|
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 - JPSDK
Pages: 1 ... 53 54 55 56 57 [58] 59 60 61 62 63 ... 74
1426
« on: November 06, 2012, 17:22 »
Phil,
Let us see the pictures.
Also, when you say 90 pictures. That is many.
It makes me think.
1427
« on: November 06, 2012, 04:26 »
It uses to be within a couple of workdays after the first.
They seem to be a little late this month.
1428
« on: November 06, 2012, 03:22 »
They have already done. 84% is a lot.
If they cannot make a working store on that sort of commision share, they are incompetent, and the business deserves to die.
1429
« on: November 05, 2012, 18:57 »
Let it be clear that we agree on that.
Im just so annoyed, and I have not had many refunds.
Its just the general arrogance and abuse.
If it was the local merchant, I would have had a rampage in the shop.
1430
« on: November 05, 2012, 18:50 »
Poncke..
My arguments are principal, not realistic.
Im stating the reasons why losses should not be put on the contributor.
Reasons that would hold in court.
Reasons meant to show how far away from traditional good business manners they are.
Business should be fair, then it will last and everybody will prosper, as it is now, there is to much wasted talent.
1431
« on: November 05, 2012, 18:31 »
the agency can always stop selling by credit card at all. As I said they could demand gold coins.
That would be bad for the business, obviously, but it would be safe.
See, now they have chosen a somehow risky business model. Their choice, their risk for which they take 84% commision, so spare me of refunds.
As for refunds for other reasons, like files not getting used or not the right ones.
Spare me... its still their warehouse, they can hire 100 piccolos to hand carry and polish the files and deliver them on horseback.
It is not the contributers problem if they cannot sort out the display and make a declaration of the goods in a way so the customer gets what he wants.
They are middlemen, and they are paid to be. They are paid for taking a risk, the contributor is not.
1432
« on: November 05, 2012, 17:25 »
YES you can prevent fraud. You could for example only sell the file if the customer personally walked into the headquartes with gold coins in his hand.
You could have 30 people weigh and validate the gold.
Point is here, that we contributors have no chance to prevent fraud, and its only because they are working cheaply that there is fraud at all.
It is their shop and its incompetent to not be able to manage it. And if they are incompetent, they deserve a lesser fee.
1433
« on: November 05, 2012, 17:08 »
Got a bunch of refunds too. I wonder why they can't just pay these expenses out of their own pockets. It's their responsibility to prevent credit card fraud.
I completely agree on this. It is their problem. And they take their commision to have the shop set up. It makes me mad every time I get a refund, and I mail a protest to them. Also... It all adds to the annoy factor, it is one of the reasons that I might not continue to do business with them. I understand the OP. We are so being taken the piss on. If someone forms a group that gatheres up refunds, there is a good chance we can win a case, it is not a normal business model. All it would take is 500 refund emails and the lawyer would be paid. There are so many arguments for a lawyer:Do the refunds happen because of credid card fraud? Prove it. Is the refund happening because of the agencys individual deals and return policies with customers? Prove it. In EUthere are rules for returning goods, and you cannot return things forever. And If the agency makes such a deal, its the agencys responsibility. I cannot see any resons why there should be refunds at all. They have a review of every file and such they are in control if the files are good enough. This kind of refund policy, also makes me mad and almost put the agency and their business model in the same category as Nigerian scams.
1434
« on: November 02, 2012, 11:47 »
My lifetime DT earnings are 1/12 of those of SS.
Same with this month, just worse.
Its like their recycling takes 3 weeks instead of one.
I have had 2 weeks without a sale on DT, and when that happens the "annoy factor" grows high, and Im tempted...
1435
« on: November 01, 2012, 23:19 »
That proves that the distribution servers are not in an underground bunker at the seashore as I thought they would have been.
It worries me if the reviewers are, thats not humane!
1436
« on: November 01, 2012, 23:17 »
If i was a reviewer I would reject all things cats, as I really dislike cats.
1437
« on: October 15, 2012, 00:09 »
if the photo has problems, you should not hesitate to delete it, and upload a better version.
1438
« on: October 15, 2012, 00:05 »
Well, I have always been under the impression that shooting in Adobe color space in camera is the 'best' - it collects the most information and therefore its better than sRGB
However, talking to a pro who shoots always sRGB in camera, because he says it saves a ton of time in post processing because with Adobe you always have to adjust the dark/light sliders therefore taking way more time in post...
Just wondering what you all have set in-camera setting - Adobe or sRGB and why you choose that?
I just wonder if the time saved is worth the trade off of having less information in this regard.
Thanks for your inputs
I have earned my living exclusively through photography for over 5 years and yet I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I pick up the jolly old camera and shoot JPEG's because that's what I sell. I suppose the 'color space that I shoot in' is the 1.5m/square corner of the room in which I have my product-table set up and produce about 98% of my stock images. I wasn't aware that it needed to be more complicated than that. Would I make more money if I understood 'color space' better? What 'colour space' did Ansel Adams use? Whatever it was, my advice would be to go with that.
I agree on that. I shoot jpg + sRGB, because thats what I sell. And why should I waste time on converting files. However, I do sometimes use RAW, when the subject of the picture is more important than the quality, like it would be with photojournalistic documentaries.
1439
« on: October 14, 2012, 01:53 »
QVO USQVE TANDEM ABUTERE PATIENTIA NOSTRA
1440
« on: October 13, 2012, 19:00 »
Yes. maybe.
Let the first picture in the line be a good one.
1441
« on: October 13, 2012, 00:55 »
I do not use sharpen for stock.
Sharpen can degrade a file, so it cannot be resized.
But I do use all kinds of filters for my resized pictures for web and other usage.
1442
« on: October 13, 2012, 00:50 »
How do you shoot a vector
With a Smith & Wesson
I suppose you could.
Yes, "vector" comes from physics language, and refers to the forces influencing an object in 3 dimentional space. If you shoot a flying bullet or a falling rock, you actually shoot a vektor.
1443
« on: October 12, 2012, 13:41 »
You can approach the whole matter differently and shoot keywords:
1 flower
2 christmas
3 background
4 medical
5 family
6 vector
7 tattoo
8 music
9 woman
10 baby
11 logo
12 wedding
13 business
If you shoot these popular keywords, and quality is not so important as we use to think, as long as the pictures get approved, and fx shoot 52 pictures of each and then upload 13 pictures a week, each being one of the keywords.
If you shoot "strange shadows on railroad fences in Minnesota", you are not going to have many downloads.
1444
« on: October 12, 2012, 07:40 »
maybe they have something in common with dictators and the like.
1445
« on: October 12, 2012, 07:27 »
The real reason why a diverse and large well selling port is suddently going on ground is usually competition.
The port is being replaced, by better and cheaper content.
Mechanisms that apply to single pictures also applies to whole portefolios. Or even to agencies.
So you who are hit, take a look at the competition, are your pictures being replaced? Are whole big portefolios with the same content as yours being uploaded?
1446
« on: October 12, 2012, 07:19 »
Double post, sorry
1447
« on: October 12, 2012, 07:16 »
If your goal is 100 dollars in a couple of months, you can reach that with just one picture. You can also not reach it with 1000 pictures.
And it is not about the quality of the picture.
Not as much as you think. Its more about what the customers want to pay for.
So I suggest you take a look at customers habits, instead for shooting a lot of piuctures of spices, cats and sellery on white.
1448
« on: October 11, 2012, 17:13 »
Ja, I was about to ask that question also...
1449
« on: October 11, 2012, 13:57 »
as we say here, "being friendly costs no money".
Thats what he is doing. Being friendly.
And yes, it is mass produced, but it still reached us, and was kind.
Compare that to the darkness and arrogancy of other agencies.
1450
« on: October 11, 2012, 13:17 »
See how easy it is.
Just a letter, just some kind words.
Smart move.
Pages: 1 ... 53 54 55 56 57 [58] 59 60 61 62 63 ... 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
