|
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 - sponner
26
« on: February 22, 2011, 12:29 »
cheers, I can see them now just ook a few days to get indexed I suppose.
27
« on: February 21, 2011, 12:24 »
ta for the replies
28
« on: February 19, 2011, 13:52 »
Hi all, I have just been accepted at SS (thanks to the people who offer advice on the critique forum, I've learnt a lot from the advice offered there over the last few months).
I'm guessing the 7/10 that were accepted are already on sale, although they don't show up in my portfolia or keyword searches yet, the site is reporting that I have one d/l already ?
I downsized all my pics for teh application to just over 4mp, is this the best way to go from now on or is there an advantage in trying to get larger image sizes accepted?
TIA
Sponner.
29
« on: February 05, 2011, 19:35 »
I have had the same, very small size sale $3.09 I seem to be getting 60% i.e. $1.85.
OK not huge BUT its my first sale on Alamy since uploading a few mediocre pics from November on so I am not complaining.
30
« on: February 05, 2011, 15:51 »
Thanks for the replies.
31
« on: February 04, 2011, 17:24 »
Hi all, I've just signed up and been accepted at Istock (despite the recent controversy I thought I'd give it a go.) Firstly, thanks to all those who offer advice etc. on these and other forums, 3 months ago I wouldn't have stood a prayer of passing their initial QC. I am experiencing a few snags uploading, when i go to upload via the website i get redirected to http://www.istockphoto.com/announcement_revised_asa.phpI can't find a way to resolve the issue. I have been able to upload using prostockmaster but they are sitting "pending" for about 5 days, is this normal? No problem if it is just not sure my uploads are OK. I have emailed support but, as yet no reply. TIA Sponner
32
« on: February 02, 2011, 03:51 »
Thanks for your opinions folks, looks like I'll stick
33
« on: January 31, 2011, 17:56 »
I have just bought an Olympus E620 with two kit lenses 14-42 and 40 - 150mm to replace an E510 that I liked.
I haven't had time to really play with it but the few images I have taken haven't fared well at FT (I think sharpness is the issue even with the 50mm f.2 lens, probably user error though.)
I have the opportunity to buy a second hand Canon 50D with an 17-85mm IS lens from a trusted source for about the same money I would get for my nearly new olympus and the two kit lenses.
I would get decent money for the 50mm f2 prime that I have for the Oly allowing me the option to buy a similar lens for the Canon (i'm guessing).
The question is from an image quality pov is this a wise move?
Anyone who isn't as clueless as me have an opinion?
34
« on: January 30, 2011, 18:04 »
Thanks folks, I take on board the sharpness, scruffy item comments, it was the isolation I was stressing over.
35
« on: January 30, 2011, 14:33 »
Hi folks, would you be so kind as to critique this photo. There is some debate as to whether it is isolated correctly, it looks fine to me but given my appalling recent acceptance rate at FT i am wondering if I am missing something. TIA http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14783063/Police10a.jpg
36
« on: January 27, 2011, 18:36 »
Madelaide, I have been following your experiences, and others on here and have consequently signed up for TAOBC http://www.printbusinesscards.com/ordering/Nigel-Spooner-Business-Cards.phpThanks for sharing your experiences and helping contributors to make informed choices. p.s the fast stone image viewer seems to sort out the CMYK issue perfectly
37
« on: January 24, 2011, 17:49 »
even just a "i can't reply to this thread" post?
38
« on: January 20, 2011, 15:22 »
I'm giving them it a try, it is quite fun trying to "use" you're images, 19 templates and counting.
Incidentally the contributor's agreement doesn't refelct the above announcement, I'm sure it will once the webpage is updated.
39
« on: January 18, 2011, 21:12 »
Excuse a really ignorant question following on from the above.
I am uploading one fairly large image which exceeds the resolution requirements for each category then tinkering with it using the design tools so that it looks ok on the specific product.
Is this ok or should i be uploading a seperate image at the recommended size for each product?
The whole thing is fascinating, working out what has a chance of selling is (for now) intriguing. It's just a a shame that this info isn't available ( similar to number of downloads on the microstock sites).
40
« on: January 18, 2011, 20:55 »
As an outsider looking in, what a kerfuffle! TBH both parties make reasoned arguments, and (by the standards of internet flame wars) it's not too horrific. The bottom line is the original point raised was valid but the main concern has been addressed by the company (bravo). The bottom line is artists can vote with their feet and choose to contribute or not. Having considered the pro's and con's I have applied as a contributor, the clincher for me was the announcement re the change in commission structure and repeat business. Having said all that, given my noobness in the online media world I doubt I'll get in 
41
« on: January 10, 2011, 16:48 »
seems fair enough
42
« on: January 05, 2011, 14:59 »
Interesting stuff. Joined Madelaines fan club, does this make any difference to ranking etc? If so I'll do so for all those on here. www.zazzle.com/sponner*
43
« on: December 20, 2010, 10:48 »
I'm new with a small, mediocre portfolio and have noticed the same thing. Some sites few views 0 sales, understandable Some (FT, DT, 123) quite a few views and the odd sale. FP loads of views but 0 sales 
44
« on: December 18, 2010, 00:28 »
I believe him!
45
« on: December 13, 2010, 19:14 »
We seem to be getting good snaps from a panasonc ft1, don't think it would be anywhere near good enough for stock stuff. There are lots of modes but so far just stick it in "intelligent auto" and it sorts itself out. I bought it for the spalsh/dust/shock proof thing as I'm totally hare brained around the pool/beach esp if I have had a beer. http://www.cameras.co.uk/reviews/panasonic-dmc-ft1.cfm
46
« on: December 13, 2010, 08:03 »
I understand that I think.
What about using the isolated coke bottel while writing a factual article in a newspaper about coca cola. Would that be ok in the same way that editorial photo's of people are ok without releases?
47
« on: December 13, 2010, 06:07 »
Thanks for the info folks. Unfortunately I no longer have a full set to photograph but my try it again on another occassion 
48
« on: December 12, 2010, 20:46 »
Swift answers appreciated as I may drink them before I have done the pictures at this rate
49
« on: December 12, 2010, 20:45 »
I'm new to photography never mind this crazy stock world but I am having fun.
My question concerns trademarks and licensing. I have noticed on Alamy there are a lot of images as RM where trademarked items are the main focus, on other sites (RF) this would be a complete no-no (as i understand it).
I was wondering in what circ's it is OK to upload and sell such trade marked photographs. E.g. I have bought a selection of a particular brewers bottled beers. I can see photographs of them being used in a pub/restaurant ad, in a newspaper article surrounding the share price of the company etc. etc. In other words there may be a small market for these pics.
But.... by uploading them am I exposing myself to a risk if the pictures are used in a way teh brewery doesn't like?
50
« on: December 11, 2010, 02:59 »
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
