1
Crestock.com / Crestok has just filed for bankruptcy
« on: April 07, 2020, 20:05 »
You have to sign few documents to request a payment but "It is highly unlikely payment will be distributed".
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to. 1
Crestock.com / Crestok has just filed for bankruptcy« on: April 07, 2020, 20:05 »
You have to sign few documents to request a payment but "It is highly unlikely payment will be distributed".
2
Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe shakes things up - Announces plan to acquire Fotolia« on: December 17, 2014, 09:06 »
I wrote a long of time ago the only objective of fotolia was to find someone able to buy them.
Now with Adobe they will be able to sell your images bypassing the few rights you had. On their cloud you will see hundred images sold as 1 download, lower prices and they will give your images for free to premium adobe clients. Adobe Should give software for free to image creators "working" for fotolia because 800M$ worth their pictures not the crappy people managing it. 3
General Photography Discussion / Re: Peter Lik, master salesman, does it again« on: December 17, 2014, 08:20 »I agree with that 100% , hobo. With the way microstock is going, proper galleries are obviously the answer.With "proper" galleries you will earn nothing but if you have famous and rich friends as Lik has. Anyway his picture has been sold in a private auction, with an anonymous buyer... I have sold a my image for 10.000.000$ too... 4
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock - downsizing to 6mp - thoughts?« on: May 10, 2014, 19:50 »
I have no idea why i got so many keywords in Italian, i insert 30 keywords max in English 5
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock - downsizing to 6mp - thoughts?« on: May 10, 2014, 12:40 »
21 mega-pixel of the 5d mark ii, nothing impressive http://www.shutterstock.com/it/pic-188649884/stock-photo-cupcakes.html?src=9EfMUzNJ8JIDU84rIJxkVQ-1-15 but no agency created me any problems, considering it was daylight through a window 6
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock - downsizing to 6mp - thoughts?« on: May 10, 2014, 10:47 »I gather the 100 macro non-L has the same optics as the L version so the extra price is in the weather-sealing. If I'd realised that before I got mine I would have gone for the non-L, too. Recently for test On SS i uploaded almost every shoots of food at 1.4 with the sigma 35 1.4 and i had not any rejections. 7
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock - downsizing to 6mp - thoughts?« on: May 10, 2014, 09:57 »I am not negative about L glasses. I was speaking about the quality(and investments) needed for microstock. I know people shooting with a 500d with 100 macro(non L) and on Fotolia is emerald.Microstock a lot of years ago was 6 mp cameras and crappy images. If we have to follow your tips, the next year everyone will have to buy a medium format camera and a 7.000$ lens to shoot for microstock and for 0.10$ each image.I bought a number of cheaper lenses starting out, including Sigmas. Some of them were quite good, like the Sigma 20mm 1.8 prime. However, their quality control is spotty. You can get a wide variation of quality and have to rely on luck to get a good copy. Also, Sigma customer service is famously bad. Since I started shooting L glass I have gotten consistently high quality lenses and tack sharp pictures. It's worth the extra price to me. 8
Computer Hardware / Re: Which PC or MAC would you buy "now"?« on: May 10, 2014, 08:34 »
Ignorance is a bad beast.
9
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock - downsizing to 6mp - thoughts?« on: May 10, 2014, 07:26 »Microstock a lot of years ago was 6 mp cameras and crappy images. If we have to follow your tips, the next year everyone will have to buy a medium format camera and a 7.000$ lens to shoot for microstock and for 0.10$ each image.I bought a number of cheaper lenses starting out, including Sigmas. Some of them were quite good, like the Sigma 20mm 1.8 prime. However, their quality control is spotty. You can get a wide variation of quality and have to rely on luck to get a good copy. Also, Sigma customer service is famously bad. Since I started shooting L glass I have gotten consistently high quality lenses and tack sharp pictures. It's worth the extra price to me. 10
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock - downsizing to 6mp - thoughts?« on: May 09, 2014, 10:13 »I used in the past really cheap lenses like samyang 8mm and the canon 18-55 is(100 bucks) never had a problem with acceptations. You are not working for vogue or playboy, you are selling image for 20 cents, the only problem is to have a nice subject-composition , good lights and shoot in raw. Ahahahah yes in fact excluding you sarcasm almost every stock sites now accept photos taken with smart-phones. 11
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock - downsizing to 6mp - thoughts?« on: May 09, 2014, 09:35 »studio shots with SS are not a problem, but for outdoor (non people) shots they are really strange and inconsistent. Coming from iStock exclusivity back to SS I had them reject shots (beach, landscape) that were in flames on IS for focus or composition or incorrect white balance (usually that would be sunrise or sunset shots when the light isn't neutral). I used in the past really cheap lenses like samyang 8mm and the canon 18-55 is(100 bucks) never had a problem with acceptations. You are not working for vogue or playboy, you are selling image for 20 cents, the only problem is to have a nice subject-composition , good lights and shoot in raw. 12
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock - downsizing to 6mp - thoughts?« on: May 09, 2014, 09:26 »overall if you consider lens like the 16-35 or the 17-40...Presumably there was some useful information you had intended to impart at the end of the sentence which got truncated to '...' Sorry, English is not my first language and insomnia doesn't help :-). I mean a "cheap" lens like the canon 85 1.8 is better than a 24-105 L lens for example, obviously only at 85mmm. The canon 100 macro has same quality of the 100 macro l is and has half price. The sigma 35 1.4 is a lot better of the canon 35 1.4 l and has half price too. "L" means luxury, not professional. 13
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock - downsizing to 6mp - thoughts?« on: May 08, 2014, 15:53 »studio shots with SS are not a problem, but for outdoor (non people) shots they are really strange and inconsistent. Coming from iStock exclusivity back to SS I had them reject shots (beach, landscape) that were in flames on IS for focus or composition or incorrect white balance (usually that would be sunrise or sunset shots when the light isn't neutral). L glasses means nothing, they have chromatic aberrations and distortion as every normal lenses, overall if you consider lens like the 16-35 or the 17-40... Consider polarizers destroy a lot of good pictures. 14
Adobe Stock / Re: How to spread word of DPC and opt-out option« on: May 03, 2014, 10:17 »To Opt OUT of DPC: I don't believe that setting "don't sell my files on DPC" will really prevent them to sell the files elsewhere. They are only a bunch of scammers happy to earn with the work of others. 15
General Stock Discussion / Re: Considering outsourcing 3D rendered images« on: April 23, 2014, 08:30 »
Considering you don't have the right on the 3d models you risk someone will ask to block your account.
16
Adobe Stock / Re: $5000 mobile photography contest!« on: April 02, 2014, 20:35 »
Another ridiculous contest made by fotolia...
17
General Stock Discussion / Re: Getty Images makes 35 million images free in fight against copyright infringemen« on: March 06, 2014, 08:40 »
Kings of scammers... Soon they will give our ass for free too.
18
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Hold on to your wallets! "There are irregularities with October's PP royalties"« on: February 27, 2014, 04:09 »
After this kind of new i have a very weird boost in my sales, probably they are helping my sales to pay my debt...
19
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Hold on to your wallets! "There are irregularities with October's PP royalties"« on: February 25, 2014, 16:12 »Has any of the European Istockers received his/her e-mail yet? I haven't got mine yet, and I don't believe for a second they'll forget me (my October PP was more than double of September).And me from Italy too.. We are the first when someone has to pay... 20
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Hold on to your wallets! "There are irregularities with October's PP royalties"« on: February 25, 2014, 14:31 »Leeches can't speak, they need only to be smashed, microstockers need a labor union...I think the thing to be constructively asking for is a better system of reporting from now on. That makes much more sense than people venting. A constructive conversation is better than an angry stand off. 21
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Hold on to your wallets! "There are irregularities with October's PP royalties"« on: February 24, 2014, 21:35 »
Guys, i told you, It's a * legalized scam. They have no idea how many "wrong sales" they had and they are letting paid us a random forfeiture mainly based on few weird calculus.
22
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Hold on to your wallets! "There are irregularities with October's PP royalties"« on: February 24, 2014, 20:02 »
Time ago there was an option to opt-out PP, where is it now?
24
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Hold on to your wallets! "There are irregularities with October's PP royalties"« on: February 24, 2014, 18:07 »
They can't told us only "you have to refund us". I want a * detailed explanation with every detail, every partner involved with this, it's to easy to say we had problems last years now we want YOUR money back!
25
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Hold on to your wallets! "There are irregularities with October's PP royalties"« on: February 24, 2014, 17:59 »
Are the * crazy? During November-December 2013 i earned 160$ less than other months and now they want more than 140$. Are they * kidding? this is not funny, they are a only bunch of legalized scammers.
|
|