|
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 - Seren
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14
126
« on: April 14, 2008, 10:13 »
That's as maybe but that is the reason given for rejection for 'overuse' of Photoshop!
"Overuse" of photoshop well, is very different to "overuse" done badly. Clearly that example that comes up time and time again is a clever use of photoshop, and is well executed. As for highlights lost in the sky - I don't see those. I live in the UK and out skies are always blown!
127
« on: April 14, 2008, 09:00 »
I don't think that "overfiltering" is the same as "clver photoshop work".
In the example with the heads, there is no "overfiltering". The sky is natural, the figures are natural, the heads are natural, all they have done is pasted the heads into the veggie patch.
It's not over saturated, it doesn't have an over use of noise reduction software, it doesn't have obvious post processing problems. That is what overfiltering is.
128
« on: April 11, 2008, 06:52 »
well i disagree with you on a number of point seren, so I will start with this one.
Sorry Leaf, I mistook what you were saying. But initially RF was sold at a higher price than RM. Certainly in the UK market, which is what I have experience of.
129
« on: April 11, 2008, 05:21 »
I think I know what Leaf is trying to say. I'll try and put it in simple terms, because the two terms "rights managed" and "royalty free" are confusing.
Imagine I have one picture, and three customers. I sell the image to the customers as follows.
Customer 1: I sell him the rights to use the image on front front page of his magazine, but only in Australia, and only for the June issue. He pays $100 for these rights.
Customer 2: I sell him the rights to use the image in his travel company broshure for the whole of 2009 and 2010. After that he needs to contact me to keep using it. He pays $500 for these rights (because he's getting more than customer 1).
Customer 3: He just loves my picture. He wants to use it all over the place, on his website, in magazines, as advertisement and on postcards and calendars. I figure "woah, I can't be bothered to deal with all this paperwork" so I sell him the rights to use it anywhere he likes for as long as he needs for $1000 (because he's getting way more than both customer 1 and 2).
I just sold customer 3 a royalty free license, but I didn't break my "rights managed" terms with the first two customers.
Traditionally rights managed license sold for less than royalty free licences because the customer gets less (unless they want exclusive use of an image for one reason or another, but that's different and totally separate). This is the beef that most traditional stock photographers have with microstock. We are letting people use our images for anything they want FOREVER for a buck. Traditionally a licence like this would have cost thousands.
So yes, you can sell images both rights managed and royalty free at the same time. The simple reason is, you don't have to tell your clients who you have sold the image to previously, at what price, or what license, unless they want some sort of special exclusive deal.
It's not unethical, royalty free is just a different name for a type of managed licence. It is still "managed" in a way, because the end user can't use it for deflammatory purposes, and they have to pay more if they want to print X amount of copies, or use it for print on demand. So it's still "rights managed" it's just a very, very liberal license.
The reason that people like PhotoShelter don't want royalty free images on their site, is to keep the microstock images away. They rightfully understand that their customers would be pissed if they found the same image with a better licence deal for so much less money. Of course, if you're negotiating with customers privatly, it's not a problem.
130
« on: April 11, 2008, 03:43 »
I'll pimp myself a little bit here... I do some of my friends wedding post processing, I get a fee per image, or I do X amount for X amount, if that makes sense. No special effects, just tidying up the images. He's good at photography, but doesn't have a powerful enough computer to batch process, or the inclination to learn all the ins and outs. It's a distance thing too, he either drops me a DVD or sometimes a smallish hard disk to my by courier, and then I send the same back to him. We're looking into doing it by FTP to make it even easier. Anyway, send me a PM if you're interested, it's a service I'm definatly looking into offering more. I seem to have free time on my hands these days.  Plus I'd like to go full time into photography. Added benefit that I know the uploading procedures certainly for the "big six" and could do all that for you if you were so inclined. 
131
« on: April 11, 2008, 02:16 »
Photoshelter's rules state that you cannot list an image as RM on Photoshelter if you have ever listed it as RF on Photoshelter or anywhere else.
Sorry, I should have cropped that quote a bit further! I was disagreeing with the bit it's ethically wrong to do, not the specific TOS of PhotoShelter. Any agency that says that is a little backwards, since I could have it RM on Alamy, and it then PhotoShelter could still sell it in a competing market, which is what I guess they want to avoid. They're trying to offer some sort of exclusivity illusion, which in fact they're not managing to do.
132
« on: April 10, 2008, 13:40 »
In fact, I HATE the noise and it would be probable the only reason for me to spend that much money on a full frame. But I'm not convinced on the true advantage on a full frame here. At least not an advantage which is worth several thousands of dollars.
5D's don't cost several thousands of dollars though. If I picked up a 5D for about 1000, then I should imagine a 5D body is available for under $2000 in the states.
133
« on: April 10, 2008, 13:38 »
It may not be in thier user agreement but if you upload them as RM there could be other issue plus ethically it is just wrong to sell an image as both.
No it's not. Rights Managed is that you are managing where the image is used. Rights Managed is traditionally cheaper than Royalty Free because you are only allowing that image to be used X amounts of times in X countries on the front cover of X magazine. Royalty Free is a license for the end user to use the image as many times as they like. You no longer have control over the image. So of course you can sell an image as both. What you cannot do, however, is offer an image EXCLUSIVELY to a client (be it industry, country, continent) if you have sold it Royalty Free. You can only offer exclusive deals to clients on images where you have monitored the usage through Rights Managed sales.
134
« on: April 10, 2008, 10:56 »
The advantage of having a full frame is undeniable.
Could you tell me more about that?
Apart from specific needs (robustness) and personal preference, what are the undeniable advantages of a full frame over an APS-C?
Especially when we talk about a quite old full frame model (5D) and a brand new 450D which get some features the 5D does not have (14bits processing, DIGIC III, Live View, integrated cleaning system).
I know that a 450D may seems like a toy compared with the 5D when you hold it, but is there any advantage in purchasing a $2500 full frame from a picture quality point of view?
I dont' think so, but I'm interested in your opinion.
My opinions. The selling point for me was the quality. The 5D produces better quality photos than a 1.6x crop camera. The sensor is better, the colour reproduction is better. The noise is quite obviously better - I can now shoot gigs at ISO3200 and still be pleased with the result. The viewfinder is bigger and brighter allowing more accurate manual focus. And the depth of field preview is actually useful now! I can shoot wide angle shots with my 24mm lens too. My depth of field is shallower with the same lenses than a 1.6x crop. Lenses didn't come into it for me. I bought my 5D with only one lens that would fit - the 50mm plastic fantastic. Since I've added the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8. I wouldn't use things like liveview, and I don't need sensor cleaning (I've never had a problem with dirty sensors). Shutter accutatios don't really come into it for me either. I had my 350D and only fired off 10,000 shots in two years. And that's shooting burst for football games and things too.
135
« on: April 10, 2008, 08:53 »
Well that's just silly. They're clearly both completely different.
I wonder sometimes if fotolia only wants one picture of every subject in the library.
One apple...
One orange...
One goldfish in a business suit jumping out of a laptop...
136
« on: April 10, 2008, 08:52 »
It's time to spend some of the money I've earned in microstock 
I did that and bought the 5D! Didn't see the point in upgrading from a 1.6x crop to a 1.6x crop. Full frame is sooooo much more lovely!
137
« on: April 10, 2008, 01:45 »
Personally I feel very restricted using an f4 lens. I wouldn't spend my money on anything less than f2.8 anymore. It's just not worth it to me.
However, it largely depends on what type of photographs you want to take. For instance, the 24-70mm f4 is considered a bit of a modern classic for fashion photographers, and of course a long f4 lens would be the preference for nature photographers and the like, where lens length is more important than aperture.
138
« on: April 10, 2008, 01:43 »
I'm sorry, do you not agree that the USA has a "compensation culture"? Certainly that is the view of the world media. And certainly that "compensation culture" is slowly invading Britain as seen in some prominent news stories over here at the moment.
At a time where photographers have to be ever more vigilant, it would make sense to obtain a model release if you can if the shots are going to be sold as non-editorial stock.
139
« on: April 09, 2008, 04:45 »
I've come up with a cunning plan. If it turns out I can lend on Kiva, I'm going to turn my rejections into money.
Each time I get a rejection on a stock site, I put 50p (about $1) into a "swear box". When that gets to X amount (and the way fotolia are going it won't take long to add up!) I'm going to put it into a Kiva loan.
Effectively I'm punishing myself by depriving myself of money for 6 months or a year, and helping someone else in the process! Everyone wins! And then I'll have a little lump sum at the end of the loan, which I can use to spend on a nice gadget or something!
Anyone want to play?
140
« on: April 09, 2008, 02:08 »
Regarding the contest, I think this is something that everyone will have to decide whether to participate in on a personal basis. I entered, because I knew that I could whip up a decent ad in about half an hour, so it's not a huge time commitment. There is a guaranteed payoff, even if it is just a t-shirt, but I happen to like getting my hands on any microstock company swag that I can, so it's worthwhile to me. And if they use my ad, then cool. I'll be happy to see it in print.
I might do too, I like free T-Shirts, and it's gonna be better than the 15 I paid for the iStock one! My design skills are very severely lacking, so I doubt anything I knocked up would actually be used!
141
« on: April 08, 2008, 13:10 »
oops
142
« on: April 08, 2008, 13:04 »
But presumably it says in the submitter T&C that they can use images for sale on their site to promote the site?
And you would have had a sale - because the designer of the ad would have had to buy your picture at large resolution to use in the competition.
Personally, if my picture was used by an agency that drove many extra buyers to the site, that could only be good, right? After all, many extra buyers could translate to many extra sales for me!
143
« on: April 08, 2008, 08:31 »
My impression is that FT has two types of inspectors: crazy and dumb. Former reject everything, latter - accept everything; and lately they fired most of dumb ones....
I have photos rejected almost everywhere, and accepted at FT; but acceptance rate lately goes very close to zero (going up on all other sites)
I got hit by the crazies again. Just rejected about 25 images in the space of under one minute (that's what time the rejection notices say) for almost exactlym alternately "quality, similar, quality, similar, quality..."! They were shot with my DSLR on ISO100... good English lighting... unusual subject. I don't get it!
144
« on: April 08, 2008, 07:42 »
In fact, I just went to attach a model release to those three images (after scanning them just now on my lunch break from work) and I can't seem to do it.
So if anyone tells me how I'll add the releases...
145
« on: April 08, 2008, 07:33 »
I think submitting a shot as editorial and saying 'I don't have a release for this, this was shot as editorial and the faces are showing and should be showing' is a lot better than shooting it for regular stock and trying to black out the face or get the people from behind and selling it as stock for advertising without a release.
Exactly. I totally agree. But my point is that people ARE using it as an excuse to slip photos in, when they shouldn't be sold as editorial. A prime example is Dan. He seems to be a big follower of American Ball Throwing. He could track down the players in the shots with relative ease and get model releases signed from them at the end of the game IF THEY AGREE TO BE SOLD AS STOCK. The point is, the people in his images may not wish to have their identify used this way, and if they found themselves in an image could have a case against Dan, especially in the States where as we all know, the compensation culture is rife. There was a case a while ago where a microstock photographer got a cease and desist letter about a photo of a house, the owner of the house threatened to take the photographer to court because they didn't have a property release. I have a feeling more people would take an interest in photos of people, especially if they were unaware they were being photographed, and especially if they could be under 18 (or 21 in some states?). As photographers we need to be careful who we photograph and what we publish. There are too many lawyers offering "no win, no fee" deals around for my liking.
146
« on: April 08, 2008, 07:27 »
Newsworthy suggests it is happening now, and is important.
Like I said, if you think all of this editorial work is just an excuse to weasel out of model releases, you should bring it up on the Dreamstime boards. And for that matter, bring it up on the Shutterstock boards too, because they follow the same criteria.
And before you go accusing people of sneaking around model releases, you should really have your own uploaded releases for images of the backs of people's heads. 1. Yes, newsworthy is happening now and is important. Totally agree. Never said I didn't at all. That is what editorial photography should be. I am saying microstock sites should put a blanket ban on all shots of people without a model release unless they're for editorial usage. The problem is, people upload things like art nude shots as "editorial". Art nude clearly is not editorial. More likely it's someones pictures of their ex girlfriend or the model isn't aware of the shots being sold! IMHO microstock sites need to tighten up and accept only newsworthy shots as editorial. Where to they draw the line? I guess at shots that couldn't be "staged". For instance, most of your football shots are pretty unidentifiable (except to the players or teams themselves) so you could easily take four or five football players down to a park and set those shots up (of course they would still look real, because they would be doing real tackles etc). Then you would have model releases. You could have good light on them, and make good isolations without hard shadows, much more productive use of time. They would be almost identical, except you would actually have the players permission to sell them as royalty free stock. Just imagine this. Your photo is used in an advert for an advertisement to ban football because it's violent... how would the player that wasn't aware of you taking that shot to sell for advertising usage feel? What if his friends recognized him? What if an opposing team recognised him? It could cause him problems. That is why you should not sell shots of people that you do not have a model release for as royalty free. 2. This was discussed recently on the Shutterstock boards. I wouldn't even know how to post on the forums at Dreamstime, I find the site hard to navigate. I don't have time to spend over there, since it doesn't make me any money. And their policies are their own, I don't really care at the end of the day. I'm merely stating from an ethical viewpoint. 3. I've already said, I don't have any shots on stock that I don't have model releases for. That surfer shot which you have so much problem with, was show 100 yards from my house in Aberystwyth in a place called the trap. I know the surf club very well, I go drinking with the members when I can get back to Aberystwyth. The guy in the shot was my housemate, I could upload a release for him if I so wished. But it is not worth my time to scan and upload, since there are only two photos of him online, and I don't think they've ever sold. They wouldn't make me the money back. They'll proberbly be in my next lot to deactivate at iStock. There is a difference here, I am saying I do have model releases, you are saying that you can't be bothered to track down the people in your shots and ask for a model release. They might say no, they don't want their image to be sold as stock!
147
« on: April 08, 2008, 05:57 »
I'm sorry, but you are COMPLETELY twisting my words.
To upload a model release, I have to scan it into my system, resize it, remove logos from iStock on my earlier releases (I was exclusive) and then upload it to the site and attach it to the file. That takes time. If I only have one or two shots of that person that don't necessarily need a release, then I don't bother doing it. I just tuck the release away into my filing cabinet. Some perhaps I have missed, such as the one of my boyfriend, but there are other photos of him online in the same kit with the same boat with a release.
As I said, I have a model release for the surfer. It's the same guy that is in the orange kayak, it was my housemate. Again, his release isn't scanned, it's just tucked away in my filing cabinet.
I'm not flagging you for shooting sports (whatever that means). In fact, as you can see, I shoot sports myself. In fact, I shoot Sunday League football (not your crappy American type, but proper English football) suring the winter season. But I don't have those pictures uploaded online because I don't have model releases for everyone in the shots. It's something I'm working on, and I'm talking to a local team to see if they're interested in signing model releases for me. Of course, I suppose I could always sell them as Editorial stock, but I doubt there is a market for a village football team as "newsworthy" stock.
I don't disagree with editorial content at all, in fact I think it's great. How else would newsworthy pictures be syndicated around the world? But I think there is a direct misuse of the status which seems particually prevalent on microstock editorial sites. People are using the editorial banner to sneak in pictures that they just don't have a model release for. They're not newsworthy, they're not going to be used for "editorial" purposes. Alot of the shots seem to be "hey, I'm uploading these pictures as editorial because I don't have a release for them". An editorial picture would be a shot of Paula Radcliffe winning the London Marathon, Lance Armstrong training on his bike, or Tom Cruise at the oscars. Or even local news such as Chelmsford City Football Club winning the league, but a picture of two annonymous high school football players, as far as I understand, an "editorial" usage. If the local newspaper wanted a shot of that team, they would send their own staff photographer. Editorial stock is designed for newsworthy events that happen, when a newspaper or website couldn't possibly send their own photographer. Ok, perhaps that's stretching it slightly too far, but editorial stock seems to be sliding far too close to "normal" stock for it to really mean anything.
148
« on: April 08, 2008, 04:42 »
The first guy in the orange kayak and the guy surfing are both my housemate that I lived with for 18 months. I have a model release, but didn't bother to upload it because I didn't need it. If I needed to upload it to make anyone happy, it's sitting in my filing cabinet drawer.
The second kayaker is my boyfriend, and if you look I've got loads of pictures of him kayaking across the sites!
Same with the huntsmen on horses, taken at a stag hunt I was lucky enough to attend, have model releases for those two guys, but didn't get any more shots of them since they had to rush off!
And with the little girl doing archery. Would have had one of her face, but it's not a good idea to sit in front of a kid doing archery for the first time... usually involves getting shot!
Simple answer is, I'm trying to get my portfolio online across as many sites as possible, so if I don't need to add a model release then I don't! It doesn't mean that I don't own one!
There is nothing illegal about what I have done, most macro agencies never ask to see a model release, they just ask if you have one on file. If it came to court, I would be safe. Of course it wouldn't come to court, because the guys in the shots all signed a model release for me and they know that they did!
Out of intrest, which sites shows if you have a model release or not? If it's going to affect my sales I'll get around to uploading them when I get time after uploading my portfolios!
BTW, it's not that I only disagree with you (I don't think people shots should be sold by anyone without a model release unless they're rights managed) it's just I've seen you complain a few times!
149
« on: April 08, 2008, 01:46 »
Sometimes. I decided to upload an exclusive RF sports image to them for their new contest. It took a lot of time to post-process, removing all of the logos and jersey numbers. The faces were not visible obviously. They turned it down saying it needed a model release. So that's the last time I bother with RF sports there.
So instead of it being exclusive at DT, it's now on Shutterstock, 123RF, FP, MP, and FT, and awaiting review at 4 other sites. Oh well, I tried.
Of course, the argument is that you shouldn't be selling royalty free images of people who didn't give you permission (I'm not convinced about royalty free editorial) since that person could be used to advertise a product they don't agree with. And I'm sure most of your sportsmen in your portfolio could recognize themselves. Just because a face is not visible, does not mean they can't be recognized! I've seen you post alot of times here about how frustrated you find it to get your sports work approved at the microstock, why not put it with one of the macro agencies, where the chances are that you'd get an awful lot more for those pictures, and you can sell them as proper editorial stock.
150
« on: April 08, 2008, 01:43 »
I would do something like this but it appears you can't participate if you're not from the states? Or did I do something wrong?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
