|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
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.
Messages - PeterChigmaroff
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47 ... 72
1026
« on: May 29, 2010, 13:11 »
Am I the only one to think that it's worrying that such a successful microstockerSis only offered the Getty 'pay as you go' deal....
Once they even told Art Wolf and Franz Lanting, sorry guys but too many elephants, we have already got plenty. They do whatever they want and with anybody.
Remember the Nature catalogue? From what I heard when TSI was sold they wanted to can the Nature catalogue but had to go with it. It turned out to be one the best sellers ever.
1027
« on: May 29, 2010, 12:02 »
Not long ago you could sell images for $250 plus each. It wasn't hard to produce 50 to 100 a day. That wasn't long ago. I don't think you can anymore because projected income is much less. It's difficult to say what an images true income will be over anything longer than a year. The market constantly makes huge adjustments that makes it impossible to say what will happen and how much an image is really worth. Given that I wouldn't pay 2 years income for image. No way.
1028
« on: May 28, 2010, 21:24 »
Interestingly when SV first launched and for the longest time you could get 100% of images accepted. I guess they were building at the time.
1029
« on: May 28, 2010, 11:31 »
Sorry I read this 3 pages on the fly. Is here story about to bee stupidest dog in park but with money?
EG I'am the worst photographer in the world but my rich mom and daddy finance me to be "wanabeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" the best so they pay my placement to Greedy images and with that I am the in round of 10 or 100 best world photographers??
If it is so, I really must to puke now...
I guess that's one way of looking at it. Another would be that you understand the photo market and want the extra exposure you could get from Getty and are willing to invest the money in it.
1030
« on: May 27, 2010, 11:48 »
Go and deactivate....DELETE???...your account then sign back in and it will automatically reactivate just by you signing in. You can not delete it unless there is a button besides deactivate that I could not find. Try it and you will discover that it will reactivate it just by signing in, you don't have to go to your account setting to do it..it does it for you.
https://ssl.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account&__a=3
Help me out here...maybe I'm just down right stupid, but I deactivated my account and when I click on that link, it takes me to the sign on page. When you enter you name and password it takes you to your account which is then reactivated with all the information still present. If it was deleted then I should not have been able to sign in. It should have shown no account found.
This is what sis so irritating and arrogant about FB. Once you "delete" the account it takes 2 weeks for the account to actually be deleted. If you try and sign in for some reason then you go back to square one and have to delete it again.
1031
« on: May 27, 2010, 11:13 »
I just canned my FB account. What is really bad is you have to keep it in a deactivated state for 2 weeks before they actually delete it. Like you somehow need a cooling off period in case you really don't mean it. I had enough of watching some "friend" play Farmville.
So you didn't find the button to Block This Application, easier than closing your account? Just block Farmville, all invitations and notices disappear. Same for the rest of the games. One request from someone for you to join or sending you a gift, you just hit Block This Application, done deal.
Hi, Yes sure the button is obvious enough. Mine was a general comment on the level of what is said on Facebook. None of the intelligent people that I converse with on this and other forums or by email or in real life ever say anything on FB. So this begs the question why waste even a minute there. It's just about all mindless.
1032
« on: May 27, 2010, 11:07 »
Wondering what the percentage payouts are at Getty via the Photographers Choice?
Are they 20% for RF and 30% for RM?
It's 20% RF 40% RM.
1033
« on: May 26, 2010, 16:17 »
I just canned my FB account. What is really bad is you have to keep it in a deactivated state for 2 weeks before they actually delete it. Like you somehow need a cooling off period in case you really don't mean it. I had enough of watching some "friend" play Farmville.
1034
« on: May 24, 2010, 10:29 »
Trying to impose birth control is in my opinion morally unacceptable. A lot more so than trying to artificially create life. We're looking ahead, into the future, not back to the Dark Ages.
What's unacceptable and immoral is trying to impose NO birth control. Like some famous church does.
1035
« on: May 23, 2010, 20:56 »
Really cool but as mentioned I wouldn't place a lot on recouping the money via stock sales on something like that. Especially micro.
1036
« on: May 23, 2010, 10:48 »
"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." - ISSAC NEWTON
We learned that in grade school. Elementary physics.
Yet our scientists and technocrats seem to conveniently forget this when it is in their own best interest.
Very important point. Take corn for example, it has fueled a huge boon in agriculture and the feeding of livestock. Yet it is likely to be single handedly responsible for the obesity problem and rest of the issues with metabolic syndrome much of the world is experiencing.
1037
« on: May 23, 2010, 10:20 »
As someone who's new to this photography thing, I'm trying to understand why the 24-105 is cheaper than the 24-70. For reference, B&H have them at $1059 and $1309 respectively. Does the wider 2.8 only make a difference if you're shooting low light or want a razor thin DOF? Does a wider aperture generally indicate higher lens quality?
The extra stop cosst a lot. Take for example the 70-200; the f/4 and f/2.8 vary widely in price. Have all the same features except aperture. I think the f/4 is slightly sharper. I used to have the f/2.8 in this series but sold it for a f/4. Again for me the extra stop wasn't as important as the smaller size and convenience. 2.8 is great in the studio but on the road it's a PITA.
1038
« on: May 22, 2010, 17:16 »
Well that about seals it for me.
The Canon lineup of a 5D MkII with a 24-105mm sounds like the best setup for shooting stock.
The 24-105 does have more pillow distortion so if your shooting architecture more it's not as nice plus more vignetting at wide and open but is very sharp.
1039
« on: May 22, 2010, 15:03 »
I mostly use the 24-70 and pick up the 70-200 when I need to get in tighter.
All this talk about the 24-105 has got me thinking about changing things up, though.
If I did more just plain old studio under strobe or low light but decent tripod or support I would have kept the 24-70 but I like going hand held, and my hands aren't so steady this days, so the IS on 24-105 makes it better for me. I end up with more keepers. Also the IS in planes, as you know, is much better than an extra stop on the lens. I forgot to mention too that when I was doing people on white background, the 24-105 had less washout and better contrast than the 24-70 with the high amount of reflected light off the b/g.
1040
« on: May 22, 2010, 14:03 »
I sold my 24-70/2.8 after I bought the 24/105 f/4. I find the 24-105 more useful for my style of shooting. So that's my choice.
1041
« on: May 21, 2010, 17:43 »
Some years ago I went to see a lecture by Stephen Hawking and he talked about a time when human characteristics would be genetically enhanced and/or muted. Creating a species with a bit more understanding and a lot more intelligence. Of course the military would want it the other way around. That would set the stage for major advances.
1042
« on: May 20, 2010, 18:14 »
As they say in the micro circles I just had my BME at G.
1043
« on: May 19, 2010, 12:21 »
It's time to pull out a dusty old guillotine, sharpen and grease 'er up and put it to work. Either someone bought it and used the mock up download and forgot to replace it with the real thing or simply didn't pay for it. Either way the punishment should be the same.
1044
« on: May 18, 2010, 10:18 »
You'd need something like an enigma machine and it's code to get to the heart of your message.
1045
« on: May 17, 2010, 10:27 »
Yeh, FT is the only one I ditched out of pure loathing. The rest are simply decisions because of poor performance.
1046
« on: May 16, 2010, 18:02 »
Slightly off topic but is there enough of a interest to make money at micro rates on editorial images? Generally editorial is a smaller.
1047
« on: May 13, 2010, 14:11 »
The problem is that $200/day can quickly become $150 then $100 or less. It doesn't take much. If you are on a good growth curve and see room for an increase in sales then it may be okay but if you're reaching a plateau then caution is advised.
1048
« on: May 11, 2010, 10:00 »
I look at sales and they are not worth keeping so I have deleted my portfolio there. I wish them success, they have always been honest.
1049
« on: May 11, 2010, 09:16 »
Deleted my images there. I wanted to give the remainder of the funds or credits to someone (about $30) but they are non transferable. Too bad. If anyone has a creative way of doing this and wants the credits let me know.
1050
« on: May 10, 2010, 21:20 »
Sorry for the silly question, what is a UID?
Pages: 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 47 ... 72
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
