|
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 - puravida
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 13
126
« on: July 07, 2009, 18:46 »
averil, you are so right. unless someone who has been exclusive and now independent can be the only ones to tell.
going exclusive or not, i feel in my own case would all depend largely on which site likes my work. i remember reading from the MSG archives someone (geopappas??)
said something like, "don't listen to what your neighbour is saying. SS is best, IS is best or whatever. find the site that approves most of your work and sell most of your work. that is the one that is the best.,, for you ! "
that more or less sums it up for me. if ever i decide to go exclusive it won't be because my friends in this network tell me how well they sell, it will be based solely on which site takes my images and sell them. which site has my images on the first few pages vs getting my images buried on pg 100. which site gets me a view and a dl. not 1000 views and 0 dl, or worse 0 views for months. (you all know which sites i mean , so i won't get into that.).
it's all personal . for example, lately ichiro17 has gone exclusive, and he likes it.
i think he is professional enough to know what he is doing. and if he says it works for him, that's it. same for anyone else. pixelbytes does not go for it. and i believe that too is a valid decision.
127
« on: July 07, 2009, 18:25 »
Great for freeloaders and cheap buyers...No so hot for contributors 
agree! scavengers ! all ! filthy scavengers!
128
« on: July 07, 2009, 18:18 »
I'm not implying anything. I'm stating in plain English that DT requires a lock-in for your images of 6 months. Other sites even longer. I hate to repeat myself, but shouldn't people know this before they upload their images? Maybe even read the contributor agreement before agreeing to it??
If you are asking a serious question, there is a list someone compiled stating the waiting periods for each site which has them. I'll see if I can find it for you.
whatalife, i was under the impression that since it's not everyday a horde of contributors decide to go exclusive. in the real business world, when you leave a firm, and you were a good agent or whatever, the bosses usually try to accomodate your move to make it easier for you, not make it hell even though you are quitting the firm. i was expecting the same with microstock. But since you said it's not like that with them, yes, i am beginning to be concerned on this matter. although I fail to see the purpose why anyone would choose to be anal about helping out a good contributor if and when he/she has decided to go exclusive. you would think the site would wish them well rather than feel sour grapes.
129
« on: July 07, 2009, 18:11 »
Reminds me of an old joke. A guy has a leaky pipe in his house, so he calls a plumber. The plumber puts his ear to the pipe for a few seconds, then takes a mallet and bangs the pipe a couple of times. The leak stops. He presents the homeowner with a bill for $75.
The homeowner is incensed! "$75! How can you charge $75? You were only here for five minutes! All you did was bang on the pipe! I want an itemized bill. I want to see how you justify $75 for five minutes work."
So the plumber writes him an itemized bill: "Banging on the pipe: $5. Knowing where to bang: $70."
By the pixels treats those pixels as commodities. They aren't. The picture as a whole may or may not be a commodity, but it is more than the sum of its pixels. Or should all software cost the same, since it's all the same ones and zeroes?
rofl, good one disorderly. btw are those girls in your new avatar topless? it's too small for me to see !
130
« on: July 07, 2009, 18:07 »
I'm guessing he was referring to the 6-month lock-in with DT?
thx whatalife. that may be so, but wouldn't deactivate do the same to take it out of circulation. much like removing the keywords to your images for Alamy ? a work around i suppose, but it 's something that could be implemented if you needed to go exclusive elsewhere.
although i can't see why any site's support would not be helpful enough if you wrote them to ask them nicely , explaining your situation. they wouldn't want to burn bridges i am sure,even if you went exclusive with the competition. there is still a good chance in the future you could be doing business with them again.
No, there are many threads around here where people have attempted in futility to work around their lock-in. In no case have I seen an artist released out of kindness or goodwill. There is a limit to the percentage of your portfolio that you may deactivate. By deactivating the max percentage of the most recently uploaded files, the time can be cut down some, but not completely negated.
If you are interested, I'm sure it would be relatively easy to locate one of the many rants posted around here. 
so what are you implying, whatalife? that if anyone intends to consider going exclusive or make images exclusive, to take this locked in period seriously? or maybe avoid the sites that make it difficult for you to delete? what's your impression on this. i am sure others are interested to find out too, as this can be foresight.
131
« on: July 07, 2009, 17:17 »
confused already? that makes 3 of us , Keith , tan510jomast.
david i am confused too, or maybe you do not understand English too well to realise that tan and myself actually was on your side in replying to Geopappas about you trying to undercut the competition. or are you so much in a diz that you only see zymmetrical, Bigstock, and go into a tailspin at the mere mention of a competitor.
i too cannot help to think that you are indeed not answering the questions posted by many of us here (Geo, mela, et al), choosing instead to fudge around and doublespeak. if you keep doing this, i suggest you change your aspirations and try running for political office, you'll do far better and make more money that way.
132
« on: July 07, 2009, 16:50 »
I'm guessing he was referring to the 6-month lock-in with DT?
thx whatalife. that may be so, but wouldn't deactivate do the same to take it out of circulation. much like removing the keywords to your images for Alamy ? a work around i suppose, but it 's something that could be implemented if you needed to go exclusive elsewhere. although i can't see why any site's support would not be helpful enough if you wrote them to ask them nicely , explaining your situation. they wouldn't want to burn bridges i am sure,even if you went exclusive with the competition. there is still a good chance in the future you could be doing business with them again.
133
« on: July 07, 2009, 16:43 »
mela, i think every site that came after Alamy and Photoshelter falls into this category. i am only sorry Photoshelter died a horrible demise, as i was one who applauded their brave stand against Getty. why they crashed was also well documented by the CEO of Photoshelter. too bad, it had all the making of a good alternative, but buyers didn't buy into their vision that contributors deserve to earn more for their images.
134
« on: July 07, 2009, 16:39 »
mela rofl, did you get the idea of this thread after reading Geopappas comment to david of Pixamba?
cute !
135
« on: July 07, 2009, 16:25 »
I am sorry I did not answer you yet.
I probably missed your question dealing with other angry questions kindly asked by my fellow colleagues from competing agencies who run multiple personalities here at MSG.
.. who is that?
Just putting the questions and the answers in some order here.
Bigstock as far as I know has not undercut the competition. I am still getting 50 cts - $1 for each download. They don't sell so much but it's a relief to see Bigstock not trying to follow the rest over the cliff, so to speak .
Keep it up Liz, Joseph, BigStock !!!
sorry david, can you be a little more specific. if you are here to recruit contributors and win their confidence you will have to dispense with expecting us to be mind readers too. if you don't mind, please answer the questions rather than expect us to figure out what it is you are trying to say.
136
« on: July 07, 2009, 14:15 »
excuz me Dook, did i read you wrongly, you said difficult with DT and easier with FT? are you not able to instantly disable with DT, while FT you cannot even revise your keywords. i 'm not sure if the delete button is active.
137
« on: July 07, 2009, 13:06 »
I like the idea for shooting productshot, PixelBytes. But for fashionshoot, people,etc.. dynamic subject, I too dislike even slipping on the bracket to a tripod. The vantage points and dynamic opportunities are too brief , and you have no time to lose when you're shooting outside of stationary objects.
With tethering , I can shoot one shot after observing every point I see, and having final satisfaction of the lighting, accent light,etc.. This will ease up on my hard disk and I don't have to soldier through 50 -60 different images to select the best one to print. When you're shooting JPG it's not a problem, but with a high res DSLR on RAW, it can be a great tax on time and storage space for my computer.
If you have a faster computer and your photoshop runs quickly, I think it's not that bad, but my computer is a pain opening those 17MP RAW images.
138
« on: July 07, 2009, 12:46 »
Sorry, by "shoot tethered" do you mean hooked up to a computer, or using a sync cord to trigger strobes, or what?
I googled the term and I am still not sure what you are talking about...
the way i understand it, tethering = using your camera's live view AV out into a monitor to use the screen as a large LCD to check your exp, comp, DOF,etc.. i also like the idea. can anyone explain how you get to tether into a laptop? the AV cord is only a yellow R.C.A to a flat PC jack similar to your digital out . i suppose you need a junction that go between the RCA to rout into the monitor out of the laptop, right?
139
« on: July 07, 2009, 12:28 »
It's always hard to tell from a small image. If you need feedback on technical aspects of the photo you will need to post a crop so the detail can be seen.
I don't shoot animals or pets so maybe I'm not the best to judge, but over all I would say that it's not a bad effort, too much black for me and I would like to see the face, I'm sure there is a great expression in there waiting to make someone go 'aah'. Keep shooting.
yes, massman is right. You want to make the dog seem to be three dimensional and coming out of the dark. If you know what I mean.
yes, tan is right too. Sal, if you want to get the umphh out of the image, you have to work at it, not just find a picture. it's like a product shot. you don't want someone to ask you, what is that? is it an onion? no, it's a cloth rabbit! ohhh!. to successful bring out the essence of the image, you want to give it depth, texture, detail, composition, and ambience. as tan said, don't be lazy. you have to add light to where there is not enough, and you have to take away light to where there is too much. it's not like you are a photojournalist and you are at the scene of a crime or a fire, and you have to make do with all there is. still, as a photojournalist, you walk around the area, you look high and low, you stoop, you stand on a box,etc.. to catch the vantage point. same thing if you are shooting your pet, or even a box of matches. if not, what makes the buyer wants to choose this photo from the others? in other word, don't make it "just a snapshot".
140
« on: July 07, 2009, 12:13 »
ggggeez PixelBytes, why do you know so much  lol. yes, i have to agree with both of foregoing commentors. I would however wait to see what happens with Vetta. I am not a big fan of Istock either, although their ability to sell is not unknown to all independents. still, as PixelBytes pointed out, to place so much trust in a volatile company is a bit of a decision risk. not sure if i like that. already i am quite pissed off with what some of the sites are doing, but as an independent i can at least change sides whenever they get anal with me. although being exclusive is convenient, you only have to upload to one site. a tradeoff i suppose.
141
« on: July 07, 2009, 11:39 »
Wow, this is a buried blog that is pulling The Crow stunt to resurrection itself, lol.
seriously, I am not a landscape/nature person, but I know of one outstanding person who seems to be doing well with BigStock.
142
« on: July 07, 2009, 11:11 »
So in almost every area that you address, it seems that you are just trying to undercut your competitors to get some sales. Is that your business plan? Undercut the competition!
Geopappas, good point. However, I don't think david holds the proprietary rights to "UNDERCUT THE COMPETITION". Every single one of the Big 6 has got there before him. This is why we are still discussing "better pay". If the disparity in subs price between StockXpert and IS is not equivalent to "UNDERCUTTING THE COMPETITION" albeit in the same team, what is? Which one of the Big 6 has not UNDERCUT THE COMPETITION? Hmm? 
143
« on: July 07, 2009, 09:57 »
144
« on: July 07, 2009, 09:48 »
Fotolia doesn`t easily accept abstract backgrounds, so if you are giong to try and upload them they have to be top quailty and even then they will mostly be rejected. You had some nice angles and textures but the images of bricks, and the two images with sky were a little dull thanks to the overcast sky.
Mr. Keenan, Tyler is correct. Abstract esp this cropped is difficult to be unque. There is already too much of this sort. Try variations... different perspective, longer view, fish eye efx, vanishing points, juxtapose reflections,etc,etc,etc... As for the overcast sky, it can be piqued with a little work using Highlight / Shadow post processing, but naturally, it won't look as impressive as the real thing by waiting it out for the right light.
145
« on: July 07, 2009, 07:51 »
it's not something to go ape and celebrate, it's 5 cents or a bit more across the board in commissions. I dig Fotolia as they sell fast, and their search engine is fair.I know it is because I get a mix of subs and PPD. and it's not like some other Big6 sites where new images get nada in views (yawn, enough already). i am not a big fan of IS, but like rene said, with Vetta, getting to be IS exclusive is sure making a lot more sense today than it ever used to be, than being independent with the other sites playing games but i will hang on to Fotolia, as i am sure they must be looking hard at Getty , IS, and Vetta, as well as the new kid in town Veer Marketplace which has caught the fancy of many of us here. meanwhile, so long as Fotolia sell enough for me , i won't make too much of a scene here 
146
« on: July 06, 2009, 20:47 »
you better be with Vetta or some other premium stock if you intend to invest 6.7k on a camera. To press a shutter on this alone would cost far more than 30cents to a dollar that you would earn at this moment in subs with the Big 6.
in the words of an auditor, putting so much money without a viable return would be considered reckless. you would make more money investing in penny stocks (as in stock market, not stock photography).
147
« on: July 06, 2009, 14:54 »
Ok, I see... as it appears to me right now is that iStock has decided to unify their release with Getty's MR which makes sense especially for contributors uploading to both sites. I am still not aware that there is any change to the policy that Visual Reference and Ethnicity Information are optional. I will try to find out what I can.
... Kind of a PITA when the rules keep changing all the time.
I would be willing to upload a reference pic of the models if that becomes a requirement, but I am not willing to upload a photo ID (drivers license or passport, etc.) Frankly I doubt any of my models would agree to that.
Well spoken PixelBytes. Especially with so much being written to warn us about ID fraud. Asking too much personal identity information is just not to kosher . On one hand we are warned not to diverge too much personal information , and on the other hand, stock sites are going out of the way to collect these private information. Not a good idea. Why are they collecting these informations? Are they
selling these private datas, or planning ? I am sure we are going to lose some models on this issue, especially those who are used to making portraits of the elderly or more matured .
Perharps some official government watchdog agency should comment on how much we should give away to these stock agencies. Is it even legal or what?
hmm !  WHICH brings us to a yet touchier question: If it has been traced that some of these "private data" were obtained from the 3rd party affliated with the stock agencies. Will the photographer who provided these "private data" be legally liable ? Even if not, the relationship tween you and your model(s) would surely have been sullied.
148
« on: July 06, 2009, 14:21 »
I don't know why you folks assume the death of StockXpert. Don't you continue to get sales and reviews? I do. Did IS deactivate the same stamps?
We don't know what Getty will do to StockXpert, but I am sure it will not just dump an asset shortly after it acquires it.
On the other hand, for all the emails and inquiries I have sent to StockXpert, none has been replied ever since I signed up, even before Getty acquired it. So it's a tradition I assume.
freedom, someone once aptly compared Getty's family as dysfunctional. So I will play it out in the same family analogy. IS and Vetta have now been launched with Getty telling StockXpert to move their stocks to IS with their subs. StockXpert is more or less the stepchild or worst , the bast##d child. the wedding is bliss with Getty as dad, and IS as the new bride. lol. In this sort of marriage, the little b#st#rd soon gets ported off to private school, and soon the biological mother is given the Henry VIII's treatment. check out the film The Other Boleyn Girl, if you're not conversant with the monarchy's history, lol. I hope the picture is clearer now ?
149
« on: July 06, 2009, 13:17 »
I wouldn't be surprised but I would be disappointed. StockXpert is one of my more likable sites.
you mean StockXpert (WAS) one of my more likable sites. It's dead, like Amelia, Abe,and all on most stamps . I too (used to like) StockXpert, what a tragedy to kill one of the best performing sites . The reviewers were the best in my opinion, fast and helpful. that is until JUI, Getty, came to f *** it up and kill it.
150
« on: July 05, 2009, 17:51 »
The game is great, I average around 70% and am always kicking myself when I choose the wrong answer. They already had the game, so didn't really spend any resources in sharing it with us. I personally think that microstock should be fun. This year I'm not getting too much joy with Dt, over the last 2 months I've been getting an 80% rejection rate. Alas, it seems my photography is getting worse. However, sales remain steady. Maybe the game is perfect for people like me, I go to the site and instead of trying to get my photos online, I just play the game instead.
lol Komar, don't encourage the big wigs at DT . if you want fun, join flickr, facebook,lavalife, etc.. or else soon, you will see DT also moving out of selling images for you and just being interested in free images and traffic.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 13
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
