|
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 ... 62 63 64 65 66 [67] 68 69 70 71 72 ... 74
1651
« on: July 30, 2012, 06:39 »
I can see you will have to choose your angles (angels? I can never remember how to spell that) very carefully.
1652
« on: July 29, 2012, 05:50 »
That is actually correct.
Your earnings belong to you.
The guy who had his photos copied by you can make a claim against you for copyright violation. Which you admit to have done. He could sue your for that violation with a MUCH higher amount than your earnings, and he would have a good case, since now you admit guilt already.
The agency can claim that you have broken the contract you signed with them, and determinate the contract immediately. That could also sue you for various things, such as destrying their brand and reputation. Can you imagine the amounts we talk about here? and that is just the contract breach, now, since you posted, slander could also be a possibility.
However, the agency should, as a courtesy, move your earnings to the violated part, and also issue, to you, a letter of determination of contract, + a list of paragraphs you have violated.
You should be happy, as things are, and not be stupid enough to even talk about it, obviously not knowing the laws, and completely disregarding the possible consequences.
Read the law, try to imagine the feelings of the violated part who might see your texts here. Learn the lesson! You were lucky. Maybe you pushed your luck.
1653
« on: July 29, 2012, 01:44 »
What about letting the guy who allowed you in in the first place, sign the PR.
When first you ask the city council, that begin to develop their greediness.
Even if a place is public, it might not be owned by the public, or opposite.
Fx who owns the paintings you mentioned before?
If the agencies will take the pictures or not, depends on how paranoid they are.
And some are quite paranoid. There is a big difference between the ethos in American and Europe, but sadly the American is spreading.
1654
« on: July 29, 2012, 01:00 »
It is simply such a lousy business and promotion model.
Why is it always the photographer who has to bear the expences, lig fraudulent sales and now eve nthe promotion, which is the middlemans responsibility.
I gave the following answer at CS when they asked for free pictures.
NO.
My pictures are not free. They are for sale.
At agencies like this one.
I will not undermine myself, or the agencies by giving my pictures away for free.
Plus. I think it is a lousy business model, to ask the contributers to "give away".
Why should we?
The agency can do the giving away. They are the promotors. The middleman. I am the producer of content, whereas they know the fancy tricks that will make me money. They can buy one of my pictures and give it away.
Or they can take a loan in the bank and do some promotion. We should not forget that they get at GOOD share of the sales.
1655
« on: July 29, 2012, 00:54 »
Can we see some of the rejected pictures?
Anyway these rejection threads serve some good purposes:
The rejected photographer can rant and whine.
Other photographers can share his frustration.
Other again can brag about their own high acceptance rate.
Earnings can be mentioned.
Conspiracies can be mentioned.
Agencies can be compared.
Newbies can be mentioned. (Whoever they are, its not us, is it)
That kind of talk forms a dynamic forum, apperantly.
Problem is that it might all based on false premises, such as:
Acceptance of an image has to do known parameters such as quality.
The review process is just and constant.
The review process is important to the agencies.
My point is that the agencies get such an oversupply of images and photographers that it doesnt matter:
How they treat the single photographer.
If they miss some potential well selling pictures.
If they accept some potential not selling pictures.
If review is consistant.
Only in the long run, like a year ot so, it would begin to matter, if the reviewers were too random in their review. In such a case the picture pool would begin too deteriorate to a degree that it influenced the customers.
Shutterstock is not there at all, as it is now, the customers can easily find what they are happy to buy.
That is the agencies focus, happy customers. They give a crap, if some photographer feels he is badly treated.
And the agencies love these threads, because it takes focus away from is really going on.
That we are crowdsourced by big moneymachines, we have no rights, and no hopes for ever being treated just or have a reasonable share.
1656
« on: July 28, 2012, 02:10 »
many interesting things can be done with motion blur and also a combination of flash and movement. In old paintings copyright has expired! that is 75 years after the author is dead. BUT you might want a property release from the church owner. Here is another photo from a relatively well lit church, done in HDR. Note the painting. 
1657
« on: July 28, 2012, 00:31 »
Paint with light would work well in a church. You could use a very long shutterspeed like a minute or so at aperture 16 iso 100, and then run around with a speedlight and light up the dark corners, + and have the model step into the frame in the last 2 seconds of the exposure and then fire the flash on the model one last time. Here is a photo taken in a dark cellar using paint with light technique. Camera on tripod, me running around with a speedlight. Invisible photographer, so to speak. 
1658
« on: July 26, 2012, 13:29 »
It is a hopeless case. The agencies are so afraid of greedy American layers.
1659
« on: July 26, 2012, 13:26 »
The copyright message is not so important, people will steal them any way and not care about the copyright.
Real customers, will buy the licence.
However it can be good to have your name typed into your image in case of a debate. But it is not likely.
1660
« on: July 26, 2012, 13:21 »
Let the others talk about the technicalities and their opinions.
I notice that you have thought about concepts, and thats the right way to go. You are already far above the snapshooters of pets and fences.
Your humans have difficulties with keywords.
meaning... what would you search for to get them? What concept are they?
1661
« on: July 26, 2012, 13:14 »
Thats is right, what click says. The man with the machine has potential. You could do a series on that. Different compositions, different DOF, but remember, keep the main topic of your frame in focus. Also it could use better light. The situation is fine though and the picture would be in demand, both if you made it a specific, machine/ situation picture or if you gennerally illustrated the printing industry. The man is perfect, and teh grey surroundsing cvan support the man and the colour on the machine. Lighter grey would be better. Look for trademarks (Calender)
The other pictures are not good enough, they are vague. not precise on keywords, carry no style and are technically not up to par.
As others say. You waste your time by copying easy isolations, if you dont do them better and more stylish than others.
Find your own style anjd preferred topic, and learn the required technique to excellency.
1662
« on: July 16, 2012, 02:40 »
Perspective, friends...
I just wanted to say that we sell digital information, zeros and ones, arranged in an orderly way so they can be recognized as pictures.
But it still IS zeros and ones.
There are many factors that determine if a customer buys or not buys such a pile of zeros and ones:
Quality is one.
Availability is another.
Relevance is yet another.
Licence is also.
Price.
Compatibility.
Trend and fashion.
Traffic streams.
I would say that quality is a minor factor, compared to availability and relevance....
1663
« on: July 13, 2012, 10:00 »
Too many rough edges: 
1664
« on: July 06, 2012, 01:03 »
A list of well selling photos you can copy.
An annoying illogical upload procedure where you have to translate your keywords into chinese.
An upload feature that strips IPTC data and puts a random keyword from another picture into the headline.
A forum where you can sell kittens and other pets.
Colourblind reviewers.
1665
« on: July 06, 2012, 00:52 »
Dont invest in gear, invest in reading your camera manual, and in understanding light. and IF...
If you dont have a tripod, Id rater invest in such one than the lenses.
You pictures would not improve with a new lens, but much more from lighting.
Kitlenses can easily deliver high quality pictures.
I suggest you find out what causes the grain and the lack of details.
1666
« on: July 04, 2012, 09:19 »
shows where the reviewers are busy and where they are not.
you can ask why.
1667
« on: July 04, 2012, 09:14 »
Remember at shutterstock only your good stuff sells.
The competition is high.
When you have a good picture the earning potential is many times more than on DT.
on good pictures Fot, IS + SS will give you at least 10 times of what you get on DT.
If you are one of those who was nursed into dependancy and had not kept up with evolution.
You might be into a hard awakening.
1668
« on: July 02, 2012, 00:21 »
I cannot interpretate the air ballon category....
but for the release to the editorial picture... probably means that the agency does not consider the picture editorial.
1669
« on: July 01, 2012, 23:44 »
1. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/Coffee-fixed2%20.jpg -I think if you zoom 100% there is too much noise and i probably should of put all the coffee granules in focus Lack of details and contrast, underexposed, bad lighting, noise. 2. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/Kings%20college%20Cambridge%202fixed%20-%20critique.jpg- I probably zoomed into it too much and shown more of the building, after editing a bit too intense Crop too narrow, lack of details + noise 3. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/Small%20wooden%20toy%20boat%20copy.jpg- Again some bits out of focus and probably needs some 'after editing' wb off, ship dusty 4. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/Sea%20lions%20-%20critique.jpg- I heard there are already wildlife shots in the stock market and the lighting isn't great bad lighting and perspective 5. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/Clay%20pig%20behind%20fence%20-%20critique.jpg- I thought it was interesting but i didn't execute it well, ie it looks a bit dull and boring. Not really stock market material meaningless photo, no keyword applicable 6. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/pacific%20gull-critique.jpg - again, lots of wildlife shots and i think the background is too 'busy' burned out, bad composition, subject too small in frame Generally all your photos have problems with exposure/ lighting and resolution/ noise.
1670
« on: June 25, 2012, 10:23 »
Thats called religion.
1671
« on: June 18, 2012, 13:12 »
interesting!
But Zazzle is about self promotion. How do you do that?
1672
« on: June 18, 2012, 11:39 »
Thanks folks, for the answers.
I was not sure about the site, recieving a "selected" promotion email.
But now, I might try it.
Thanks.
1674
« on: June 10, 2012, 01:06 »
Hm. Maybe I should offer a workshop here.
What about photographing caterpillars...? I can teach that.
;-)
1675
« on: June 08, 2012, 12:42 »
I can read the threads, but I cannot post in them.
Pages: 1 ... 62 63 64 65 66 [67] 68 69 70 71 72 ... 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
