Jump to content

fredex

Members
  • Content Count

    774
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About fredex

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    UK

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yeah but the way it converts them seems to cause noticeable issues with colour and they end up washed out. I've seen lots of people posting on here about their images looking wrong and the issue always tends to be using CYMK or something other than sRGB.
  2. If you're using paint you're doing it wrong. Admittedly I haven't looked at paint in years (perhaps it has improved?) but that sounds like you are painting in the white. Better option is to use Photoshop, mask the subject and then adjust the levels to get the background to 255.
  3. I've seen most sites decline recently or become very unstable. Ironically the only one that shows constant growth (or at least stability) is the one everyone complains about.
  4. They don't tend to add a great deal in each update and whilst there are a few tools that might save some time in newer versions generally I'd say it doesn't matter too much. I don't much care for the UI in the newest version though.
  5. Yeah could be that no search terms were used like that or it might just be a delay in the site updating the information. You can also look at an image directly to see. If the keywords are no longer in alphabetical order and one or more have been moved up to the front of the list those were the keywords used.
  6. It is a bit of a flaw in the system. For me the first keyword alphabetically is almost always '3D' so the related results on new images usually only have that in common and nothing important. However when an image is downloaded the keyword used to find it will be moved to the front of the list and it will use that so images do get relevant matches once they have been downloaded. It would be far better if SS didn't automatically alphabetise the keywords and kept the order in which they were entered like it used to. I always make sure the first few keywords are the most relevant for other sites where it matters so I really don't know why SS just throw that information away.
  7. No. The most someone could do would be to search a few of the keywords in your most popular image and see how long it is until they find the image in a popular search but given that the images shown at the top of the portfolio often aren't actually the best selling images it wouldn't mean much. You can vaguely judge if an image has sold before by looking at the order of the keywords though. Shutterstock organises them in alphabetical order when they are uploaded but when an image is sold the keyword used to find it is moved up front as the highest priority term. Can only vaguely use that to judge if an image has sold though as it might have been found without keywords through related images or a direct link to the image. None of that gives any indication of the number of sales though.
  8. Local council here were on the verge of sending out thousands of flyers advertising something or other which were littered with watermarked stock images grabbed from google. I happened to get my hands on a draft copy before it went out and informed them of the mistake so it never saw the light of day. It was just sheer incompetence/ignorance on the behalf of the manager who had put the thing together so it was hardly surprising that they ran the department into the ground not long after by going wildly over budget. Perhaps I shouldn't have said anything and they might have actually ended up getting in trouble after it went out and getting fired before they could bankrupt the department... When I've seen my own images used on sites with the watermarks I just ignore it. It makes them look so unprofessional and cheapskate that they must end up losing business as a result.
  9. Obviously other sizes work too and if the image looks better square or portrait then that's fine but I've found that to be a good standard. It's the resolution lots of cameras use too so buyers are familiar with it and it's easy to work with.
  10. I know I've said this before and people have disagreed with me but I think creating work in standard aspect ratios and neat sizes is likely to improve sales. They are really good, creative images but when you have one image at 3144 x 2471 and another at 2476 x 1744 that would really put me off buying multiple images to use together since I'm either going to have to resize them myself to make them look good together or just accept that they don't line up neatly on the page. Whereas if both images were 3000 x 2000 (or more ideally 6000 x 4000 if you can make them larger as that will increase their sales too) then they would look good together and be easier for the buyer to work with. I'm not sure what you are using to create these but I would have a few standard sizes in mind before creating them instead of scaling the canvas to fit the drawing. 1:1, 3:2, 1:2 etc. Personally I also wouldn't use a border around the image (didn't think that was allowed actually) as that gives them more potential usage as well. Other stock sites do give a view count for each image so that can be good to estimate their popularity here.
  11. If you include both the editor will just automatically remove the plural anyway so it doesn't really matter. Searching 'lion' or 'lions' returns the same results in the same order but with plural and singular the number of results often seems to differ by a small amount, in this case 250,523 and 250,635 and I've never been quite sure why. In fact the number of results changes slightly depending on whether you are searching by popular, new or best match too so it seems like it is probably just a bug and nothing to worry about. Probably just something due to new images not being processed by the server yet and added to the other categories. So use either, or both. It doesn't make a difference.
  12. I'm just constantly getting this error: I uploaded both files, named identically at the same time via FTP but it took about 10 attempts that way to get a vector to actually associate with the jpg and get the metadata from it. After this error the vector is still showing up in the editor but without metadata whereas if it truly hadn't got the jpg it wouldn't appear at all. If I upload the eps via FTP and then click the link to return to the upload page and upload the jpg that way it does seem to work however the web uploader is horribly unreliable at the moment and seems to be failing or timing out half the time.
  13. Yeah the colours do look a little washed out. Looks like what you get if you upload something that isn't sRGB. Or was it intentional? I think that works quite well on the ones with the red/blue/green overlays but on the rest they could benefit from better saturation. It's easier for a buyer to desaturate the image to get that look than it is to make it more colourful without degrading it. You should try logging out and back in on the forums to see if that fixes your portfolio link.
  14. Wow just when I thought Apple couldn't get more restrictive.. they seriously just block all apps from independent developers by default? I found this comment about Apple blocking Adobe apps amusing. Xpiks is fine. No malware or anything there. It'll save you far more time in the long run than using Bridge.
  15. Open Word and type an apostrophe and you will get ‘ or ’ based on the context then hit ctrl z and it will change back to the standard version ' because by default it automatically corrects standard quotation marks to 'smart quotes' or curly ones. Those characters cause problems on stock sites as they try to display the character code for it and fail. You can see in the PS screenshot it is doing the same thing and using the curly characters. Never used PS to add metadata so I don't know if there is a way to stop it doing that but you can always manually paste the standard character in. Easier to use something else to do the metadata besides PS though really.
×
×
  • Create New...