|
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 - pixelbrat
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9
76
« on: January 16, 2008, 15:56 »
There is an interesting article about pricing and micro by Dan Heller ; here is the link :
The myth that microstock agencies hurt stock photo pricing
http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/myth-that-microstock-agencies-hurt.html
some nice reading. He made quite a few good points - I hope the microstock agencies read that.
Agreed, some very good reading. It sure was an eye-opener for me.
77
« on: January 15, 2008, 15:42 »
Haven't seen it until today. 80% rejected. All for Type of Photograph reason. This sounds a lot like th SX, we are not looking for such images now, reason. A variety of images including food, architecture, landscapes, and people, including some model shots that are getting 100% acceptance.
Hope this was a fluke. FT is only 6% of my income, if my numbers get slashed, their tedious upload process becomes even more so.
This is disappointing to hear. Someone told me today that StockXpert had lightened up a bit on their mass rejections. Maybe they left StockXpert and are reviewing for Fotolia now.
78
« on: January 15, 2008, 10:09 »
all 400 are finished, but I have just been accepted (9 days ago), may be that is why ?
vphoto
Hey vphoto, if you don't mind me asking, did you get a good amount of your 400 images accepted? I'm just curious if their streak of mass rejection is waning. If so I may consider uploading there again. Can anyone else who has uploaded lately comment as well?
79
« on: January 15, 2008, 09:27 »
ale1969 makes an excellent point about the pen tool. Being able to go back and tweak the selection made all the difference in the world when I began using it. Especially since it takes the same amount of effort. I highly recommend it.
80
« on: January 15, 2008, 08:43 »
Yeah, I was afraid of this. The anti-microstockers have been waiting for this to happen so they could enjoy a good laugh and wallow in their "I told you so" rhetoric. And to be called an idiot to boot. Nice.
81
« on: January 10, 2008, 16:40 »
...Also to say you can't RM images they rejected just seems wrong...
That's pretty lame. They rejected them, meaning they didn't want them. How do they retain any right to what you do with those images if they opted not to take them? I wonder if there's some weird legalese in the upload terms.
I think the way I have heard it explained before is the artist/photographer as a whole is exclusive to IS, it's not just the images being exclusive. I don't agree with it, but that is how they see it. Their ballpark, their rules I guess.
82
« on: January 09, 2008, 11:31 »
Thanks sharpshot. I hate having to dig through 100's of istock forum posts to get this info. You saved me some sanity.  And believe me, there's not much left! 
83
« on: January 09, 2008, 09:05 »
Interestingly enough, DT has added a new feature that will show you the keywords used for an image that was purchased. At first glance, this seems to be a very useful feature. Although, it won't help if you don't have good keywords in the first place.
Here are the details:
http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_8968
What do you guys think about this?
Wow, what an awesome feature!! If only the other sites would do this.
84
« on: January 08, 2008, 18:36 »
I agree that this movement likely won't do much without a large troop of heavy-hitters jumping on board, which seems pretty unlikely. Quite frankly, sites just don't have any real motivation to change their subscription model or to raise commission percentages. They are making lots of money, which is their only real bottom line. A handful of people removing their portfolios isn't going to even register on their radar. A batch of newbies will quickly take up where they left off, content with the thrill of making some money and seeing their images in use somewhere. (I admit, this was me at one time.) I sure wish I had the solution, be it a photographers union or something else. Let's face it, there are very few companies out there that will change a policy just because it's the "right thing to do". My apologies for the grumpy post... 
85
« on: January 07, 2008, 15:39 »
I pulled all of my images from StockXpert when they chose to reject 50% of my photos but will pledge to submit downsized images to SS from now on.
Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures
GeoPappas
Smithore
rene
sharpshot
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna
Pixelbrat
86
« on: January 07, 2008, 14:56 »
Steve-Oh -
If a file has technical flaws, such as not properly isolated or excessive noise, fine. But to get mass rejections on numerous files with a reason of "we don't think this would be good stock" just doesn't make much sense to me. Images that have already been great sellers at other sites are getting rejected. IMHO, reviewers should stick with reviewing images on a technical level and let the consumer decide if it's worth downloading or not.
Again, just my opinion.
87
« on: January 06, 2008, 09:37 »
Thanks for the update. That's disappointing to hear. I'll still give it a try when I can. Been painting our house all weekend so looks like I'll have to wait on that free trial. Thanks again.
88
« on: January 06, 2008, 01:06 »
Thanks for the link to this Leaf. I found this very interesting, particularly the info about copyright. Very enlightening.
89
« on: January 04, 2008, 10:36 »
Thanks for the input ale1969. Actually, I already use clipping paths in my current work flow. It definitely made a huge difference for me when I began using them... but I would love something quicker and easier if a method exists, hence my interest in Fluid Mask. I imagine that each have their place based on complexity of the image and I will likely continue to use clipping paths for certain subjects.
90
« on: January 04, 2008, 10:31 »
Thanks so much for your initial evaluation. I can definitely understand your reasoning behind getting it. Although I do have intermediate photoshop skills I have some pretty big time constraints at this point in my life so this could be a real time saver. I honestly find it a bit sad that I utilize most of my vacation time from work slogging away at stock instead of on some tropical island so any extra hours I can get back will be a big plus. I would love to hear your continued evaluations as you become more familiar with it. Thanks again.
91
« on: January 04, 2008, 09:58 »
I saw yingyang0 mention this Photoshop plugin in another thread so I googled it. Looks like it could save me hours and hours of tedious isolating but it comes at quite a big price tag... over $200. I'll give the free trial a run when I get home this evening but would love to hear anyone's experience with it.
Thanks in advance.
92
« on: January 03, 2008, 16:31 »
Feb. 2006 for me. Like many others have mentioned, I'm wishing I had learned about it sooner. Shooting stock has really changed my life and I hope I can make this my full time gig in the coming year(s).
@ Leaf and ManicBlu... wow, I remember the brouhaha back then over that design and was completely stunned by the IS legal team's decision on that one. That clearly should not have been allowed.
93
« on: December 29, 2007, 17:59 »
Leaf,
Thank you for practising environmentally-friendly censorship on your non-government-owned website. It keeps the air clean and smelling much better around here. I don't think most of us are interested in being around the smell of a garbage dump.
** Approved**
I couldn't express the same concept with better words.
(Btw Editorial, go read the definition of "forum troll")
I agree as well. Editorial is way of of line.
94
« on: December 21, 2007, 12:12 »
If one day sites raise their minimum resolution do you think that they will delete all smaller images ? Imagine ads: yesterday we had 2000000 images, today only a half of them...
OK, you've got a good point here... (I should have caught that.  ) ...but as Leaf pointed out, sites could one day switch to size regulated pricing, which could certainly have an impact for any downsized images. Regardless, I won't be doing it. To each his own, right?
95
« on: December 21, 2007, 10:46 »
I don't resize. This is partly because I'm simply too lazy to add that extra step into my post processing work flow. Plus, one day sites may raise their minimum resolution requirements and I'm not about to re-upload all my images. I guess I can understand why other people do resize but it's just not for me.
96
« on: December 14, 2007, 11:52 »
Stock photography is cheap enough these days not to give it away
I agree 100%.
97
« on: December 13, 2007, 21:58 »
Definitely iStock for me. They have been my top earner by a huge margin and I have learned the most from them. Luckily I get very few rejections these days but when I do, 9 times out of 10 I agree with it. I don't get any of that "we have too many of this subject" nonsense like some other sites.
I still have no intention of going exclusive any time soon though.
98
« on: December 02, 2007, 14:38 »
Found 3 cameras. That forth one that I missed will haunt me for all time... 
99
« on: November 30, 2007, 10:51 »
I'm not sure what is happening but I am having another record month at IS. Last month was my best ever and November is exceeding that. Admittedly, I have been uploading more the last 2 months so maybe that has helped.
100
« on: November 30, 2007, 10:22 »
Read the bloke's enquiry again: "since I'm not dealing with photos but need some really good one for my starting enterprise in Hungary..."
He's starting an enterprise in an Eastern European country. He's short of cash and wants you to supply the pics free.
Pretty obvious really.
Please report him to iStock support - it simply isn't right for him to send a site mail trying to avoid payment through the iStock system.
Actually, this wasn't sent through iStock site mail. He sent it through my contact form on my website. After reading everyone's opinions, which have been very interesting in how widely they have varied, I think I'm going to just leave it alone. Whether his intentions are legit or not I just don't have the legal knowledge to try to spell out any licensing terms. Plus, I just have a bad feeling about it. I'd much rather leave this sort of thing to the experts, which is why I sell through these sites to begin with. Thanks so much to everyone for your input. It has really shed a lot of light on this situation that I would not have thought of on my own.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
