|
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 - aly
26
« on: May 28, 2014, 18:43 »
I received this email today with a list of many of my images chosen in this scheme. Dreamstime has agreed to undertake a small scale beta test program that permits the use of images in online advertising. Any one know anything about it?
27
« on: May 26, 2014, 21:09 »
I am getting so fed up with SS lately- today I had this title rejected for being NOT ENGLISH-
Indian Ocean waves rolling in on the sandy beach near a rocky groyne by the landbacked harbour in Bunbury south Western Australia on a fine cloudy autumn morning.
What is going on?? And the whole batches are rejected for same reasons-focus, poor lighting, white balance, etc. Each batch gets the same refusal. It is getting beyond a joke. Particularly when other sites accept the images. Time is wasted uploading to SS . And they must be losing money as well by these mass rejections.
28
« on: May 07, 2014, 04:04 »
DOWNLOAD ANYTHING YOU WANT
Simply create a username and password, and you can download 20 complimentary graphics per day for 7 days. This is a limited time offer, so start downloading now.
7 DAYS OF FREE DOWNLOADS
29
« on: May 07, 2014, 04:03 »
I just received this email from Australian Photography
ANNOUNCING 250,000 IMAGES
GraphicStock recently added over 100,000 new images to their library. To celebrate this milestone, they're giving you 7 days to download anything from a quarter million vectors, backgrounds, templates, design elements and more.
START DOWNLOADING NOW
30
« on: March 05, 2014, 22:38 »
I would be enlightened to know if anyone may help me understand why one day some images will be accepted yet in a week or so similar ones rejected-this goes on ad infinitum- yet accepted ones sell well -why are the others no good-?? Time consuming to have to try to work out why whole batches have the same reason-poor lighting, out of focus, poor composition. Yet one spends many hours ensuring that these are as correct as can be done with modern aids like light room, raw, photoshop, etc. Does a human review or is it a computer program algorithm? I am reticent to ask SS in case I get banned for impertinence as they are my major income provider at present. I appreciate any help. Thankyou.
31
« on: February 28, 2014, 18:00 »
It took me about 4 tries over 8 months to get accepted at SS-I was blissfully unaware that my standard was not very high but now I only concentrate on SS as it is a terrific site and I have over 3000 uploads in under a year and have reached my $500 mark. So one must keep plodding on and learning all the time but it is worth it in the end. Perseverance , a thick skin and work ethic will see you succeed. Good luck.
32
« on: January 29, 2014, 18:14 »
The noise is not in the LENS it is in the images as the more I zoom the more it is noisy result hence I use PSC6 to remove noise from the image even though I try to have ISO 100.
33
« on: January 29, 2014, 05:25 »
Yes I compressed for the forum with shrink pic-may be noise as well as 55-250mm lens is a bit noisy at times even though noise reduced in PS C6 in images.
34
« on: January 28, 2014, 17:49 »
A few of my images rejected.
35
« on: January 28, 2014, 06:15 »
I have spent 3 days uploading 127 images after RAW processing, PS CS6 and cropping etc.I assure you it was a slow task as I am meticulous in what I am doing.
36
« on: January 27, 2014, 19:28 »
Back to the bad old days -only 7 out of 127 accepted today and all out of focus!! Last time it was poor lighting and now its focus. What will it be next time? Please let us have some consistent reviewing-must admit the last 2 weeks were really good. But so up and down.It is so frustrating not to mention time consuming.
37
« on: January 22, 2014, 02:38 »
The last couple weeks SS has been really good accepting lots of my bird images some of which I had doubts were good enough. I am pleased by this as the rejections were almost 100% before. Hope it improves for everyone else. I must admit I have been very caerful in post processing in Raw so guess that might help.
38
« on: December 31, 2013, 18:17 »
Thanks for all the tips -might I say that most of my sales have been landscapes, then flowers, illustrations, birds then animals but they are all Australian. I would prefer that SS simply said -these are not a commercial proposition rather than the current reasons given. Just had another entire lot rejected, think I'll stop uploading.
Camera -Canon EOS 6ooD, lens= canon 18-55mm, 55-250mm.
39
« on: December 31, 2013, 01:53 »
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues and/or incorrect white balance. Please advise me as I have spent hours in RAW Bridge and PS ans used white dropper/ grey dropper, etc and am still getting everything rejected. Thanks.
40
« on: December 30, 2013, 19:39 »
The last 2 weeks in SS I have had ALL images rejected for same reasons-POOR lighting, INCORRECT white balance, POOR composition- and I am utterly at a loss after spending HOURS in RAW Bridge and PS ! What is the problem? I am thinking of not submitting any more.
PS-similar images accepted in recent past.Is it a BOT or WHAT???
41
« on: December 20, 2013, 20:48 »
Am perplexed as to why botanical names etc eg: verticordia plumosa , referring to plumed red feather flower wild flower, are classified as not in English in the Title to SS uploads and rejected forthwith when have been using them for over a year.I understood that such names added to the image but last lot of images rejected because the title is not in English. Puzzled. Any ideas. I have resubmitted some with an explanation. First time this has happened. Has any one else had this problem lately?
42
« on: December 14, 2013, 23:06 »
This one rejected for incorrect white balance.
43
« on: December 14, 2013, 23:03 »
The crow on park bench was ok but the one on ground not.
44
« on: December 14, 2013, 23:00 »
I shoot in raw without artificial lighting then using the warm and cool adjustments try to get the histogram as even as I can then pick out a white area and use the eye dropper for correction but they still get all rejected-only 1 accepted last lot out of many. I am learning fast but am very confused still. Thanks for all your helpful suggestions. Perhaps a few images may help.
45
« on: December 12, 2013, 20:40 »
I am very confused as to what is correct white balance. I look at the histogram and it is in a curve as recommended but the image gets rejected for incorrect white balance.Any ideas please?
46
« on: December 11, 2013, 23:47 »
It seems I have mis read the ISO=1000, speed =1/2000, f/5.6, distance 5.5 metres, 250mm focal length.
I am using 55-250 canon lens zoomed up a little to get this duck. The more you zoom the worse the noise, etc. Will have to stick with 18-55mm lens as no problems like this.
47
« on: December 11, 2013, 01:16 »
I use PS reduce noise sometimes but is there any others out there any one recommends?Thanks.
48
« on: December 10, 2013, 21:33 »
Yes I feel very frustrated with last few weeks of reviewing and have just sent off a whole batch asking for another person to look at them as the same old reasons are wearing thin-poor composition, cropping, out of focus, white balance incorrect, poor rasterizing, focal point not correct, etc, etc. I shall wait hopefully for a reply. Some are rejected completely yet one out of the whole batch is accepted. How? Why? Do they fall asleep or what. Please SS I wish you may review your reviewers!
49
« on: December 10, 2013, 19:13 »
Virtually no post photo processing shot in raw. I am still learning about raw but am very loathe to change settings much. Just a tad where needed like colour or light etc. Isn't the histogram supposed to be a curve upwards??
50
« on: December 10, 2013, 02:50 »
My duck was done with 100 ISO and NO CROP at all. Canon EOS 600D with 55-250mm lens.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
