MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - Fatmanphoto

Pages: 1 [2]
26
Site Related / Re: Agree not agree
« on: June 11, 2015, 03:23 »
You can disagree with a statement but I dont see how you can disagree with a fact.

To use Cathy's example, if someone said I had a good day on SS, how can I disagree with that? That person had a good day, what is there to disagree with? If they said today was a good day on SS I could disagree. I guess its down to semantics.

Anyway, the disagreements in this thread just dont make sense at all. How does one agree with a question? Or someone expressing their feeling?
http://www.microstockgroup.com/alamy-com/payment-25200/msg421311/?topicseen#msg421311

How does this make sense: What time does the train leave tomorrow? I disagree!


Sorry to drag this one back, but I just saw a comment in my local rag which remonded me. What a poster interpretes as a fact the reader may consider an opinion. I do see this often across forums (fora, what is the plural?) not necessarily here. So readers could have disagreed with whether what was presented as a fact is in fact a fact in their eyes.

This ties in woth the question asked of me earlier about self answering rhetorical questions - feel free to ask any question, rhetoricial or not. But please do not answer or imply an answer in my name.

27
Site Related / Re: Agree not agree
« on: June 10, 2015, 12:18 »

I disagree with getting rid of the disagree button.

28
Site Related / Re: Agree not agree
« on: June 10, 2015, 01:37 »
I've been looking at a few threads today and noticed a lot of "Disagree" negatives for people asking simple question or reporting facts. Shouldn't as a community be encouraging people rather than coming across as a bunch of know it all miserable gits who don't want to help or encourage anyone to join our exclusive club of self appointed experts?

Just because someone disagrees doesn't mean they are being a know-it-all. If someone said "I had a great day today on SS" I would have to disagree, because I am NOT having a great day on SS. That doesn't mean I begrudge the person for having a great day. Does everyone in your life always agree with you? I thought not.  :)

It is a pet hate of mine, so I will bloody mindedly disagree with anyone on the internet who poses a rhetorical question and then either answer or assume the answer themselves.

29
I generally add to the big four as I go along, and about half a dozen of middle tier at the start of the month.

I added a few more after seeing a table on the Backyard Silver blog. Basically, I looked at the table and added to my list any new agencies that were easy to upload to. Too early to say how they do though.

http://www.backyardsilver.com/2014/11/stock-agencies-support/

30
Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me

So goes the old saying  ~ what sensistive little flowers ;D


I'd suggest that it's the minus givers rather than receivers who are the sensitive little flowers - folks who can't bear an alternative POV.

As a general point, not confined to this thread, it's perfectly possible to disagree totally with someone and accept that they have a valid alternative view.

But if everyone agreed with that point (fwiw I do) then surely that would break The Internet.

31
The reviewers are not incompetent at all.
But they do see things from the side of the agency.
Which they are hired for.

And Mantis, since you are brave enough to upload a picture and throw it into the pirrhanya infested waters.
Look at the rejection reasons again, and aks yourself, what it is, the reviewer (who expresses the viewpoints of the agency) politely is is trying to tell you.

I think a major point of this thread is that reviewers should not be 'trying to tell you' anything, politely or not, but telling you exactly why a image is rejected. Other agencies have a rejection category along the lines of "This is not what we are looking for" and this I find perfectly acceptable when I get them. Furthermore if SS does come clean that it does not want certain subjects as it is saturated already, then that is fine. It saves everyone time (but, as many have pointed out, it potentially saves reviewers revenue).

32
Site Related / Re: How do you 'favourite' a post?
« on: May 27, 2015, 02:54 »
Cheers,

one thing - it might be worth putting some note in the help section. I did take a look there a while back and either there was no help or not easily accessible.

33
Site Related / Re: How do you 'favourite' a post?
« on: May 26, 2015, 12:49 »
Ah ... my post must have got someone to look at something.

As if by magic the agree/disagree buttons are suddenly there.

34
Site Related / How do you 'favourite' a post?
« on: May 26, 2015, 11:34 »
I can see posts being favourite - that is getting a score for the number of people thinking that it is a great post.

Now I may be being dense but for the life of me I cannot see how I can 'favourite' a post.

Can any one point out what may be the bleedin' obvious?

many thanks

35
:o :o :o :o I am speechless...........


lol lol lol, he is smoking a lot of weed, ha ha, what people upload  lol lol
35000 lol

probably some sort of disease or too much weed   :D 8) ::)


I noticed that too. Same object and then shot at 30mm, 35mm, 40mm, 45mm, then turned to 30 degrees left, 35 degrees left and so on, and then turned to all possible angles to the right and shot 20 times..... it's crazy, I think they should reject such stuff, no wonder, some people have 20k+ images.

For example: http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_landing=1&gallery_id=1256674&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest

This is just ridiculous, what they're accepting.




That is what makes me frustrated about the whole rejection thing. He must be affiliated with SS in some way, but he's sure as sh!t not an inspector..........or maybe he is.......that could explain a LOT! ;)


Or maybe the reviewer was off his head on weed.

36
Quote
IF they don't want the work for LCV they should say so and save everyone a lot of work in guessing how to fix a faux problem and resubmitting

Also they could save some serious money by not paying the reviewers multiple times for looking at the same image.

I sometimes wonder if rejection rates jump, when the review queues drop to low levels of images waiting to be reviewed.

that would mean the reviewers have more time to look over the images in better detail. I've heard the same about submitting your taxes- wait until the last day April 15th and you have less than a 1% chance of being audited due to the flood of submissions.  You might have a valid point here...

Or they make double the money by reviewing some images twice.

Or indeed all images twice.

37
... and yet SS is expected to take anything regardless of whether its useful (to them) as long as its technically sound.

It is entirely reasonable for SS to reject because they perceive the image content to be of little commercial use, lots of agencies do. It is not reasonable to do so but blame it on focussing etc (when this is not the case).

If SS are rejecting for content, then give us that reason. It would save a lot of time for them and us.


38
Hi,

first post after lurking and learning for over a year.

To pass on a story of my own - I have been getting terrible stats from Shutterstock for a couple of months.

Checking everything in Lightroom before exporting to JPG  - what can go wrong (apart from original quality of course)?

Only this morning, looking into something else, I realised that following a computer rebuild Lightroom was exporting at 60% quality, not 100%.

Pages: 1 [2]

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle