Jump to content

Elena Ray

Members
  • Content Count

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Elena Ray

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.elenaray.com

Profile Information

  • Location
    Joshua Tree
  • Interests
    Micro brews.
  1. Yes I am seeing DT's pandemic bonus.
  2. Wow 10 cents royalties now that sucks I feel ill. I will not be loading anything new here dang.
  3. I'm so bored with them. I kinda forget to upload there.
  4. To take your thought a bit further, not only is it not wrong to push the limits, but a responsibility of the artist (stock, fine, whatever) to push the limits, to bring forth the new, challenge and recreate the standards. And beyond that, to stand up for their role as witness to change. I'd be letting down Shutterstock if I didn't consistently remind them that their agency can be more than just commercially oriented stock, that other industries and new industries can be supplied with images, but that the images have to be available. Shallow depth of field images are in demand. Designers don't give a hoot about F16-they want a beautiful compelling images. Magazines and books, blogs, etc want unusual imagery. Blur is one of the qualities of the lens and shutter-it is one of it's potentials. Soft focus, shallow depth of field, Lensbaby, pinhole and blatantly out of focus images can be very useful to designers. I'm not guessing. It is a fact. Denying a place for these images on Shutterstock is the beginning of Shutterstock setting itself up as a stock house with a stock style; limiting itself as a universal one stop shopping stock house. My soft images are available at other stock houses and get downloaded. They are never returned as technically unusable. Shutterstock has always been my favorite stock site and I want to continue participating here. But my work is getting softer and grainer all the time, and more beautiful, more compelling and more interesting. This, at least to me! And as you point out, I must personally bear the results of the choices I make. My choice right now is to stand up against tyrannical sharpness!
  5. True. But my art images sell well, in the hundreds of downloads. I think they are being used for book publishing and collateral design. There are many different publishing venues, more all the time. Someone recently sent me a link where they used my work in an enormous wall design for a casino. Shutterstock sells extended licenses which would mainly be for resale product; art.
  6. Why isn't a stock site a good place to sell fine art images?
  7. You're right of course. Clean commercially oriented shots will be the highest sellers here. However I think that the need for diversity in image styles may be widening, not narrowing.
  8. What I was wondering if it is possible to have an official uploading area where deliberate shallow dof images could be reviewed by their own standards. Also, deliberate high grain (or noise) imges as well. hhltdave5, I'm not looking for a critique of a particular image so much as the opportunity to have alternative photography styles reconsidered by the agency for the agency in an official capacity. The ideal in this case would be a reviewer who is familiar with more editorial and fine art uses of photography. thanks sasa-I have backed off. I no longer submit pinhole or lensbaby images. i tend to use a 50mm at 5.6 instead of a 150mm at f4. microstock proved that the traditional stock agencies were too narrow in their offerings. But I fear that things are coming full circle and now the young microstock industry might tend towards identifying themselves too much with the former mind set. There is a sort of fundamentalism for clean straight photography. With so many photographers happy to oblige these high standards, is there any room here for image makers like myself who prefer to explore alternative photographic styles and subject matter?
  9. Why are photographs that have shallow depth of field being catagorically rejected ? I often shoot at F4 and/or with long lenses to blow out the focus around a chosen focal point in a still life or portrait, but these images are rejected for focus. I feel there is a lack of understanding about the full spectrum of focus possibilities here at Shutterstock. Soft focus and limited focus are techniques that can add loads of style to an image. Lensbabies are hot right now, but try to get an image from one approved here-impossible. Is there some way Shuttterstock could reconsider it's hardline on focus? I believe designers want soft focus images as well as hard focus images. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks. Elena www.elenaray.com elena@elenaray.com my blog: "The Transitional Image" http://elenaray.typepad.com/
  10. I like the new "most popular" because it shows the hottest, fastest moving images and keeps the best new images in front of the buyer and makes Shutterstock look really fresh. I think it's going to hurt me in the long run to lose the original search function though. The body of work I'm producing sells slow and steady, and because I am working out a particular style it will never be for everyone and so, will never be fast and hot. However over time some of my most down loaded tortoises may beat some hot hares. The old search capabilities showcases those images that stand the test of time. Why dismantle Shutterstocks Classics?
  11. Elena Ray

    Copying

    Thank you Susan! That's really neat-I love the Pottery Barn-could spend hours soaking up all that design in there. I really appreciate you telling me and your comments. Elena
  12. Elena Ray

    Copying

    Pete, That "copy" is my image. I've never seen your "Artist's Hands" until now. Anyway, even if I had taken the IDEA from you, that would be totally legal and moral. Ideas are not copyrightable-only their tangible expression is. Ideas, unlike tangible expressions, are limitless, they are unstopable universes that can and will be explored by unending generations, from an infinity of different perspectives with unlimited interpretations. This is what it means to be human; to be creative, to build, to change. Otherwise we still would be living in mud huts since some architect of the past already thought up the idea of building a roof. It seems like you are suggesting the end of progress now that you have been born. Your narcissism is remarkable. Elena
×
×
  • Create New...