|
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 - RT
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47 48 49 50 ... 77
1101
« on: August 06, 2009, 04:36 »
@whatalife, just for the record, I don't assume to know anything about you, because is plain and simple "I could care less who you are" or wether you're able or willing to upload to Vetta, or you opinion of the name of CC's new project, lets get that clear!
Bottom line is that if I spend my money, time and effort lets just say, to open my own photo stock site and decided to call it imStock, it is no one else's business what my choice of name is, and I would not loose one minute of sleep over what other people think of it, (including all of you guys that have a problem with John's choice of names) I would call my investment whatever . I want, and if anyone has a problem with it, they can always put their money where their mouth is and help me pay for the site (I'm using a site as an example whatalife, in case you get confused)...so as far as I'm concern, JOHN IS A GREAT NAME! use it with pride. 
This highlights why no doubt you're not a very successful businessman. This forum is here to enable people to express their opinions, it is not here to let people say things that please you and if you read things you don't like then don't come here. If you run a business you have to appeal to the people you're trying to do business with, your attitude of "I would not loose one minute of sleep over what other people think of it" is a road to disaster. What has been highlighted by many is that the name 'Betta than Vetta' not only has legal implications but is also seen by many as a very cheap and tacky approach not one that would be taken by a professional site, to state that a collection is better than another is subjective and we can all form our own opinion of that, however another thing that has been highlighted is the fact that unlike the Vetta collection on iStock which contains exclusive images the images in Cutcasters collection are not unique and are available elsewhere for a lower price, so therefore what does this collection offer to anyone - the answer is: nothing. For a new site struggling to attract buyers and with low reported sales figures I'd have thought they would value any feedback, however as the guy in charge decided to ignore any comments on another thread about the lack of sales I wouldn't be surprised if he ignores the advice given here.
1102
« on: August 05, 2009, 15:01 »
Interesting approach thanks for sharing, although it's not something I'd do myself.
1103
« on: August 05, 2009, 14:58 »
Elena,
I didn't go through Flickr, I went straight to Yahoo, but yes I agree the red tape that the US have created for themselves over copyright does seem to delay things for those that live in the US.
1104
« on: August 05, 2009, 08:40 »
RT,
So I suppose that makes you some big time monkey, I mean money making not so stupid dude here , is it?
If ganging up on her makes you so big, that's not very impressive.
Why is she not allowed to voice her opinion, as silly as it may seem to you.
I think your ganging up on Lisa4 is not that impressive, but we still don't expect you to bugger off like you expect her to do .
So, come off your blooming high horse and let's keep this forum an open discussion.
Not unless you like to start your own where every single dude has to agree with you and your flipping motley crew of lupe zombies !
I'll respond to somebody wrongly criticising what I do however I see fit, if you don't like my response or that of some others then tough, I neither seek, need or value your opinion.
1105
« on: August 04, 2009, 18:03 »
JOHN GRIFFIN a.k.a. Terminator Bryan Zmijewski
1106
« on: August 04, 2009, 17:55 »
So guys and girls, i am off, yuo can breath free again, I am off to make some, -how did one of you guys call it? I am off to make some stupid big money, for some stupid big agency that has decided to stay away for this shoot from stock. Hope you guys allow me a bit longer to ,make "stupid big money" until even in this area you take over with 5 dollar jobs.
cheers, lisa
But you're not making "stupid big money" because if you were you wouldn't be here complaining about the microstock industry.
1107
« on: August 04, 2009, 10:50 »
I've just taken a quick look at your 'Better than Vetta' collection, the images aren't exclusive, and they cost more in your collection than they would on one of the established successful sites for the same size!!
So in short maybe your ad should read "Better than Vetta - the same stuff from the same contributors thats available elsewhere but this time it's more expensive" and I'd suggest you remove the terms 'untapped' and 'unique source' from your statement because neither really apply.
1108
« on: August 04, 2009, 10:35 »
You must know, that every professional produced photo sold on a Microstock site is one job less given to a photographer, one job less for a photo model, one job less for a stylist, and one job less for an art director etc. Now selling your professional photo multiple times, is a disaster for the industry.You can draw the picture here youself. It results in a insane decline on the demand for professional photography.
You really haven't got a clue how either stock photography or commissioned photography works have you? Add to that you claim to have been in the business for thirty years and it amazes me that you haven't grasped even the basic fundamentals of how business works. Still it's a free world and you're entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it is.
1109
« on: August 04, 2009, 10:30 »
Hmmm I'd be interested to see what iStockphoto have to say about you using the term Vetta in your collections title.
And even though I don't qualify to submit to the iStock Vetta collection I must say your 'Better than Vetta' title is a bit cheap and rather pathetic IMO, especially for a site with so few sales, why not work on improving your sales with serious established marketing instead of tacky cheap phrases.
1110
« on: August 04, 2009, 05:01 »
True to their word my images have now been taken off this persons Flickr account, however others still remain.
1111
« on: August 04, 2009, 03:21 »
It's no such much an announcement it's part of his reply about novel use, but just for you this is what he said:
"The number of images has reduced recently and will continue to reduce over the next few days because we could not reach agreement with Getty Images for renewing their distribution contract with us. This means that their collections have been removed from the site."
As for Getty don't bother writing to them they're renowned for not replying to emails, why not just go through the contributor application process, or failing that ring them.
1113
« on: August 03, 2009, 09:57 »
Just had a reply from the UK copyright team to inform me the images will be removed from this Flickr account within 24hrs. Don't know if they mean all of them or just mine.
1114
« on: July 31, 2009, 03:30 »
Thanks to Sharpshot for letting me know this guy has one of mine there. . Whats even more stupid is that my copyright information is included with the photo under 'more properties'
The collection seems to be a mixed bunch of subjects, I wonder why he chose the shots he/she did.
Well see how long it takes for flickr to remove the account.
1115
« on: July 23, 2009, 18:32 »
You could kind of say the same thing about this site with the exception that many people here hide under aliases so no one will ever find their work here. Do you get buyers from posting here.
The mistake, or 'interesting strategic choice', that I see a lot of photographers doing is marketing and branding themselves to other photographers.
Jonathan - I don't think (and certainly haven't noticed) any buyers that visit this forum with the exception of those that are contributors themselves, and if that's the case Lee's comment is very apt in my opinion, why market ourselves to ourselves, plus as I've mentioned before having a measure of anonymity on this forum enables a certain level of free speech. I see a possible venture for someone that knows what they're doing, I think someone who is internet savvy (rules me out) could create a site whereby we as photographers could have an account enabling us to make weekly posts of what we've been shooting with links to relevant portfolios and thumbnail examples, and then the site posts that info on twitter, facebook or any of the other networking places. From a buyers perspective they could then visit one site and get lots of stock related news and info, maybe even have the option for a buyer to only select the news from their favourite photographers so that they're not wading through tonnes of stuff that doesn't interest them. Restrict the entires to once a week and then it's fair for all and the site won't get clogged up with too much stuff from the same source. And most importantly keep the site looking professional, not covered in ads or referral badges from the site creator. Just a thought.
1116
« on: July 21, 2009, 17:06 »
I think it's one of those things that if you worked hard at it you'd see some results, whether the time spent doing it would outweigh the return you get is the reason I don't bother personally.
1117
« on: July 21, 2009, 16:02 »
You might be interested to know that downloading a comp from the main Veer site will give you an image completely free of any watermark, whilst the marketplace watermark ain't great at least there is one.
1118
« on: July 20, 2009, 03:38 »
You should mention that this only refers to images licensed as Rights Managed not Royalty Free.
1119
« on: July 17, 2009, 15:14 »
I do know his username at iStock but he's not linked it here so I think it only fair if you ask him yourself.
1120
« on: July 17, 2009, 06:55 »
personally we saw Josh here on the forum, but he has left.
And he went to iStock as an exclusive.
1121
« on: July 15, 2009, 05:13 »
Quite interesting, his photos don't impress me but then I've never understood the culture whereby you call something 'art' and then in the eyes of some it's great.
1122
« on: July 14, 2009, 18:15 »
Whilst like Sean I'm not going to directly help you with what to shoot you seem like a nice genuine guy so I'll give you a couple of tips I think might help, for the type of stock that sells on microstock sometimes attention to detail helps and often 'less is more', I had a quick look on your flickr portfolio, your shot of the place setting would appeal more in this market if you remove the flowers and edge design on the plate, and more importantly get the cutlery layout correct, for a buyer to add a design of their own choice is easy to do, to have to remove one they don't like will most probably make them buy someone else's shot. Your shot of the cat is good and the uniqueness of the different coloured eyes is a feature that I think would help it's appeal because it can be used for concepts other than that to do with pets.
If you like nature and you're keen on isolating things then isolate things you find in nature, people will tell you they won't sell but trust me if you do it really well they will sell, mainly because the sites are flooded with isolated shots that haven't been done well.
Good luck
1123
« on: July 14, 2009, 17:54 »
I have a feeling their review process is based on histogram, but that is just an outside guess.
That's blown my theory about the blind rabbit out the water then.
1124
« on: July 14, 2009, 17:51 »
Good I was about to call the Police
1125
« on: July 14, 2009, 17:46 »
I wish DT would do what every other site does when you forget to attach the release, just send a note asking you to attach the release! Who does it benefit by rejecting the image and making the contributor have to upload it again?
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47 48 49 50 ... 77
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
