|
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 - rimglow
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 30
151
« on: July 31, 2014, 10:49 »
You're late to the party izzi. There are already two other threads about this.
152
« on: July 24, 2014, 18:31 »
I have a problem with the very large previews, and the weakest watermarks I've ever seen.
153
« on: July 08, 2014, 06:25 »
154
« on: June 30, 2014, 14:43 »
Go back into the keywords and remove any relevant keywords that would make it show up. Quick and easy.
155
« on: June 25, 2014, 13:45 »
A lot of the big ad agencies have contracts with one stock agency. That's the only place the art directors are allowed to spend the company's money. They don't spend time shopping around.
156
« on: June 09, 2014, 16:35 »
Yikes! My whole portfolio is there even though I quit Vivozoom years ago. They list the publisher as Imagepick Inc. Am I going to have to do a DMCA for every image? 
157
« on: June 03, 2014, 15:35 »
Do you have the same RF photos on alamy and the micros or do you keep them separate?
Pretty much the same portfolio across all sites.
158
« on: June 03, 2014, 05:47 »
ETA: Do RM pictures really sell that well on Alamy? If so don't know why I'm wasting my time with RF! 
I don't sell RM pictures anywhere. Alamy has been my second best seller, after Shutterstock, since 2010. Also, I'm opted in for Novel Use and sell a lot of those. But, a good portion of my sales are $30 to $140 each. It amazes me. I can barely make a monthly payout at 123RF, Bigstock, or Canstockphoto.
159
« on: June 02, 2014, 17:02 »
My stats are similar to ShadySue's. 596 photos. I'm happy. 
160
« on: May 22, 2014, 12:50 »
I submitted hundreds of isolated PNG format photos, since they indicated that was a preference. Also submitted some background JPEGs. So far I've sold 9 images, (since April) but they were all JPEGs . Curious.
161
« on: May 01, 2014, 15:58 »
"Out of Stock" 
162
« on: April 17, 2014, 11:45 »
Interesting Rimglow. Care to say which specific sites?
If the camera data was a problem and quick one click rejection, I might be stripping data in the future. Not that I do many of these, I usually have a good camera with me. But just for information...
Which site(s) have you experienced this?
iStock. 2006.
163
« on: April 17, 2014, 08:41 »
Be careful..when uploading montages, be sure to strip out the camera data. All of my work is composites, and when I first started submitting work, where I dropped several images onto large canvases, I got rejections saying that I had up-sized my photos. The reviewers were looking at my camera data and noticed that my camera couldn't produce images that big. Ever since, I drop all of my work into a new file that has no data before submitting.
164
« on: April 13, 2014, 12:47 »
And I also want to know which brand or kind of background paper you used? I found if I zoom the shadow into 100%, it looks very coarse and makes me very uncomfortable, I think the perfect shadow should be smooth and evenly, so I shot these isolated pictures by the PMMA（organic glass board), it's very easy to isolate.
And you referred the clipping path stuff, how does it works? the format is Jpeg or something?
Clipping path tutorials: http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=89http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2008/09/29/clipping-paths/ For background paper, I use cheap poster board from the grocery store, or Michaels. I swap it out often as it gets damaged easily. I eliminate any shadow coarseness by using a soft fill light from a big umbrella. Since I backlight my shoots, I'll often stick something dark behind the subject to make it easier to mask. 
165
« on: April 12, 2014, 09:30 »
Do you load both, with and without shadow, images to the same web site? Hence a choice for the buyer?
No, it wouldn't pass inspection cause it's the same photo. Most sites include clipping paths. In fact they encourage them.
166
« on: April 12, 2014, 08:47 »
If it is an image of a single object, then I isolate it completely. If it is an image of a group of objects (i.e. your cookies) then I tend to leave in the drop shadow. You have to consider the first visual impression that your thumbnail makes. Also, remember that a lot of stock photography is dropped onto a white background, so a floating group of objects, not grounded, just looks like cut and paste. My sample includes a clipping path, so the buyer can easily remove the shadow. 
167
« on: April 07, 2014, 16:52 »
The watermarks are a joke. Watermarks disappear on isolations over white background. No thanks!
168
« on: April 04, 2014, 16:58 »
Nope, that changed. If you look under your images there is a note saying "Name of Image isolated on white with a clipping path (at ALL sizes)." It was instituted some time last year on DT.
Hooray!!!
169
« on: April 04, 2014, 16:17 »
Did anyone ever prove or disapprove the theory that a clipping path was only viable if the largest/native size was purchased? Supposedly the image processor that creates the smaller sizes "damages the clipping path".
This theory came up again recently on Symbio, but I never saw the outcome.
Dreamstime only includes clipping paths at Maximum size. That means they strip them out of smaller sizes. (to insure biggest profit?) Kinda sucks.
170
« on: April 04, 2014, 09:13 »
I would suggest that my approach is less confrontational. I don't think you want to "school" the reviewer. (even if you think they need it)
171
« on: April 04, 2014, 08:49 »
The clipping path argument is old, and no one knows how it affects sales. 90% of my stuff has clipping paths and they sell well. When I buy stock photos, and have the choice of similar images, I will choose the one with the clipping path, to save time. That said, a buyer never really knows the quality of the clipping path he just purchased.
The PNG issue is a little different. Where are you going to sell PNGs? Dreamstime, PNGStock (a new start-up), or your own website are the only three places I know of. On Dreamstime, only about one in twenty of my downloads are in the PNG (additional) format. On the other hand, if Yuri is offering it, then maybe he knows something about the future of Stock photography.
All of my isolations are on layers, so saving to PNG format is easy. Also, I am very fast at doing clipping paths to assure complete isolation, so saving them is a no brainer. I always include the words "clipping path" in my keywords and description.
172
« on: April 04, 2014, 08:09 »
I bet the reviewer was thrown by the tight crop. I say go ahead with your rule of thirds idea, and leave some space around the image. Resubmit with a note saying that you corrected the composition. Remember that Shutterstock frames your isolated image with a pen line. So you have to take that into consideration of how it is presented. 
173
« on: April 02, 2014, 16:19 »
Amanda Bodack
174
« on: April 02, 2014, 16:13 »
Page has now been removed.
175
« on: April 01, 2014, 10:10 »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 30
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
