Jump to content

C. Fish Images

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About C. Fish Images

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

276 profile views
  1. Movies and music are usually "consumed" in private. But most images and videos are used in public relation. They will almost always be in public when used. So I think protecting them should be easier. Please correct me if I overlook something. Hope agencies will have some kind of cooperation to protect this common interest.
  2. Now buying images (or even using a hacking web site to download unwatermarked ones) is less convenient than just screen capture them and use. But to be fair, other agencies like iStock and Adobe Stock have been doing this long before Shutterstock.
  3. To see those of your images, the buyer now has to click the "See all" that's next to the "Same artist" (not the one next to "Similar images"). Which I think illogical.
  4. It seems Apple is also heading that way in their App Store. Last month, their rate of old apps deletion was 3.4x higher than the monthly average.
  5. If you suddenly get wonky results from a profile that has consistently given good/correct results in the past, you need to find what's wrong or changed (such as a new wide gamut display) in your workflow. Changing to a new profile won't fix that and just adds more confusion. SS uses sRGB. Which means every file sent to them will end up in sRGB no matter what profile it's originally in. So there is no better profile than sRGB for this job. Here is their policy about color profile. http://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/000006625
  6. Looks focused through the viewfinder but the actual image is blurred. And it used to be good. Are you using the same camera as when you bought the lens? Because that sounds like a front/back focus issue to me. It is a kind of mismatch problem between a lens and a camera. If it's not too severe and your camera supports AF Microadjustment, you can correct it yourself.
  7. There are different printing standards (SWOP, FOGRA, etc) that require different sets of CMYK for a similar color. So giving a CMYK file to a buyer without knowing what printing standard will be used is not the solution. Let the buyer convert them to "their" CMYK is actually safer. Some specific needs, for example, making sure thin black lines are 100% K without other primaries can be done manually by the client or automatically by the RIP. The print world always has this kind of issue and they can handle it. Yes, it's ideal if you know the printing standard of your client and you deliver
  8. I have no idea what they do with CMYK vector data. But in Illustrator (the only vector application I'm familiar with), you can stay in RGB from start to finish . EPS format supports RGB data.
  9. This watermark incident makes me think about simple vector images, especially the ones that comprised of solid colors and have large enough JPG files to get the "preview" button. I'm wondering how well do those images sell. Because you can get rid of the watermark very easily. So easily that if you don't need very large image, you can just steal the previews and put them to use in no time. And this leads me to the question: for this kind of images, is it better to summit them with low resolution JPG, so that there won't be the "preview" button for them, forcing people who need bigger im
  • Create New...