using Real World Adobe Illustrator and the Wow CS2 Illustrator book - but I'm still not really past the basics. I can at least use the pen tool now (which helps in PS too!) although a most of my stuff I draw and paint as I would on paper using a pressure sensitive brush with a Waconm Graphire tablet.
If you want to get accepted on istock the trick seems to be doing a variety of original drawings. All the posts I've seem complaining about rejections as illustrators have been from people who have tried to get in using three very similar, simple drawings using primitive vector shapes or three swirly backgrounds/rehashes of grunge stuff that they already have on the site.
I managed to get accepted first try, despite there being some technical issues with all the images that I uploaded (as I found when I tried to have them accepted in the collection!). Once you are accepted you can do as many shiny icons and glossy buttons and twirly backgrounds as you please -but they don't seem to get you accepted as an illustrator there these days.
147
« on: December 26, 2007, 03:45 »
The cheaper Wacom lines (Graphire and Bamboo - I have the graphire, which appears to have similar specs as the Bamboo) seem to be fine for basic photo correction - cloning etc. I've been using a Graphire (the smallest) for around four years now. It's only now that I've been getting much more heavily into illustrator and doing digital illustrations that I find the Graphire isn't quite sensitive enough for using with the very small control points in Illustrator, and I'm considering upgrading to an Intuos - but again the smallest one - desk space and economy of hand movement are more important to me than having a large working area.
148
« on: December 26, 2007, 03:38 »
Given the files are already up there and selling, I would regard 20 per cent of something as a superior alternative to 100 per cent of nothing. But they are your images, and if you want to reduce your income on a point of principle, that's fine. Personally I'm an istock exclusive, because it's less hassle than dealing with multiple sites, and the ego boost of downloads is at least important to me as the $$s -it's a form of vanity publishing that actually pays me. YMMV.
(edited because I've had too much Christmas spirit to spell!)
149
« on: November 13, 2007, 16:00 »
Someone finally capitalized on a flaw that has been obvious since they lowered the ratings value in best match searches and they banned them? Even though they hijacked the best match results I don't think they should have been banned. People are always trying to find ways to "beat the system", in every endeavor. As devious as it may have been, this seemed like it was within the rules.
I know you can't download your own images but is there a rule that you can't purchase a friends?
The suspicion was strong, given that the photographers concerned used the same subject matter props and models, that they were in fact the same individual - which is a direct violation of istock policy. (and infact you can purchase your own file - not that I have done so - one of the irritations to some people about istock is that if you want a copy of one of your own files for some reason, unlike some other sites, you have to purchase it.) Given their sales numbers, I was suprised that they were outright banned so quickly - one has a little suspicion (but of course it is only a suspicion) that when their accounts were looked at more closely there were other things wrong. To be honest they were rather silly downloading every single image they uploaded straight way. It makes it very obvious.
150
« on: November 12, 2007, 16:57 »
Downloads per month seem to be very important in best match - so if you get a download in the first hour or so of the image being up, the downloads per month goes through the roof and your image sits at the top of the best match. (I've had it happen to a couple of images of mine that were quickly bought - not by me I should add! so I've known about the impact already). It's much more important than ratings (which currently seem to have very little effect) and other factors, although other things clearly come into it. Obviously if the file is no good then no one will buy the image and it will gradually fall back. But for the generic good stock that is being uploaded in this case (with lots of dreadful keyword spam too) the continuing downloads that result will keep them up in the first page.
A couple of people (or one person using more than one account) are gaming this system to great effect.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
