Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
James R Poston

No Bickering! Yayyyyy

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Aaron Lemay said:

True could have photoshopped this a bit to clean it up. Some of these things are standards in certain freelance jobs I do. 

Just a head's up: models should not be discussed in an open forum, as these posts about them can be read by them.  If you have a critique about a model's appearance, it should be discussed in a private message.  If models see that their looks are disparaged here, they may feel inclined to pull their releases.  These kinds of unnecessary comments don't help the photographer, the model, or Shutterstock.

For what it's worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Phil Lowe said:

Just a head's up: models should not be discussed in an open forum, as these posts about them can be read by them.  If you have a critique about a model's appearance, it should be discussed in a private message.  If models see that their looks are disparaged here, they may feel inclined to pull their releases.  These kinds of unnecessary comments don't help the photographer, the model, or Shutterstock.

For what it's worth.

I knew you would not be far behind once Brady posted that ugly picture.
You should tell him not to post his models here. Once something is posted on the forum it's fair game.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Aaron Lemay said:

Not really, it is like someone posting your life story or family photos or information about you. How would you take it? Something to think about? Best thing to do is try to respect one another and never traverse onto that dark path.

Nah, Phil was trying to censor me, because he could not counter my remarks. What I posted is true and it's there for all to see.
A picture from the great Brady who loves to disparage my images in my port, which is against the TOS.
However, once you post a picture on the forum, you are just begging for criticism and that is only right.
Brady should not have posted that picture. Period. It's not even stock.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Aaron Lemay said:

I was just pointing out it would be best to clean up in Photoshop. It is a standard of which I have to follow by for some client work. But again. I have not going to get in between this. She is very beautiful that is all I have to say :). 

Hahahahahah! You are right. Brady the amateur should have photoshopped his mistakes. He also had no business posting her picture on a forum knowing there would be criticisms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PlopandShoot said:

I owe you a dollar. You nailed it. :)

FWIW, for Brady, posting a model's image here may well get her tossed from an agency. Here in Canada it's one of the first questions they ask. "Ever done stock? Yes? We are not interested." Whether she is in your stock portfolio or not is irrelevant. I strongly suggest you pull the image for her sake. 

 

I gave you a green up arrow for that one.
It just goes to prove how bad these amateurs with less than 5000 images in their ports screw up.
A pro like you or I would not have made that blunder.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Aaron Lemay said:

I was just pointing out it would be best to clean up in Photoshop. It is a standard of which I have to follow by for some client work. But again. I have not going to get in between this. She is very beautiful that is all I have to say :). 

I leave in stretch marks and other 'defects'. I clean up my models' face and edit their eyes. Stretch marks and cellulite are becoming quite popular to leave in esp if you're submitting to an agency here. They (in some circumstances) want to see the real model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, PlopandShoot said:

I owe you a dollar. You nailed it. :)

FWIW, for Brady, posting a model's image here may well get her tossed from an agency. Here in Canada it's one of the first questions they ask. "Ever done stock? Yes? We are not interested." Whether she is in your stock portfolio or not is irrelevant. I strongly suggest you pull the image for her sake. 

 

I pulled the photo not necessarily because of what you posted, but I get your point. I have posted two models here who are doing TV shows in Tokyo and they never asked anything like that. I have actor friends who have hundreds of shots here on Shutterstock and not once has it impacted their work, not a single bit. Could be in Canada that's how it is. No, I removed her photo because there are cruel a$$holes here calling her ugly and I will work the rest of the day to get that piece of $hit banned. She is a plus size Latina model who is gorgeous she isn't ugly, she is sitting here right now in tears. I will not relent nor will I back down. Anyone here can call me out on photos that might have exposure issues, focus issues or white balance issues but you call my up and coming model ugly - gloves are off. I rarely if ever get pissed off over photography related stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Brady Barrineau said:

...she isn't ugly, she is sitting here right now in tears.

She is beautiful and I wish her much success.  The critique of your image was unsolicited and uncalled for and that is against the TOS.  I apologize on behalf of the whole forum to your model, Brady.  Give her a hug for the rest of us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Brady Barrineau said:

I leave in stretch marks and other 'defects'. I clean up my models' face and edit their eyes. Stretch marks and cellulite are becoming quite popular to leave in esp if you're submitting to an agency here. They (in some circumstances) want to see the real model.

SS is constantly telling us they want authentic models, not Photoshopped Barbie and Ken dolls.  She is lovely.  I wish her much success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Aaron Lemay said:

Just to point out on your port. Even though I am far from being a fan of AOC. But the emotional photos of her is a huge seller when it comes to photojournalism. Capturing the emotions tells the story of what is going on. I seen a photojournalist capture spit flying from a politician once and he sold that photo for $5,000. After all the photos that were sold to all the outlets and off of his website. It is the emotions that make the money ;).

I stood out in the 104F sunshine for four hours getting those shots.
Only AOC and Tlab sell. The rest are all a waste of memory space.
Yeah, raw emotion sells. It grabs people's eyeballs.
I came and set up very early, then some "big shots" from the networks stepped right in front of me.
I stood up to give them a piece of my mind but a cop beat me to it and made them move.
These kinds of events are raw, dog eat dog stuff. You can't be shy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Phil Lowe said:

She is beautiful and I wish her much success.  The critique of your image was unsolicited and uncalled for and that is against the TOS.  I apologize on behalf of the whole forum to your model, Brady.  Give her a hug for the rest of us. 

Here we go again. Dishonest quoting. Coming from you that is sop.
I clearly stated the picture was and is ugly. Said nothing about the model.
None of my comments were address at the models looks, only at Brady's incompetence.
Shall we go on or do you want to quit now while you and Brady are not too deep in it?
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I deleted that ugly picture Brady posted. Not because of Brady or Phil or even the model.
I did it because a friend pm'd me and asked me to.
Since Brady posted that grossly incompetently photographed image right after he insulted me, I laughed for about half an hour.
Such amateurish incompetence.
Then of course, right on cue, Phil had to pop up like a whack a mole and try and censor me.
So, no, I would not have taken the picture down for those two, not in a million years.
I did it because a friend asked me nicely.
OK Brady, the young lady's picture is gone. So why don't you repost that disgusting picture of an apple drenched in glycerine.
I need a good laugh.
Or maybe one of those NASA pictures you downloaded from their site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Aaron Lemay said:

Need telephoto and a stepping stool. They can't really tell you what you can really do when it is out in public. First rule. Also you in 104F weather is like my -12F weather for ice racing on a frozen lake lol. I rather sweat my ass off then die freezing lol. 

Yeah, I would die in -12F
It's why I live in El Paso.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aaron Lemay said:

When you keyword and place a description with what exactly type of flower it is, the gene when it was grown where it was grown. Yes, customers will filter out the poor saturated photos and find yours. Nicole Glass is right about the subject. People need to watch her videos. I already knew this from having background education and knowledge of Web development and designing. Description and Keywords is very important. I know Google doesn't hammer much on keywords that much anymore but tag descriptions to images, webpage tag and descriptions. If you don't have a well established description or HTML Tag information to the page or image/video. Guess what Google will automatically pushes your website down the rank until you learn to get better. So it goes hand and hand. You want customers to find you in a saturated list be very specific, just don't put car on road during day. Put type, where, when, and what is going on for a description and use that to build into your keywords as well. So when the customers wants to find, lets say. BMW traveling on a highway close to the pacific ocean during the warm summer days, I bet the customer will find you from all the other BMW car photos when you use that information. You don't know what the customer wants. No one does and not applying the right and correct information will never get you sales. Doing Stock photos you have to have a marketing and advertising mind. You don't go to a store and see all white boxes of cereal say crunchy cereal, fruity cereal, chocolate cereal, etc. You will find very fine and specific wording to get customers to buy their product. They are in a saturated world as well so they have to up their game and keep it to the point of how sales are being made. Or they will flop and go under. So it is your choice. If you wish to be very generic then you will never be found. Be specific and you will have chances of being found ;).

 

There I gave to much advice for free. I should ask for payment for this advice lol :P.     

Payment???   It is hugely ironic that you should post these comments because I think the metadata on almost all of your photos is dreadful.  First, you specifically identify the location when it has no relevance to the image whatsoever.  Second, you use the exact same description over and over again for dozens of images.  Third, you use a lot of keywords for things that are not even in the photo.  I could go on and on with the problems and other things that could be improved but I don't think you will listen.  I think you will get defensive and tell me how its none of my business and you've sold a ton of photos already.  So be it.  I wouldn't haven't said anything at all if you hadn't stepped forward to pontificate on how it should be done.  I don't know what Nicole Glass is telling people, but I have to assume that if she is successful, her advice is being misunderstood or not being followed correctly.

BTW, it's "canada" geese not, Canadian geese.  But you don't even have the word "Canada" in your description or keywords.  Put yourself in the shoes of a buyer and take a look at your metadata.  People can't buy what they can't find.  And if irrelevant keywords result in your photos popping up in search results, when what you said was in the photo is not there, that damages your chances of ever making a sale with it.  You have plenty of examples where your keywords are not relevant to the image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, Aaron Lemay said:

Will look into the geese photos. But with using same descriptions for most of the same photos such as the parade ones. Do you know how long that takes to go through over 300 or more photos. I it just insane. I try to group most of the school band photos together and rest I just place as what is going on. At least it is tying into the locations of the photos. If people search for that area they will find them. Also no I don't get defensive. You assume to much when you know very little. Again I am not here to make millions just to see where it lands. Besides it is odd how my photos are being downloaded still. 

Shutterstock is not a photo club.  It is a business operation for people who want to make money from their images and it should be assumed that is everyone's goal unless they say otherwise.  Fickr might be more the type of place you are looking for.

Yes, it takes time and effort to make money.  Perhaps if you didn't post so many similar images you could save yourself a lot of work by concentrating more on a few of the best ones and making sure the metadata is rock solid.  It sure sounds like you are spreading yourself too thin on page after page of similar images and that will get you nowhere. Frankly, I'm surprised SS even accepts so many images that are basically the same thing over and over again on burst mode or something.  Try upping your game and then see where it lands. :-)

Again, I wouldn't have said anything at all if you hadn't made a long post that is in direct contradiction to what you are actually doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Aaron Lemay said:

You assume to much when you know very little.

You assume too much. 

56 minutes ago, Aaron Lemay said:

I agree. Sell on your own website or use on your portfolio besides here. If they are business model photos, then it would be best to share the earnings. That is something that some of the models want with my contracts.  

 What are you talking about? I share my earnings from certain shoots, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaron, I have a few more comments, and I hope you take them in the constructive light I intend them. I just want to point out some things that are not being done as well as they could be.  You have photos of pumpkins but "pumkins" isn't even in keywords.  Neither is "thanksgiving".  You have many photos of a giant cranberries sign but "sign" is not even in the keywords.  You have images of pedestrian bridges on a walking path but "bridge" and "pedestrian" aren't in your keywords.  Instead, you have "mountain", "gold", "cloud", "grass, and "illustration" that have nothing whatsoever to do with the image.  And you waste keyword space on totally generic crap like "outdoor", "paradise", "landscape", beautiful", etc.   Do you really think this rusty bridge is anybody's idea of "paradise"?  Many of your photos have meaningless descriptions like "Mighty Wind Energy".   What is that?  A buyer would have no idea.  Is it a tornado?  Nope, it's a wind turbine. Ans that is what it should say in the description.
",

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Aaron Lemay said:

SS is not a business. If you call $.25 a business that is rather a joke. Selling an actual commercial photo for $55.00 and up is real money which I make. Selling a photo that runs in magazines for $500.00 for 3 months. Is what I make. Making $10,000 and up from seasonal games I make. Selling one photo for $400.00 is appreciation. Can you make that on here??? I don't think so. This is just a stock not a business. Also making about $12,000 for the entire High schools (there is 5 HS schools in my city) game seasons every year from calendars, local newspapers, local HS school sport journal magazines and used on websites. Then we can talk business. Oh also, some of my photos ended up on clothware as well. So I hope you get that good. I been doing this since I been 18. Also doing product photos I have done, real estate and auto sales. To some this is junk change when they make $75,000 - $100,000 every quarter of the year from promotional work and traveling.    

As predicted, you got defensive instead of listening to advice.  Who cares what you make anywhere else?  If you want to compare tax forms I will put you to shame, but what has that got to do with stock?  STOCK.  That is all that matters in this arena and all that we are talking about here. If you want to talk about other avenues of making money in photography I'm sure you can find a forum for that, just as I have for video.  You don't find me talking about my other work here. This forum us about STOCK.

I make $2000 - $4000 per month at SS so, yes, it is a business.  And a lot of people here make a lot more than that.  If you don't want to take it seriously then don't. Nobody says you have to.  But as Joe points out, please don't try giving everyone else advice how to run their business or achieve success with stock when you clearly have had virtually no success yourself, and even worse, don't even do what you say you are doing. Your metadata is awful.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Aaron Lemay said:

If I were you bud, you should get involved with this because this is where the media is heading. 

Not interested.  I already have more work offered to me for TV/video than I can possibly take on if I cloned myself.  And work that is actually challenging, creative, fun, and pays more than I ever dreamed when I was just getting started.  Nope, I'll leave the QR codes and other fads for people who still need to make a mark somehow.

I do stock because I enjoy shooting. I'd be shooting even if there was no such thing as stock.  The drudgery part is doing the metadata, but by my calculations I'm making over $200 per hour for the time I put into doing metadata so it is hard to resist spending a few hours each month working on it in my spare time. $200 an hour to sit at my computer and listen to some tunes while I type ain't bad even if I was a doctor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Aaron Lemay said:

I'll probably delete those and upload them again with better information lol.

You can edit the metadata anytime you want, so no need to upload new versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aaron Lemay said:

@Brady Barrineau Again she is beautiful, but you shouldn't be posting photos of any model without their consent to any social media. There is a fine line of client respect. I have photo work I have done that paid very very well and I can never share those photos or I will be in a lawsuit and I will never get contract work through them again and also with those they are associated with. Just take it as a learning curve to not post photos that can stir things up. One's art is one's way of photography. Again I was just pointing out what standards I follow by. If that is different with you then that is how it is.  

What standards are those? I'd like to see some of your professional portraiture work - but you can't show them because you might get sued right? I do not photoshop out so called 'defects' which I consider a extremely popular demand by ad agencies. Surely you must have a link to some portrait work that your clients give you permission to show. How do you know each and every one of my models doesn't give me permission to post here, there or anywhere? Who told you that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Aaron Lemay said:

Contract. They are not on web. On FTP cloud server. Only time they can be used if I am presently in front of an client interview. Some are even fully nude. It is the respect I have with them. Some women don't want to be used in that way unless it is as a press convention for photography and they are regular models. Public showings no. I am sorry. 

Yeah okay. You must have some high end clientele if they demand you cannot even show them on a portfolio showcasing your work, not a single one? A photographer of this caliber doesn't shoot high school football games between gigs. Yu Tsai is the El Padrino right now, the man.

https://www.yutsai.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...