There is/was this photo posted on PhotographersDirect homepage, which must have been rated 8 on their scale (which means outstanding shot). I can't figure out what it is and it seems very blurry and just bad to me. Maybe I am just not seeing something there. Can someone tell me what is on this photo. I can see the egg shell but what is sticking out of it? Thanks
It does look to be some sort of toy which could be a shark or a lizard/snake. There is clearly an eye and teeth on the lower jaw. Also a seam right down the middle where the two halves of the body are joined.
To me, after looking at the image, the impression I get is that whatever the object is has robbed the nest and feasted on the contents of the egg shell...it ate the chicken/egg.
I don't think it is technically as good as it could be.
The seam down the back of the "shark" makes it look like a plastic toy to me. Considering some of the shots they've given me a 6 on, this really surprises me.
The seam down the back of the "shark" makes it look like a plastic toy to me. Considering some of the shots they've given me a 6 on, this really surprises me.
I get really puzzled by their rating, really. I would be embarrassed to post such picture on my homepage, especially if I was selling images.
Perhaps I should ask PD what it is
Not to hijack the thread at all, but why are they so animate about not representing photographers who put ANY of their photos on microstock sites?
Not that I'm submitting to stock yet....but if I put more common photos on microstock sites and My best photos on macrostock sites...should the macrostock site even care...as long as i'm not putting the same shots on both sites.
Not to hijack the thread at all, but why are they so animate about not representing photographers who put ANY of their photos on microstock sites?
Not that I'm submitting to stock yet....but if I put more common photos on microstock sites and My best photos on macrostock sites...should the macrostock site even care...as long as i'm not putting the same shots on both sites.
yeah I read that part. But in the example they give..it's a photographer putting the same shot on both websites.
If I take a photo of a flower, it more than likely won't get accepted onto a macro site, but has a better chance with a micro site. And if I take a photo of an historical building getting demolished, it might make it onto a macro site because it's not easily reproduced....So how come I can't market my photos that wouldn't be accepted at all on macro sites be sold on micro sites would be my question...
Again not trying to challenge their rules (not that I can do it here anyways...) was just curious...
What makes you think it was rated an 8? I can't find anything that says it was rated an 8.
Edit to add: As a side note, only 5% of photos uploaded get rated an 8 and only .25% get rated a 9. Just because it appears on the front page I don't think that means it was rated an 8 or better, it just made them go WOW! for whatever reason.
Where is the chicken? :)
Do you consider this an outstanding photo?
If it was taken by an Icelander I must at least consider that it is an outstanding photo. I used to work with a couple of Icelanders and can confirm it is Icelandic humor.
yeah I read that part. But in the example they give..it's a photographer putting the same shot on both websites.
If I take a photo of a flower, it more than likely won't get accepted onto a macro site, but has a better chance with a micro site. And if I take a photo of an historical building getting demolished, it might make it onto a macro site because it's not easily reproduced....So how come I can't market my photos that wouldn't be accepted at all on macro sites be sold on micro sites would be my question...
Again not trying to challenge their rules (not that I can do it here anyways...) was just curious...
Because fundamentally they view microstock as a threat to their industry, and the only real response they have is to refuse to have anything to do with anyone 'tainted' by it.
I personally think they're both wrong to believe that and arrogant to try to dictate how photographers choose to do business, but there are plenty of photographers who share their view and I somehow doubt PD are missing me too much :-)
What makes you think it was rated an 8? I can't find anything that says it was rated an 8.
Edit to add: As a side note, only 5% of photos uploaded get rated an 8 and only .25% get rated a 9. Just because it appears on the front page I don't think that means it was rated an 8 or better, it just made them go WOW! for whatever reason.
Only pictures rated 8 get to be featured on their homepage. The WOW pictures are featured in the WOW gallery, so your WOW analogy doesn't work.
Only pictures rated 8 get to be featured on their homepage. The WOW pictures are featured in the WOW gallery, so your WOW analogy doesn't work.
From Photographers Direct FAQ's:
How do I get my pictures on the wow! page or the homepage? Easy! Upload pictures that make us say "wow!". We rate all pictures that are uploaded onto the website and the best are automatically added to the wow! page. The most recent will also appear on the homepage, and be pushed off by newer pictures as they are added to the wow! page.
Apparently my WOW! analogy does work. I don't see anything in this paragraph that says only photos rated 8 or above make it to the WOW section.
How do I get my pictures on the wow! page or the homepage?
Easy! Upload pictures that make us say "wow!". We rate all pictures that are uploaded onto the website and the best are automatically added to the wow! page. The most recent will also appear on the homepage, and be pushed off by newer pictures as they are added to the wow! page.
Originally posted by PD:
Rating Quality Percentage of images at this rating
9 wow! 0.25%
8 outstanding 5%
7 good 60%
6 average 25%
5 mediocre 10%
How do I get my pictures on the wow! page or the homepage?
Easy! Upload pictures that make us say "wow!". We rate all pictures that are uploaded onto the website and the best are automatically added to the wow! page. The most recent will also appear on the homepage, and be pushed off by newer pictures as they are added to the wow! page.
Apparently my WOW! analogy does work. I don't see anything in this paragraph that says only photos rated 8 or above make it to the WOW section.
Your analogy doesn't work because the paragraph you quoted is not the one that talks about rating images.
I am not taking about WOW pictures. WOW are rated 9 and they go to the WOW gallery. I am talking about images that make it to the homepage and those are 8. I will tell you from the personal experience that images rated 8 do not make it to the WOW gallery, only the ones rated 9. Check out the WOW gallery and show me if you see this photo there. So still I want to know what is it about this photo that makes PD think of it as outstanding.
only 9's are rated as WOW - that states that WOW images are shown on the front page until they are pushed off by a newer WOW image - which according to the above would have to have been rated a 9.
did you look at the rating scale?
i don't know why i am wasting my time with this thread.
