|
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 - qunamax
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 20
251
« on: October 27, 2018, 09:38 »
Well IP obviously. They don't need to know if it's you or your aunt in front of the computer, they don't even have to be sure what is happening, they just see something suspicious (two accs one IP) and that's enough for them. You did suspicious activity, they banned your for suspicious activity.
Same IP address, same postal address, or using the same computer IS NOT AND NEVER THE REASON. This is truly just a myth. In no where at Shutterstock's agreement stated you cannot use the same computer, same IP address, or same postal address to become a contributor. Me and my wife have been using the same computer/ip address/postal address for many many years to do our uploads for 6-10 different sites and there hasn't been a problem. The one thing we never share is our payment detail.
There must be OTHER REASON why their account got closed. Two contributors or more using the same IP address, same computer, and same postal address does not justify why Shutterstock need to close their account. It doesn't cheat, steal, or getting unfair advantage.
My biggest suspect is that these contributors who got their account banned together are most probably using the same artworks elements/photos in their portfolios.
No of course, just as Ann wrote, there is something else to add up, I was just pointing out how they know, of course IP alone won't trigger ban.
252
« on: October 26, 2018, 17:35 »
Well IP obviously. They don't need to know if it's you or your aunt in front of the computer, they don't even have to be sure what is happening, they just see something suspicious (two accs one IP) and that's enough for them. You did suspicious activity, they banned your for suspicious activity.
253
« on: October 24, 2018, 07:40 »
It doesn't seem odd to me, it was the same for me in the beginning until I included more photos that could be actually incorporated into designs, not just used on their own. And it took some time before the sales started and even now few years later they are not steady except for a few bestsellers.
254
« on: October 22, 2018, 13:59 »
It's probably my loss, but I didn't dare jump into the stock for 10 years, until I thought I reached a certain quality and until I gathered decent equipment and it became my second nature. People now flood SS with mediocre mobile snaps and I don't think it's doing anyone any good, not even for them as they won't learn anything and probably won't reach payouts.
255
« on: October 22, 2018, 10:00 »
Short term profit thinking, branding the average customer as stupid and not knowing anything about quality but still buying any old rubbish! add to that they pile it up and accepting anything! Thats why they lowered the bar so that every weekend snapper with a phone could gain entry.
Sad thing that some pros and advanced amateurs still feed this beast uploading and thats the only thing that keeps this crap alive!
And now they flood facebook groups with questions like "what is RF?" and "where is the upload button in mobile app". People that don't know their way around mobile app and website UIs, let alone photography or design.
256
« on: October 20, 2018, 21:29 »
So will have to wait again for stats?
We can see which files have sold, and how often, but not for how much.
Excuse me for asking, but where do you see what sold?
ESP > Performance > Downloads. That page should say Statement: September 2018 at the top left.
Thank, I just assumed it never works for anything current and forgot about it. Bad month.
257
« on: October 20, 2018, 17:02 »
So will have to wait again for stats?
We can see which files have sold, and how often, but not for how much.
Excuse me for asking, but where do you see what sold?
258
« on: October 18, 2018, 12:09 »
Had the same experience, same reseller agency, I'm from Serbia, I spotted images last december, same response, still no reported sale.
259
« on: October 18, 2018, 12:07 »
Thanks for the advice. I only ever upload mobile photos to SS and FT if if they are perfect sunny daylight ones.
Was very careful with Alamy and now less with 3 stars and it all goes smooth, you probably shouldn't have risked it with 2 stars.
260
« on: July 18, 2018, 10:00 »
How is that connected to Microstockr?
261
« on: June 17, 2018, 08:43 »
What about the demand? "News" websites have gone up a lot in recent years and article lifetime has gone down a lot. For instance.
Partly true but you only need to look at SS's published figures to see overall supply has increased vastly more than supply.
True, saw the figures, but I kind of tend to ignore the spam and low quality (commercial value) supply when thinking about it. Those supply numbers might be a lot pumped with this kind of assets. For one thing, even when I look at my own portfolio I tend to ignore the images I know don't have high value, which I uploaded just because I had nothing else at hand at that moment and maybe at some point it will have some casual download numbers. I just exclude them from my calculations.
Thats a fair point from my own experience if the quality of recent submissions were as high as in the past I ought to be doing far worse than I am. I wonder sometimes if the lowering of acceptance standards actually works in our favour as some newbies think any old .... sells.
I think, in the end, it comes down to how good the search algorithm is, if the spam and low quality gets pushed deep down, it doesn't even matter if it's being uploaded or not. And it's probably good enough for now. On the other hands, of course there are very good photographers with quality material that join up everyday, that's the real supply we should be afraid of.
262
« on: June 17, 2018, 07:34 »
What about the demand? "News" websites have gone up a lot in recent years and article lifetime has gone down a lot. For instance.
Partly true but you only need to look at SS's published figures to see overall supply has increased vastly more than supply.
True, saw the figures, but I kind of tend to ignore the spam and low quality (commercial value) supply when thinking about it. Those supply numbers might be a lot pumped with this kind of assets. For one thing, even when I look at my own portfolio I tend to ignore the images I know don't have high value, which I uploaded just because I had nothing else at hand at that moment and maybe at some point it will have some casual download numbers. I just exclude them from my calculations.
263
« on: June 15, 2018, 12:32 »
What about the demand? "News" websites have gone up a lot in recent years and article lifetime has gone down a lot. For instance.
264
« on: June 05, 2018, 18:50 »
6000 photos and you earned a few euros in five months of 2018? There's something seriously wrong happening with your ports.
265
« on: May 27, 2018, 04:37 »
Every day someone's shutter fails, it can fail at any time regardless of factory specification, but that doesn't mean you should worry about it. When it fails and if it fails just get a service to put a new one in, a lot cheaper than buying a new camera.
If you shoot critical events you should always have a backup.
Maybe the shutter will last long enough so that your camera will become obsolete to you and you won't bother changing it and just get a new camera and thrash the old one.
If you think that shutter change service is expensive you should rethink your camera probably.
That's all to it, shoot until you kill it, change it, continue shooting.
266
« on: May 16, 2018, 16:59 »
Is this maybe the same case we had recently here on boards where model was asking around how to make photographer remove photos from agencies?
267
« on: May 14, 2018, 06:38 »
My best guess: yes because you are not reselling textures as such but as a part of your original work, which the texture was intended for in the first place, thus "commercial use allowed" in faq.
268
« on: May 10, 2018, 11:55 »
Allow me to suggest Xpiks, you can use it to both keyword and upload and it's free and very easy to use.
269
« on: April 28, 2018, 18:24 »
I tried to post my pics but that said my file is too large... i downsized it to 500 kb
Metadata :
f/18, iso 200, 45mm, 40 sec. long exposure with a tripod and remote for the click.
lens : olympus 40-150mm 4.0-5.6 ; panasonic g85
I just read that the sweet spot for this lens is f/8... i will try this next time!
I will test it with different aperture and put some weight on my tripod...
Thanks guys, i really appreciate your comments!
Something is very wrong with that image. At 100% it's smeared all over, like some extreme noise reduction leftover. Also I see a lot of posterization and pixelization in the sky and lots of artifacts all over.
I don't think the focus is a miss, it's just the general image quality is very poor, old mobile phone poor.
Please tell us if this was shot RAW or JPEG, what's done in post, how was it exported etc.
Also, that's 4/3 sensor you really don't need f18 to achieve deep DOF, f8 should be more than enough, you are just pushing long exposure heat noise for no reason, maybe that's what happened here, noise reduction working overtime to compensate for that.
Hey, thanks for your comment.
"At 100% it's smeared all over, like some extreme noise reduction leftover. Also I see a lot of posterization and pixelization in the sky and lots of artifacts all over." good conclusions! I need to learn a lot again...
What i did :
- shoot in RAW (LE noise reduction ON)
-Exported from Lightroom (100% high quality)
- Develop. in Lightroom
- some basic calibration, and did something with a noise reduction things (i'm at work, dont have lgroom in my face right now).
- Clarity : increased
-more vibrance and saturation a litlle bit...
Maybe the noise reduction thing didn't help?
Without seeing original RAW file my best guess is going to LE noise reduction in combination with 40s exposure, eating away all the details. Maybe even post noise reduction in LR, but I don't recognize it's abuse signature in this, this looks much more like usual small sensor in-camera noise reduction eating away all the details, LR noise reduction is pretty tame and has different resulting pattern .
270
« on: April 27, 2018, 09:37 »
I tried to post my pics but that said my file is too large... i downsized it to 500 kb
Metadata :
f/18, iso 200, 45mm, 40 sec. long exposure with a tripod and remote for the click.
lens : olympus 40-150mm 4.0-5.6 ; panasonic g85
I just read that the sweet spot for this lens is f/8... i will try this next time!
I will test it with different aperture and put some weight on my tripod...
Thanks guys, i really appreciate your comments!
Something is very wrong with that image. At 100% it's smeared all over, like some extreme noise reduction leftover. Also I see a lot of posterization and pixelization in the sky and lots of artifacts all over. I don't think the focus is a miss, it's just the general image quality is very poor, old mobile phone poor. Please tell us if this was shot RAW or JPEG, what's done in post, how was it exported etc. Also, that's 4/3 sensor you really don't need f18 to achieve deep DOF, f8 should be more than enough, you are just pushing long exposure heat noise for no reason, maybe that's what happened here, noise reduction working overtime to compensate for that.
271
« on: April 26, 2018, 10:31 »
Does anyone feel the ability to have lower noise levels at high asa is an advantage....I'm desperately trying to rationalise a new toy but to be honest I'm not sure the marginal improvement in IQ is worth the s anymore.
I assume you meant ISO?
Better ISO performance is a huge advantage in my opinion. But I'm out and about filming, relying on natural light pretty much all the time. The most exciting things usually happen when light is weak.
A high megapixel count usually means worse ISO performance, however, as the size of the pixels is smaller. The bigger the pixels, the better the ISO performance. So it's always a trade-off, like with most things.
I agree, being able to shoot at higher iso is a big advantage, you can simply work faster not having to lug tripod all the time and still have keepers usable for stock. Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk
272
« on: April 26, 2018, 04:42 »
273
« on: April 26, 2018, 04:41 »
As a real non-tekkie, please can somebody say whether 256 or 512 SSD alone ie no 'normal' memory will run PS CC, Topaz, Office etc ok? It sounds so little.....
I'm happy to keep all photo files etc on external hard drives.
Advice MUCH appreciated!
Ta...in anticipation....!
I have all the possibly needed software for photography, video and all other daily stuff on 120GB SSD with some 20GB free. 256GB should be enough, by the time it's not enough you'll be probably looking at interface upgrade anyway.
274
« on: April 26, 2018, 04:36 »
A year ago or so I asked the same, general answer was that everyone mostly sell web resolutions anyway.
It's probably good to have them available at high res if occasionally someone buys them for something other than website. Buyer might skip the image just because it's not available in high res, that's my logic.
Some agencies have upper limit, not sure if they even take advantage of 42mpx.
42mpx are handy for cropping and downsizing not so perfect photos.
275
« on: March 29, 2018, 07:15 »
I like them a lot but contrary to what others wrote, the ones I clicked on to see full res are soft, have lots of noise and sometimes motion blur. But if they pass, they pass. 
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
