|
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 - dragonblade
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 31
101
« on: September 17, 2023, 00:38 »
It's great when you get a photo accepted on AS considering that their reviews are so strict these days. I had a photo of a green praying mantis accepted a few days ago but for some reason, it's not visible in my port. Definitely not showing up.
Edit: And now it's appeared. Could not find it before and scanned through my port twice.
102
« on: September 17, 2023, 00:00 »
I just noticed that on the checklist for submitting Editorial photos, one of the items says something like "no trademark, logos etc.".
Yep, it's kind of silly. Regardless, I agree to all of the above in the checklist with my editorial photos and there are no issues.
103
« on: September 16, 2023, 11:47 »
I'd also recommend keeping similars to an absolute minimum when submitting to other agencies as well. In actual fact, try to avoid uploading them the majority of the time. There are some problematic ports out there that have huge numbers of similar images. It's basically image spam which is not a good thing. Other contributors get frustrated because their new work can be buried by tons of similars in the search results. And I'm sure that buyers don't enjoy wading through pages and pages of similars.
104
« on: September 16, 2023, 11:30 »
Recently, the Rolling Stones released a new single "Angry." The song is featured on their latest album "Hackney Diamonds." Each time I hear the song, I like it more and more. It kind of sounds like the Stones in the 70s era which is really cool. Very reminiscent of that time period with this band. Great music video too - very creative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mEC54eTuGw
105
« on: September 15, 2023, 19:46 »
Congratulations on the sales. Yes, I agree that it is a fair chance that it could be the same buyer who bought all of those similar images. However, I would be very careful about submitting similar images to AS. They are very strict about that. I believe it's possible for contributors to be kicked out if they have similars in their port. Though that may only be a temporary ban. It's well known that AS are not keen on similars.
106
« on: September 15, 2023, 19:33 »
Instead of getting a single payment, I seem to be getting a few payments (in very small amounts) presumably for this AI training thing. Usually a few dollars. I haven't been notified of sales so it must be AI training related. I don't know why they need to analyse my port again and again. Is anyone else getting multiple payments for this?
107
« on: September 15, 2023, 12:29 »
Otherwise, I can't see any reason for which Shutterstock is giving recurring payment (every six months they said) for data training
Maybe it does revisit the same images from time to time. Or perhaps they're feeding it new images with each payment.
108
« on: September 15, 2023, 10:23 »
Ive just had a super fast review for an illustrative editorial photo. I submitted it last night and it was accepted tonight. Amazing. Though I still have a number of other photos sitting in the review queue that have been there for ages.
109
« on: September 14, 2023, 22:32 »
that's my process too. if it's going to take me forever to clone out a bunch of logos and remove people i just make it editorial. Yea that's a good approach. With this particular image, it wouldn't have taken me much time to clone out the brand name and I was considering doing it. that said i've submitted photos with "distant cars" and people who were not easily identifiable expecting a reject but they were accepted. some agencies are more lenient than others.
I could have submitted this one as commercial but that warning on the AS submit page and all these recent reports of blocked accounts put me off the idea. Better to be safe than sorry I guess.
110
« on: September 14, 2023, 00:22 »
Are only photos added to the data licensing or videos as well?
111
« on: September 13, 2023, 23:47 »
3) I know in the past, stock agencies would normally accept photographs of cities etc for commercial usage if it was a wide shot (showing a city skyline etc and everything is distant.) However, these current warnings about logos etc on the AS submit page has made me extra cautious and I don't want to take any chances.
--> Yes in photos where the city is in the background, e.g. landscape photos you normally cannot see any logos etc.
And also in photographs where a city is the main subject but with a wide view (as in a city skyline.) Agencies have been known to reject city images for commercial usage where the frame is dominated by one or two (or three) buildings - especially if the building design is protected by copyright. But they are more likely to accept a much wider view which reveals many buildings - in other words a distant city view (for commercial use.) We haven't seen the photo but from the description it sounds to me that the buildings are not at an huge distance from your camera so trademarks are visible in your photo As I mentioned above, it's an aerial image shot with a wide angle lens so the distance is quite considerable. The camera would be roughly about 200 feet in the air more or less. 4) I could also add that there are some old historical B&W photographs displayed on the wall of the supermarket that are possibly in the public domain.
--> possibly does not sound very convincing to me. At a rough guess, I'd say the B&W photographs may have been taken in the early 1900s or possibly earlier or later. I'll have to take a visit to this supermarket again and see if I can find dates among the captions on these vintage photographs. photo's also have copyright
In many cases yes, photographs do have copyright. An exception to this is where copyright has expired 70 years after the death of the photographer. Regardless, like I said above, ive changed my mind about submitting this photo as commercial. I'll mark it as editorial and see how it goes.
112
« on: September 13, 2023, 17:48 »
My experience is 'generally speaking' if they just look like "generic cars" - then usually it is fine for commercial use. If however - you say could easily identify the brand (i.e., say a row of lambourghinis), or easily identify license plates, street names, business establishments, etc - then yes, that would become editorial footage.
I do see a variety of car types in the image. One of them looks like a four wheel drive. I confess that I'm not a car expert so there could be a possibility that some people may be able to identify some of the brands despite the distant view. It's impossible to read the license plate numbers - they're too far away for that. I don't think street names would be an issue. I have a street name sign accepted as commercial. Regardless, no street name signs would be readable in this photo. Maybe I'll play it safe and submit this photo as editorial. Though I seriously doubt it would be accepted as illustrative editorial on AS because it doesn't focus specifically on a particular building, brand or product. It's a wide aerial view that shows a bunch of different buildings and an oval / sports field. Oh and by the way, if anyone is interested, the photo was taken with a kite and not a drone. There are a small number of people out there that take aerial photographs with kites - definitely a minority. Obviously, drone photography is more common place but people have been doing kite aerial photography for over 100 years. In fact, some of the earliest aerial photographs were taken with kites and balloons. Just a bit of trivia.
113
« on: September 13, 2023, 17:31 »
Unless you remove all things you brought up yourself it is editorial.. Does not matter if it is "distant" or not
Distance can make a difference - at least with buildings. It's well known that stock agencies can accept city images as commercial if the buildings are part of a wider view (if everything appears distant.) Though I wasn't sure if the same applies to cars. Of course it also depends on the stock agency's discretion. In the past, Ive had two city images accepted as commercial. All the buildings appeared distant in those particular images and there were no cars visible. One of those photos has sold 12 times on AS.
114
« on: September 13, 2023, 05:33 »
I have an aerial image of a town shot with a wide angle lens. And in this photograph, there are several parked cars but they are very distant and impossible to read the license plate numbers. It is possible that a car expert may be able to identify some of the brands or models of the cars without zooming in though some people may struggle to do this. Would such an image be suitable for commercial usage in Adobe Stock?
There is also a brand name visible on a supermarket in the photo but it is barely visible due to the distance. I'm planning to clone the brand name out but that is probably overkill. You would be able to identify the brand name if you zoomed in to the photo.
I know in the past, stock agencies would normally accept photographs of cities etc for commercial usage if it was a wide shot (showing a city skyline etc and everything is distant.) However, these current warnings about logos etc on the AS submit page has made me extra cautious and I don't want to take any chances.
I could also add that there are some old historical B&W photographs displayed on the wall of the supermarket that are possibly in the public domain. Though once again, they are extremely distant and hard to identify as photographs. Though a local would probably be able to recognise them as photographs.
115
« on: September 12, 2023, 00:49 »
"Pond5 Exclusive artists still have complete control over their pricing on Pond5."
I wonder for how much longer will non exclusive contributors will be able to set their own prices on P5.
116
« on: September 11, 2023, 21:33 »
In the Edit menu, towards the bottom, are two options - Convert to Profile and Assign Profile. They are very different and what you want is Convert to Profile
Thank you. I was looking at instructions online last night but they weren't much good. Plus I have a very old version of Photoshop and it seems like the instructions weren't applicable (different menu options.) When I go to Convert to Profile, I see a number of options within the Destination Space. One of these is sRGB IEC61966-2.1. I guess that's the one. Up above that, it indicates that the Source Space is Adobe RGB. And the default option for the Destination Space is CMYK. I also notice some other options like Engine (Adobe ACE), Intent (Relative Colorimetric) and check boxes for "Use Black Point Compensation" and "Use Dither." Would it be best to leave these extra options at their default settings?
117
« on: September 11, 2023, 10:57 »
Just wondering how I could convert Adobe RGB to sRGB? I'm in Adobe Photoshop right now and I'm surprised that this isn't an option when saving. It looks like Adobe RGB is locked in though there is a checkbox next to it.
118
« on: September 04, 2023, 22:40 »
It is very frustrating if photos then get declined for "quality" while this stuff just walks through the door with no questions asked.
AS has a warped sense of favouritism, it seems. Very much misplaced.
119
« on: September 04, 2023, 22:15 »
I wonder how many refunds are being sent to clients who didn't initially spot these flaws when purchasing the images. It would suck to buy an image of a board room meeting only to discover later that there were some mutants seated at the table pictured.
120
« on: September 04, 2023, 17:55 »
i agree on the silly rejects, esp'ly when the reason given is worthless ('something's wrong - guess what it is!") Exactly right. I don't know why they make this a guessing game. but the bigger problem is when entire batches are rejected (and most i submit have already accepted by S & DT) and taking a month to review is ridiculous
When I first joined AS, about half of my photos were accepted if I recall correctly. Then later on, the reviewers seem to become less strict and they accepted just about everything I submitted. Ive been out of the stock game for a little while and now that I'm back, I see that something really weird is going on with the AS review team.
121
« on: September 04, 2023, 11:05 »
What is even more fun is our content ferments for a month or so only to find out your content suddenly does not meet Adobe qaulity standards, evenwith years of a proven track record.
Yea their reviewers are becoming ridiculously strict. Some of my latest images were rejected for technical reasons and they look fine to me. I used to have a very good acceptance rate. My last photo was rejected because there is supposedly a similar image already in my portfolio. That is complete nonsense. I went through my port twice and I see no images that are similar to this latest submission. The latest photo is a close up of a very young tree. I do admit that I have a close up of a plant that is already in my port but these types of vegetation are completely different and look nothing like each other. For example, one has large leaves and the other has no leaves. I guess Adobe are hinting that we are only allowed to have a maximum of one plant close up in our port and no more. Never mind that there are probably thousands of different types of plants out there but we can only have a closeup of one of them. So choose carefully.
122
« on: September 01, 2023, 22:03 »
I am trying to increase my output, but the absolut max I was ever able to do was 30 in one day. Usually I do 50-100 a week.
30 a day still seems like a massive amount to me. Way more than I could do. Ive been doing stock now for a bit more than a few years and I admit that I am a very slow uploader. Well I do shoot Raw so the files need time to process and get everything looking just right. Even if the Raw processing is done quickly for a particular image, there's always something else that takes a lot of time like research. I wish there was more time in a day to produce more files for stock. I am constantly amazed at how fast some contributers are. They're able to build huge ports in a very short space of time while keeping the quality high. I envy that.
123
« on: September 01, 2023, 21:50 »
Sorry to hear about your account being blocked. This is very unfair and seems like an overreaction on Adobe's part. I had no plans to create or upload AI imagery and after reading this thread, my feelings on this matter are stronger than ever. It's not worth the risk. I'll stick to traditional photography.
124
« on: September 01, 2023, 19:39 »
similarly, many ordinary microscope images are of stained-prepared objects
I still see that as a representation of the real world. It's an example of real world staining - something that many scientists and hobbyists do in labs etc every day. So I don't see that as misleading. Someone may be looking for an example of a specific type of staining. And of course there are many types of microscopy such as bright field, dark field and polarisation that will give very different 'looks.' And I would consider each of those 'looks' to be authentic. However, I would label them appropriately in my descriptions if I submitted some imagery as stock - ie dark field imaging.
125
« on: September 01, 2023, 19:08 »
If you're asking about resubmitting after a rejection, it really depends on the image, the rejection reason, and whether it looks good after you made whatever changes you thought were necessary.
The trouble is that AS are quite vague when it comes to rejection reasons for technical issues. They are not specific at all as to exactly why a particular image is rejected. It could be due to all manner of reasons - focus, noise, over processed etc. So it's hard to know exactly why a photo was rejected when they state 'technical reasons.' A lot of the time, I wouldn't know what to 'correct' since I'm left with a bunch of possible rejection issues. And sometimes none of them seem to apply to my particular image. By the way, when I first started submitting photos to AS a few years ago, they were very strict with their review process. I had quite a few rejections but also quite a few accepted images also. Then later on, they appeared to be a lot less strict and most of my images were accepted nearly all the time. Well looks like they've become strict again just recently as my two latest commercial submissions were rejected. I don't see anything wrong with these images myself other than a bit of noise in the blue skies. I did do some noise reduction while retaining good sharpness. I also downsized the images somewhat. Maybe I should resubmit again with even smaller file sizes.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 31
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
