MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: is SS back in focus?  (Read 4749 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CD123

« Reply #25 on: January 23, 2013, 12:57 »
0
Focus is fixed... now it is poor lighting.... 8)

Just had a batch rejected for poor lighting.... oh well

At this stage, congratulations on getting a batch reviewed...  ::)


ShadySue

« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2013, 13:18 »
0
Hmmm, in this case iStock had nothing similar or even on the same subject.

You're right of course, IS just seems to take a position on what they like / don't like even if there are no actual technical issues.  SS's attitude makes more business sense as they recognise that a rare selling not well covered image can be more valuable to them than a high selling common subject matter image.

Why would you put a rare low-selling image on the micros? They are doing you a favour if they reject it - put it somewhere it will make decent money for you, on the rare occasions it sells.

Agree totally, but it was an unexpected wildlife photo (i.e. a surprise showing when I was working on something else nearer), and 400mm too often isn't long enough, so it's too small for most macros, even Alamy.
I'm not convinced that a 600mm, plus hiring a sherpa to carry it, would pay for itself in my case.
In addition, most of the pukka wildlife agencies need hundreds (200 up) unique images to start, and a promise of about the same every month or two. An odd rare photo is of no interest to most (it's not totally unique, but not common).
No matter.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 13:20 by ShadySue »

« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2013, 13:40 »
0
I just got my first ever 2 videos accepted.
But they were in focus.

« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 09:17 by JPSDK »

« Reply #28 on: January 23, 2013, 17:20 »
0
You didn't dare to have a shadow on your pics did you?

« Reply #29 on: January 24, 2013, 09:13 »
0
You didn't dare to have a shadow on your pics did you?

That's my problem!!!! thanks for pointing it out. 

« Reply #30 on: January 25, 2013, 00:29 »
0
he he.
And I just got a couple of focus rejections, that I had not expected.
Thats life. The pictures were not important.


aly

« Reply #31 on: January 25, 2013, 02:00 »
0
My last two batches were all poor lighting/composition. The whole lot regardless!! Even the abstract designs.

« Reply #32 on: January 25, 2013, 04:42 »
0
Focus is fixed... now it is poor lighting.... 8)

Just had a batch rejected for poor lighting.... oh well

No, it is not !

ONE CLICK on Your (or my) batch and voila, You are rejected because " focus is not located where we feel it works best".
Not WE, but HE/SHE...
 ;)
And yes, two days before a batch of similar (but different) photos was accepted 100 %.



« Reply #33 on: January 25, 2013, 04:46 »
0
BTW, my video acceptance is 100 %.
How long ?
Until SS reach "critical mass" of videos.
 :)

« Reply #34 on: January 25, 2013, 08:03 »
0
Last bunches of images shoot with shallow DOF were all accepted on SS. It's some time since last ''focus'' rejection.

here is an example ( with lowered IQ)

CD123

« Reply #35 on: January 25, 2013, 09:29 »
0
Very nice picture Nicku (and beautiful model)! You can be proud of your work! Can not see anything wrong with it (in any case not on this resolution).
« Last Edit: January 25, 2013, 16:01 by CD123 »

« Reply #36 on: January 25, 2013, 16:46 »
0
Nicku, this is not an image.
This is pure art !
With high stock potential.
Excellent, both, art and cute girl.
Bravo.


Batman

« Reply #37 on: January 29, 2013, 22:18 »
0
Nice work nicku


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
5722 Views
Last post March 03, 2008, 17:29
by litifeta
8 Replies
4640 Views
Last post April 13, 2008, 14:09
by mantonino
5 Replies
4065 Views
Last post January 03, 2012, 17:43
by Suljo
29 Replies
16287 Views
Last post September 09, 2013, 17:12
by landbysea
9 Replies
1842 Views
Last post April 12, 2013, 03:53
by gillian vann

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results