|
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 - samards
26
« on: September 02, 2017, 13:06 »
I didn't receive the mentioned e-mail, but still received 45c sale! Shocking, as I was usually getting something between 30 and 75$...
The thing is, I'm using 500px to build my portfolio and not for micro-stock sales, so I'm not sending these photos to other micro-stock agencies and now they appeared to be the same!
So I opted out from distributors network immediately, but don't know if it is enough to get reed of these silly sales??
27
« on: December 23, 2016, 10:20 »
Spike, I don't know which windows photo viewer you are using, but my windows photo viewer (at windows  is color managed. It uses the color profile of the monitor, no any color difference between Lightroom and exported sRGB JPG. When I upgraded to windows 10 - new Photo application was NOT color managed... Therefore I switched back to the old windows photo viewer.
28
« on: December 15, 2016, 13:05 »
I just discovered another pain with Windows 10 and wide gamut monotor. I was so happy few days after I installed and calibrated my EIZO Coloredge monitor untill I discovered.... Bad iplementation of Color management in Windows. If you do not have color managed application to review your exported jpegs, you will end up with totally wrong colors.
Windows just offer your custom ICC profile that you get after calibration to be used by applications which also need to be color managed itself.
And standard windows applications are NOT color managed!!!
That is how windows work. Thumbnails that you see in windows explorer are way to saturated. Also I used Microsoft Photo Software to review my jpegs after export - that app is NOT color managed!!! I discovered it after a few days, it is really ridiculous!!!
What kind of software designer can make a Photo application that is not color managed? And that is accepted by Windows?
Luckily there is a workaround, old Microsoft photo viewer application is color managed, and it is possible to use it in windows 10 with some tweaks. Still thumbnails are a pain, if you do not use lightroom for that, which is of course color managed (and I don't want to use it for jpegs).
29
« on: December 01, 2016, 07:13 »
I always edit in wide gamut, ProPhoto, than I'm sure that if there is banding or any other artifact - that's my mistake, and not of my equipment.
I'm not sure for 32 inch monitor (unless you do 4K) - I guess that fonts will be really tiny and difficult to see... I've just bought EIZO ColorEgde 27inch, it's a great device, specially ColorNavigator calibration software - so easy to use and with accurate result. Still think that even on 27 inch (2500x1400 res) fonts are too small. Or maybe that's only windows.
30
« on: July 01, 2016, 04:03 »
The same here... Just received the email. It could be that they changed keywords (split them), but the e-mail referring only the titles, which are 100% ok.
31
« on: January 25, 2016, 08:08 »
Hi Sebastian, here is the one, I've heard a nice stories about them: https://www.imagerights.com/I've just subscribed there, but still did not check who stole my photos. I still don't dare to do it 
32
« on: January 25, 2016, 07:32 »
Concerning selling photos on 500px: - You can upload small resolution photo with your watermark there, so I'm uploading 960px photo with my watermark. If somebody want to take that and bother with removing watermark... - In marketplace you upload full version, they downsize the photo to 900px and add small watermark. I recently found out that there are online services where you can report the illegal download of your photo and then they have lawyers that go further. I learned that some photographers earn more from what they get from those agencies then from selling their photos
33
« on: January 22, 2016, 06:10 »
ZT, very interesting, thanks I have several photos there that are still not reviewed for a month, so looks like they are not very fast... Could you maybe share the links to your photos that are sold, to see what goes there?
34
« on: January 22, 2016, 04:28 »
Well, I've made my own open source software for tagging the pictures - in java, so I can tag on every platform (microsoft, linux, etc), at any time so it made my life a lot lot easier, I don't have to do it right after I'm already exhausted from postprocessing...
35
« on: December 18, 2015, 05:19 »
Same here! 6$ for 50 credits... Don't know what to think
36
« on: June 26, 2015, 02:49 »
And what about Google street view? Is that considered as publishing the photos?
37
« on: April 29, 2015, 03:38 »
Hm, I've seen your photos, and can not say anything technically wrong... It might be that they just don't like tonality, for example you have a photo that is kind of yellowish and gray (some old door), could be that it lacks the vibrance because of overall tonality of the photo, and then than say as a reason "light" or WB.
But that is highly subjective, so after resubmitting, big chance it will be accepted. I think a lots of subjective rejections are allowed in SS - when just some reviewer don't like the picture - it is the reason of rejection, but with another one is the different story.
38
« on: April 24, 2015, 04:21 »
It is obvious that the policy of the company changed a bit, since a lots of the photos have been uploaded recently, so they want to restrict that. We also complained about that in this forum So, they got new rules - probably only the photo with perfect histogram (from 10 - 245, in the middle) + warm colors, no noise and no shallow DOF will pass. They can do that - they are the best. So, as long as we are struggling and improving our photos to what they want - and uploading them for 25c/38c per download, they will have even benefit of this, as the new photos will be the perfect stock ones. Only, there is the catch - as this can be highly demotivating as well... So, I was thinking - why is there almost no reviews on iStock - there almost everything pass - but - isn't that actually what stock photography should be? If you are good enough to join them, your photos should be good enough for stock without much technical screening. Tones of photos for little price - that should be essence of stock photography by my opinion. If you have a better quality photos, then you should treat it a little better, and not sell it for cents, I guess.
39
« on: April 24, 2015, 03:58 »
38c??!!
Sky high for me, I'm still at 25c....
40
« on: April 14, 2015, 03:31 »
It becomes ridiculous... A photo rejected for focus problems, I took it with tripod and did manual focus on lcd with magnification 100%... Could not be more in focus.
Anyway, I'll stop uploading to SS for a while, no point getting frustrated because of some crazy people there.
The other thing - yesterday I got one SOD for 25c??? Did you ever get 25c for SOD?
The thing is, you spend sometimes hours on post-processing, and then some drunk maniac reviews it, and then then if it gets accepted, you get 25c for SOD, is it normal?
41
« on: April 10, 2015, 03:32 »
Noone are as inconsistent as ShutterStock - noone comes remotely close.
Not in my case, they are pretty consistent lately - in rejecting my photos Somebody complained that they are growing too fast (and no competition at this moment) - so it might explain, now this is the period where they realized it, and want to stop the growth a little bit. So they accept only absolutely technically perfect photo. Even if it is technically perfect, it could be something that they don't like and then easily reject it with "light" as a reason reason. Or focus.
42
« on: April 07, 2015, 05:05 »
Looks nice and simple! Exactly what I need as I've already made keywords solution for myself... Only I need it for Linux
That sounds like me -- at least a bit. I have become rather no-frills lately with my re-discovery of the command line. It is outright amazing what you can do once you get yourself a few extra package down your favorite repository
For video, it's everything ffmpeg & friends for me. For photo, imagemagick and everything that can be added to this core platform. Keeps it simple (and fast).
I used to waste my time with Win and Mac stuff where it turns out the lion's share went into "updating" and repairing OS issues and bugs/omissions in application programs. Not anymore!
Imagenagick looks great, indeed... But I do not see Metadata/Keywords editing there? That was my biggest problem, therefore I've made my own wrapper of ExifTool in java, here is the first version, you can take a look: http://stockphototagger.sourceforge.netHere you can edit Title/Desc/Keywords of a file, copy/paste and update multiple files with the same metadata. also drag/drop the images to Filezilla etc. Now I'm almost ready with the second version where you should be able to see/edit all medatata, and do some file management (copy, delete, move files, etc)
43
« on: March 27, 2015, 07:26 »
I assume you shooting RAW. The histogram on your DSLR is showing the values for the JPEG preview you see on camera while LR is showing you a proper histogram for the RAW file.
Totally agree, the secret is in settings that you put in your camera that affect jpeg created from raw file (and which is shown in the screen). So, I would put the camera settings like contrast etc to the default value. The other thing to try is to generate jpeg in camera and see if the histogram values in lightroom differ from camera screen.
44
« on: March 27, 2015, 07:20 »
Lighting 101 !!! Seriously!
Sorry, but I'm really tired of people who know nothing about photography and yet they get accepted by stock "agencies".
Being accepted by a stock agency doesn't mean that you know much about photography...
45
« on: March 25, 2015, 07:42 »
But there is another problem. If you reduce the ISO lower than 100 ISO, the Cam (in every case Nikon) will produce Pictures with much harder contrasts. Actually like it was in the good old days with low ISO film material.
Hm, good to know that, anyway my Nikon goes from ISO 100... I thought mostly Canon makes cameras with ISO less than 100?
46
« on: March 23, 2015, 06:37 »
As lower ISO as possible of course.
The other thing is to enable in-camera long exposure NR. Then camera makes one image with the same settings, just with the shutter closed - that would record only noise, and then reduce that from the original picture. That will consume double shooting time (imagine that you need like 2 min exposure and then 2 min more for noise reduction shot, and then processing time...), but it is worth it!
47
« on: March 16, 2015, 06:54 »
Couldn't find them...
Anyway, as somebody already mentioned, our brain changes reality, which is actually correctly captured by camera.
The best example - one interesting experience from skiing: I have a purple ski goggles, so snow should appear purple when you see through them, but actually not, show appears white. But what happens when you remove the goggles from the eyes: First few seconds the show appears greenish, then goes to white.
So, our brain applies the opposite color filter to purple - it is green, and a few seconds after you remove goggles - the filter is still there, until it normalizes and become white...
48
« on: March 13, 2015, 11:33 »
But it becomes a problem when the reviewers tell you this Hmm, I guess they added WB as an only reason lately, when I was getting WB rejections it was together with light... Posting some of you photos could help - I can only think of a strong color cast. Sometimes I'm so much involved in retouching that I do not see the color cast that I'm adding to image... But tomorrow when I see the same retouched image it appears totally different
49
« on: March 12, 2015, 11:25 »
I also thought in the beginning that my rejections are for WB, but then realized the are not. WB can be anything, if you like it warm, make it warm (just skin color is a bit tricky), it's all artistic decision There are though some general rules (for example for daylight or studio lights should be from 5400 - 5600K etc), but WB is not general stock photography problem. It is more light, harsh shadows or lack of details in shadows, blown out highlights, or generally uneven light, even if there are no clippings.
50
« on: February 20, 2015, 09:50 »
It a pig how the Fotolia system works because every so often they reset the default answers to "exclusive" question on the upload screen
...
So you can easily get caught out and give them exclusivity and a free image if you are not careful.
Exactly, it's so frustrating... Specially that you need to delete image if you make any mistake, not only that one...
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
