|
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 - bunhill
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47 48 49 50 ... 62
1101
« on: October 04, 2013, 05:34 »
@ Ron. They did get credit card details but in an encrypted form.
The way these stories tend to go .... I cancelled my card for a new one as soon as I got the email. I have no idea why they feel the need to ever store credit card numbers for one-time transactions.
1102
« on: October 03, 2013, 11:40 »
Ah - I found something on the blog which is aimed at clients creating a brief and which addresses the exclusive/ non exclusive issue. Setting Your Image Budget - How Do I Price My Images?Basically the exclusive / non exclusive thing is down to the brief. So - I think that potentially we can submit non exclusive RM content unless they have specified - and it would be then be down to the price negotiation. I think. Pricing is based on 12 months non-exclusive use in one country and gives a guide range that depends on how extensive the print run or coverage may be ... *Exclusive use would increase fee by 100-200%
1103
« on: October 03, 2013, 11:26 »
Something I was wondering and cannot find the answer to: is it RM exclusive or can we submit stuff which we are offering RM (non exclusive) at Alamy ? Are the clients always going to be looking for an exclusive period of use ?
I do not know of a way of instantly suspending an image at Alamy for the duration of an exclusive use somewhere else.
1104
« on: October 03, 2013, 10:49 »
1105
« on: October 03, 2013, 10:37 »
Good afternoon.
Is possible know what the categories that best-selling?
Good morning. The most popular categories are: Models pretending to do important stuff People being deliriously really happy about online shopping Pizza Babies' feet Old people's hands Superheroes
1106
« on: October 02, 2013, 15:39 »
Thanks for telling us about the site Ron. Just joined up and accepted too. It all seems very friendly and relaxed and I am looking forward to reading the daily briefs and learning a bit more about it all. They certainly seem to have a lot going on.
1107
« on: October 02, 2013, 12:46 »
in the States they have food stamps and all ...
Almost 50 million Americans are on what used to be known as food stamps. JP Morgans Food Stamp Empire
1108
« on: October 02, 2013, 12:05 »
wow - there is some really good work on that site. Well done on getting accepted Ron.
And look - it's Rights Managed only.
1109
« on: October 01, 2013, 14:24 »
One piece everyone in the creative department hated was a chunk of driftwood
Let's be honest: nearly everyone hates driftwood art. And quite right too. But it's the mainstay of crafty little waterfront galleries.
1110
« on: October 01, 2013, 13:09 »
But you really couldn't tell the difference between mine and his. It really makes no difference. The meaning of a thing is determined by the context in which it exists or is presented. (You haven't deleted the bit you wrote about a single dot on paper meaning one thing from one artist and another thing from an artistic genius, because of they way they thought, have you?
Beppe Grillo wrote that.
1111
« on: October 01, 2013, 09:52 »
If I had produced an identical artwork, you would consider that because I have no reputation it is just a tedious and dull picture of a landscape that lacks a subject. But my thought processes might have been identical to Gursky's, you simply don't know, but you make a value judgement anyway.
No. And your argument falls apart because it hinges around this assumption. It ultimately has nothing to do with who you are or your reputation. I could look at your picture and perceive it exactly the same as the Gursky - by imagining what it would mean if it were considered as a cultural artifact, or art object. However, you reject the idea of intellectual art and therefore would not produce a piece with the same meaning or intent and which therefore existed in an art context. Because Gursky's picture exists within an art context and is therefore partly about that. Outside of that context it begins to be meaningless. The meaning of things changes depending upon their context.
1112
« on: October 01, 2013, 08:31 »
@Baldrick - I think your anecdote about posting your artwork to FAA speaks to the quality of the intellectual debate you experienced there rather then adding anything to our knowledge of art. I am afraid that I can only regard people who use "artists intention" to judge the value of a work rather than the aesthetics of the work produced as being rather gullible.
I strongly suspect that you have misunderstood what aesthetics is. People often wrongly believe that aesthetics means "what things look like". Aesthetics is the study of the nature of art itself. Intent has always been a core component - eg what did the artist mean, what does the artists see etc - philosophical debates which go back at least to the ancient Greeks. You talk about science. Think of contemporary art as being like experimental science. Sometimes people do things to see what they find out. Sometimes that changes or influences what is known. 19th and 20th Century European and American art has been especially experimental. Lots has been found out. For example - look at all of the mainstream TV advertising which owes something to surrealism (I would estimate at least 70%). ETA: or its use in governmental PR (and PR, as we know, was more or less invented by Freud's nephew - the term itself having more or less arrived as a euphamism for propaganda as that word fell out of fashion).
1113
« on: October 01, 2013, 04:41 »
there is no satisfactory self-proving solution. If you "solve" Rhein II you will come to a conclusion that is entirely satisfying to yourself, maybe you will be able to persuade others that it is right, but there is no independent confirmation of your conclusion so it is quite likely to say much more about your opinions and thought processes than it says about the photo.
Art is most often nuanced. It often does not have a single clear meaning. Just like the best literature and movies are often unresolved or full of multiple meanings. A piece of music will mean something completely different to everyone who knows it. Why would you want or expect "independent confirmation" of your subjective description of the meaning of a thing which is clearly intended to be experienced rather than explained ? It's just like you cannot empirically measure an atmosphere or perfectly describe a feeling. I am almost certain of one thing about Rhiene IIRhein II: That the artist is presenting it as an example. That is what I meant about it being typical. That is where I start with it.
1114
« on: October 01, 2013, 03:50 »
I really like Gursky's work and also find it interesting. Rhine II, however, still has me baffled. I don't get it. But I like the challenge of that. Perhaps it is a distillation of an idea - a thing taken right down. I don't know. I go back to it. I have only ever seen it reproduced.
yeah so it's a "challenge", a crypto, a puzzled to be solved.
that's exactly what i was trying to say before.
It's a thing which I do not necessarily understand. But I do not expect to understand everything immediately. My life has been full of art, books and music which have sometimes taken me a long time to fathom. Sometimes it is like how you come to appreciate a complicated or subtle flavor. And because Gursky's previous work has been so interesting I am interested enough not to dismiss a thing which I do not necessarily understand. You seem to think that art should always some how be obvious or self explanatory. But art is always about ideas. Not all ideas are simple and not all ideas are best expressed simply. Ideas which are complicated or nuanced or subtle are things which often reveal themselves only over time. Art which gives itself up too easily is often rather stupid and obvious. You always have to remember that 20 years later a work often seems obvious when once it seemed impossible. This has happenned so many times previously. ETA: sometimes the appreciation of a thing comes from not quite understanding it. You half get it, maybe. And that feels weird. It is slightly unsettling or puts you in an unfamiliar place.
1115
« on: September 30, 2013, 16:20 »
No, I'm not dismissing all contemporary art. I thought from your tone that if it was modern and acclaimed it was beyond reproach, regardless of what it was.
Fair enough. I guess I need to adjust my tone then because I did not intend that. For me the bed depended too much on its emotional backstory. It seemed like a soap opera. I liked the fact that it annoyed people but felt that it annoyed them for the wrong reasons. The sheep was also good for annoying people but to me it seemed too much like a stunt. I really like Gursky's work and also find it interesting. Rhine II, however, still has me baffled. I don't get it. But I like the challenge of that. Perhaps it is a distillation of an idea - a thing taken right down. I don't know. I go back to it. I have only ever seen it reproduced. ETA: I get that it is typical. I get that it is boringly typical and therefore interesting - that aspect I understand.
1116
« on: September 30, 2013, 14:08 »
An unmade bed, a rotting sheep and even Rhine II just don't do anything for me. It's just the way I am. I can sort of understand the "plasticised" human corpses but while the structures may be fascinating, the commercial exploitation of corpses disgusts me.
I'm just not a modern guy.
Presumably you are not dismissing all contemporary art on the basis of only 3 random pieces from the past 2 decades. That would be like dismissing all contemporary literature based on 3 books which made headlines or someone told you about. It has nothing to do with being modern or not. You are not supposed to like everything. There is lots of contemporary music which I have no interest in. But I am interested in music, in general.
1117
« on: September 30, 2013, 12:22 »
maybe i'm a misfit but i'm still of the idea that if nobody can understand a piece of art than maybe there's something wrong, art is supposed to be a mean to give a straight clear message, not to be a puzzle to be decyphered unless you're doing it on purpose.
Contemporary art is for people who are interested in contemporary art. If you are not interested in the world of contemporary art then that should not be an issue for you. Nobody is forcing you to swim upstream. Some people like to try out new ideas where as others prefer to feel at home with things which are established and which they think they understand. And there is definitely a place for pastiche. It's weird how people get so twisted up about new creative trends and what other people are doing. The same with art, music, movies, fashion etc. Even in something as mainstream as stock photography - eg people here complaining for example that they do not understand, say, Stocksy and Offset
1118
« on: September 30, 2013, 11:26 »
You make your name be networking and by being promoted by members of the art community. The moment you are accepted into that group you're made. You get the introductions, someone with an important gallery points your work out to an art critic who then, having been told that you are the bright new thing, will gush about you in a Sunday supplement.
So you neet to up sticks and move to the most artsy part of the country (it's probably not the most expensive, it's the run-down area not far from the centre that the trendy up and coming artists have just start buying apartment in), then you need to drink in the right cocktail bars and bistros, make lots of friends and be sure always to gush over whatever cr@p people are turning out.
And then years later you realise that what they thought was trendy or stupid was actually bright, timely and interesting - it was just that you did not understand it from your reactionary perspective at the time. Like punk rock, post modernism, the nouvelle vague, color photography, pop art, abstraction and all those other isms and nuances which our grandparents could make no sense of. And then they kicked themselves for not buying a Rothko when you could get one for the price of a meal. Personally I like art and am glad that every generation takes it in a different direction. Also - those transitional places where nobody else wanted to live are always the most interesting and exciting for a while. Who would want to be anywhere else when in a city? Cocktails, bistros and color supplements ?? 
1119
« on: September 29, 2013, 15:10 »
if a sale is made through a distributor, you only get 40%
No if the sale is via a distributor you get 30%. The distributor gets 40% and Alamy takes 30%.
1120
« on: September 27, 2013, 12:00 »
people contact the tabloids every day with "UFO photos".
Which are nearly always insects caught in motion - apparently sharp in one plane but blurred in another. Insects close up can look like weird objects in the sky. And with no way of gauging the distance they can look more distant. Interest in these sorts of stories peaks when there is a book or a studio movie being promoted. I have RAW format to prove it's authentic...
Lol.
1121
« on: September 25, 2013, 10:02 »
"You may not ... Make images available on a digital asset management system, shared drive or the like for the purposes of sharing or transferring such images Unless I am reading it wrong, nothing in the original post seems to suggest that they are encouraging sharing - as in other people actually using the images. Our Dropbox integration will give you a frictionless way to store creative assets, sync them across all your devices, and effortlessly collaborate with colleagues on creative projects As much as I am nervous of Shutterstock, I don't see that they are promoting anything other than collaboration - as in "have a look at this and see whether you think it would work". Also - given that individuals at agencies clearly already save images to their networked storage (in 2013 everything is the network), I cannot see anything here which is especially unusual. However, the reality of subscription, as I am certain many customers would privately admit (and perhaps the real story here) is that natural persons already share the files with others within their companies and offices. Subscription already encourages that.
1122
« on: September 23, 2013, 18:00 »
(After all the speculation about it being editorial, or not ....) http://petapixel.com/2013/09/22/model-sues-getty-seeing-hiv-positive-advertisement/Update on September 23, 2013: Getty has issued this statement regarding this story:
We empathize with and understand the sensitivity of Avril Nolans situation. Getty Images had a model release and relied upon the photographers documentation when we made the image available for license. The photographer ... Jena Cumbo tells the NY Daily News that she made a mistake by not understanding her contract with Getty.
1123
« on: September 23, 2013, 06:34 »
Seems to be some confusion here. That low contrast soft crushed blacks look which some people do so well (actually a whole range of different styles) is completely different from the look people get when they couple flat lighting with bad processing. It's also about the palettes used etc - ie about how the colors are processed. It's really simplistic to compare bad lighting and poor processing with a deliberate style used well and in context. I don't have a stick in this fire. My work is rubbish. I need to change. But I definitely know good work when I see it and have a good sense of what is being used and where. Reading these threads I find myself wondering what blogs or magazines some people here are actually reading every day or whether they can see what they are looking at. And what other contemporary media they see everyday. Here, below for example, are 4 lifestyle sites / magazines which all have a deliberately contemporary look and feel. And have another look at, say, some of those beautiful Swedish, French and US design and lifestyle blogs (and add 20 or 30 to your daily feed). Look at where those pictures are being sourced from - ie who is actually using them. Then look at this year's crop of annual reports - even many of the big industrials have gone over to a much more contemporary style since the past few years. Ditto in-flight magazines etc. Great looking photography seems to be the norm now - certainly everywhere I look. Meanwhile - we get almost no junk mail anymore - the sort of print which used to feature the microstock stuff which was heavily used 8 or 10 or even 5 years ago. http://www.kinfolk.comhttp://marrowmag.comhttp://collectivequarterly.comhttp://www.puregreenmag.com
1124
« on: September 22, 2013, 11:05 »
Keywordzilla must be crying him/herself to sleep every night. They correctly corrected my stupid tick on Photograph (art and craft) instead of Photography (image) as a generic keyword. I have no issue with that.
I doubt they care even slightly. People learn from a thing, learn what works and does not, earn a wage and move on. What they probably learned from trying to fix the keywords was that it was a never ending uphill task. It was presumably useful even if only perhaps to show that it was not the best way of doing things. Trying to manually fix the keywording spam in millions of images, with thousands more arriving every week, is maybe stupid and pointless. Perhaps it was the wrong solution. Perhaps that is why they now seem to have gone with a solution which seems to be about keyword relevancy in which the buyers decide over time and contribute to the pool of data with their clicks and buys. I hope so - because that makes sense. And that seems to be the message. There is no suggestion that keyword spamming gives anyone an advantage and every reason to assume that accurate keywording is to everyone's best advantage still. the New search being so incredibly poor in many cases means that buyers won't use it. You have no evidence to support this statement. Perhaps we can assume it will be used less but without stats we can only guess. Also - in many cases it will not be so incredibly poor. Granted it may be more erratic - but it will also be fresher. And it may sometimes provide an element of randomness which some searchers appreciate. We cannot make assumptions and we have no data.
1125
« on: September 22, 2013, 08:41 »
If it was a small boutique collection with a few hundred contributors then it would make sense to build it around a much more intensive and detailed inspection process. But iStock is much more like Flickr with thousands of people uploading huge quantities of just about anything. Lots of it probably irrelevant. As at Alamy I don't believe it can make sense for the inspection process to be labor-intensive.
It gives them a pool of content all of which can be quickly on sale and from which they can further choose content to promote. It's not stupid.
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47 48 49 50 ... 62
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
