|
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 - Elenathewise
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... 35
551
« on: February 23, 2011, 19:51 »
i, for one, have no problem how he got the equipment; what does it matter if was free or discounted. Yuri is the top microstocker and sets the bar for all of us to achieve. I am proud of him; happy to be trying to achieve some success similar to his; and delighted to see that this industry is not all doom and gloom-there is success for those that work hard. Judging by his numbers, even if there was no discount, he has sufficient capital to afford all this stuff.
Disclosure: I have not seen the video; even though I am in Russia-my internet signal comes from China and they block all video sites.
U didn't miss too much - he is just showing off his toys and his new space. I too don't understand why anyone would have a problem with any of this - it's nice to see someone enjoying this business as much as Yuri is.
552
« on: February 23, 2011, 18:43 »
And your name is oxymoronic right?
Ummm.... My name is Elena Elisseeva. I am one of the best-selling microstock photographers in the world. Who exactly are you and why are you calling me stupid? Did you hide all your personal info so you can anonymously call people names?
553
« on: February 23, 2011, 16:14 »
I'd try something in the middle.
554
« on: February 23, 2011, 13:40 »
555
« on: February 23, 2011, 11:51 »
Wow, amount of white blank space in the first image... I had stuff rejected for 1/4 of that. And why would he even shoot someone's wearing a trademarked t-shirt? Don't they have a giant closet full of proper clothing?...;-)
Wouldn't be surprised he has special deal with Fotolia (like no reviews at all).
there isnt a single comment from you that I havent enjoyed 
556
« on: February 23, 2011, 00:18 »
Wow, amount of white blank space in the first image... I had stuff rejected for 1/4 of that. And why would he even shoot someone's wearing a trademarked t-shirt? Don't they have a giant closet full of proper clothing?...;-)
Wouldn't be surprised he has special deal with Fotolia (like no reviews at all).
557
« on: February 23, 2011, 00:10 »
This is nonsense. Unless Chinese money design is copyrighted there shouldn't be any problems with the image. If noone can tell for sure where the infringement is how can there be an infringement? I get kicks from images being rejected for copyright infringement when the logo or text is only visible at 200% magnification in the farthest corner of the image. How much damage to the company can it possibly do?
However you should check if Chinese government copyrighted their money, Canadian did - which was a shameless money grab (har har) since you have to pay for permission to sell photos with Canadian money on it...
558
« on: February 22, 2011, 19:31 »
I dont get.. wasnt his RPI going down to 5$ or lower? stock is really dead! 300k EUR in lights!
He-hee... there is no counting money when it comes to buying toys:) Plus he can afford it, so why not. @Yuri - this looks like fun... enjoy your toys dude:)
559
« on: February 18, 2011, 14:44 »
Some of those pics, made me blink a few times like I had some crud in my eye messing up the focus, or maybe my glasses were smudged... to me that is taking the reverse tilt-shift / shallow DOF too far (unless you are trying to sell optical services). In some others it worked well for me. In general I am not super happy with really shallow depth of field images (for example when the nose, eyelashes, and anything behind the edge of the eyes is out of focus in a portrait). I realize that is just my personal taste though and every once in a while a shallow DOF image grabs me though, so it isn't always bad.
Maybe the only thing that annoys me more than the reverse tilt shift shallow depth of field slice is when it is done in PS so it is some weird stripe across the image in focus that has nothing to do with the distance from the lens.
On the flip side I like harsh shadows and dark images, so I haven't completely gone for the microstock kool-aid.
Of course it can be just a matter of personal preference, and nothing's wrong with that. People don't like same things, it would be boring. However, you may try not to focus so much on focus issues (har har), but step away from the image and see it as a whole. Like when you're looking at a paining, you don't inspect every single brush stroke, but seeing entire piece from several feet away. I just wrote more about this in my new blog post: http://blog.elenaphoto.com/?p=88
560
« on: February 18, 2011, 11:49 »
It's very interesting how some people perceive shallow DOF and muted colors as a "bad quality" photos. I guess it's like cilantro - some people love it, some people hate it, to some it tastes citrusy, to some it tastes like soap. A couple of years ago I opened an issue of National Geographic magazine and was amazed by ethereal, very artistic, very shallow dof and all blurry images of plants and flowers (I wish I remembered with issue it was). Sure enough, the next issue contained a very angry letter from some photographer saying how disappointed he was with NG for printing "bad quality" and "out of focus" and "amateur" photos, and how could they lower their standards so much.
It is that some people get so preoccupied with technical characteristic of the photos that it totally blocks their artistic vision? Or is it indeed like cilantro - to some it's soap, to some it's citrus, and nothing can be done about it?...
I am soo putting these thoughts into my next blog post:)
561
« on: February 17, 2011, 22:57 »
I've had several sales of travel shots with Alamy, a few over $200 (I don't think these shots would ever earn me that much money on microstock). Some of them sell as "novel use" for a buck or 49 cents, but then a big sale makes up for it.
I didn't try submitting any of the travel to Getty, I have some people and food there, and not impressed with sales. No experience with Age.
562
« on: February 17, 2011, 21:53 »
From my experience, the kind of travel shots that sell well on microstock have to me very straightforward. They have to look like a classic postcard, and usually people look for very recognizable angles and locations. Something even a little bit more artsy doesn't sell. I have a lot of travel shots from different locations and here are a couple of my best-sellers (on micros): http://www.elenaphoto.com/locations_canada_g72-toronto_skyline_p9207.htmlhttp://www.elenaphoto.com/locations_france_g73-pont_du_gard_in_southern_france_p7294.htmlAs you can see both are "classic postcard", very traditional shots. I have more interesting shots but they don't sell on microstock nearly as well. So if you have something more unusual I'd place them on Macros, at least if you have a sale there you'll make some money, but on microstock you'll just earn peanuts.
563
« on: February 17, 2011, 20:52 »
@WarrenPrice - I don't think she is selling stock though agencies, although there is a "licensing" link on her page. I love her style, it's very soft and consistent, too. She does work for cookbooks (right now she is working on her own).
@Mantis - it's the old argument about shallow DOF versus all-sharp:) It's a matter of preference, really. Both styles work when done properly. For me, shallow DOF is the way to go - makes images more "airy" and draws attention to detail without making the image too busy. For a while all cookbooks and food magazines were shallow DOF only, now some are switching to "all in focus" and I don't quite like it.
564
« on: February 17, 2011, 18:44 »
For almost a year I've been following Aran Goyoaga's blog: http://cannelle-vanille.blogspot.com/Her food photography is feast for the eyes and her recipes (I've tried a few) are just amazing. They are also quite healthy, too.
565
« on: February 15, 2011, 17:37 »
Nice stats! Looking forward to more!
566
« on: February 14, 2011, 19:26 »
Interesting post! The comparison with Tom Sawyer painting a fence is cute but not quite precise. Bloggers don't need convincing to do their writing - they never considered it a chore or work but an opportunity to express themselves and connect with others. For professional journalist writing is work, for a blogger it's fun. From that point of view blog and social sites provide fun for free - and why shouldn't they benefit from it?
567
« on: February 13, 2011, 20:55 »
The photo sold is very nice, but I have seen many similar ones. The photos on his side are also very nice and artistic, but again I have seen many more similar ones. Better photographers have a unique distinctive style, similar to the handwriting, recognizable to the people who are familiar with their work. Even with good microstockers who shoot boring commercial stuff you still see that personal style. Funny I don't see a unique style in Peter Lik's work. It's like the images were taken from something like "How to be creative with your photography" book for beginners....
Don't understand why the image fetched that price (if it's true). I understand about collecting and all but seriously people look around - you can find similar images even on Flickr, if it's an item worth collecting I'd want it to be something really special, something very unique in composition and subject. Which this image is not, IMHO.
568
« on: February 11, 2011, 16:42 »
They're just doing some promotional work at an event with this type of stuff. I don't see it as that big a deal.
This coming from a man who just had $3400 taken from him. You just HAVE to be getting some benefits that we never hear about, for you to be this loyal. Maybe free passes for you and your family to said events? 
He has to stick with it and be loyal. What other options does he have? Going non-exclusive would be a loss at this point.
569
« on: February 11, 2011, 12:59 »
By the way, i used pen tool to isolated object all the time..in order to achieve pure white background. I wonder is it possible to achieve perfect pure white background with good lighting?
Absolutely. This is how is should be done. The general rule is your background should be 2 stops brighter than the subject. That's it. No editing required.
571
« on: February 09, 2011, 12:43 »
Can't reply right now. Gone to look for oil.
(if only the friggin' ground in Canada wasn't so friggin' frozen...)
Elena, come back to Russia , it is -34 here today in Far Eastern Russia. Plenty of frozen ground here also.
Yikes! No thanks I'll stick to Toronto for now:)
572
« on: February 08, 2011, 17:55 »
Can't reply right now. Gone to look for oil.
(if only the friggin' ground in Canada wasn't so friggin' frozen...)
573
« on: February 07, 2011, 22:19 »
Istock sadly has less than half of my files. Because of the upload limits. So it's not a matter of work, it's a matter of them keeping my work away. Fotolia ranking page: http://www.fotolia.com/Info/Ranking#16 to save you counting. Would be #15 if Monkey Business didn't negotiate themselves second account with Sapphire privileges.
574
« on: February 07, 2011, 21:57 »
Ah, here comes the sad story! ...
575
« on: February 07, 2011, 21:56 »
Did you open this thread to help yourself by getting some emotional support or to promote your pictures?
Anyway, without knowing your numbers...it seems to be a good idea to communicate if the downloads are not as good as expected.
I wil also try in future if I had the time between my other jobs.
Best regards.
You can look up numbers on any site... check Fotolia ranking, for example. Or that's too much work? I have nothing to complain about Looks like you're the one badly needing emotional support. Tell us your sad story, there are kind people here who will read.
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
