|
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 ... 63 64 65 66 67 [68] 69 70 71 72 73 ... 77
1676
« on: June 19, 2008, 12:00 »
Does anyone find it strange the way Photoshelter does the tax for non US citizens?
Getty only takes the tax from European contributors if the BUYER is from the US, as I understand it that is the law in the states. Last time I looked Photoshelter were taking it no matter where the buyer comes from, that (amongst others) is one of the reasons I don't upload there at the moment. I think the issue has been raised on their forum.
1677
« on: June 19, 2008, 11:56 »
I could have guessed your reply and saved you the typing  Anyhow, you don't need to do that for every shot with a model in it, you just upload one photo to go with each release, then each time you upload a shot with that model in it you just attach the release. So in other words if you upload 1200 photo's featuring five models you only need to upload five release's and five photo's of that model. It's been like this on traditional (I hate the term macro) sites for years, microstock sites are copying the trad's so it's something you'll probably have to get use to.
1678
« on: June 19, 2008, 05:39 »
...and your sales suck on most sites, ...
"I don't care whether you know what I may sales are, it doesn't effect me in any way, to be honest I'm getting tired of the way you always try to make yourself out as a big time stock pro and make these wild claims, that may impress some of the novices on here but as you can see nobody is that impressed here."
Does that have a familiar ring to it RT? hehehhe
Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason
But MIZ you do care that people know what your sales are, otherwise why did you make this thread? And you are trying to impress people, otherwise why do you keep posting all these self promoting type of threads? I had asked a serious question, are you going to answer it?
1679
« on: June 19, 2008, 04:59 »
Hey MIZ, although I've not replied to this thread as yet I'd like to take some of the credit for ruining your career  But on a serious note I have a question, most of the threads you start totally bewilder me, but this one takes the record. By your own words, your style of imagery is unique and your sales suck on most sites, with that in mind why do you think anybody would be interested in this thread, the information will be of little or no use to anybody other than yourself?
1680
« on: June 19, 2008, 04:42 »
thanks for your interest in my work and Uploads. I'll be sure to Be very precise Just for you,LOL. Strange you would take even 10 seconds, Im honered. I don't even know what you shoot . If you said you had 12,000 images somewhere It would mean nothing to me and I wouldn't go look and count. Glad you care though, Thought I was close with 1750. You telling me I dont have 600 Model shots? Im shocked. Nothing personal?? Ya right. Not since LO.
I don't care whether you know what I shoot, it doesn't effect me in any way, to be honest I'm getting tired of the way you always try to make yourself out as a big time stock pro and make these wild claims, that may impress some of the novices on SS but as you can see nobody is that impressed here. And why are you so surprised that I want you to be precise, you make claims with BS information and then you're surprised when somebody questions you about it!! Then Come to find out I have to upload a Pic of each Model also with the release. I dont have time to resize a pic of 600 models?and upload each one.
Tell you what, I'll appologise and admit I'm wrong if you can show me a site where you have photo's of your 600 different models, or I'll tell you what even 200 different models as I don't want you to be too precise. As for "Not since LO" I haven't got a clue what you're on about.
1681
« on: June 17, 2008, 01:52 »
I was considering rejoining FP to use them as a backbone for a personal website. Is anyone selling through their own website using FP? I'd like to look at some examples of what can be done design wise.
This is probably the best way to use FP.
1682
« on: June 17, 2008, 01:49 »
If the shot is tough to get and the RM market does not have good representation of the particular subject then a home in RM can be a good choice.
Probably the best formula you'll get.
1683
« on: June 17, 2008, 01:38 »
Standard practice on most traditional stock sites, I imagine they took that idea and have applied it themselves, especially as I belief some of the management are from a traditional stock background.
And Laurin you must stop exagerating, you've only got 559 photo's on there so far out of which about 50-60 are people shots and some are of a mannequin, so to say 600 models is stretching it a bit!
Didn't you read what I said? I stopped when I saw They needed Pictures of the models. I only pushed through the non Model stuff. Im only asking a question here. But thanks for doing that so needed research into my port.............And BTW, I have a LOT more than 600. Next time your in LA, I'll let ya come over and count them for everyone.LOL
Laurin, Yes I read it, and that's why I said what I did, I don't want to start a character assasination but I can't understand why you always have to inflate things. You haven't even got 2000 images on SS or 600 models and they're your favourite site, my research took about 10 seconds, I just typed your name in. Nothing personal just asking that you quote realistic figures. Take care.
1684
« on: June 17, 2008, 01:22 »
now, i think differently. maybe there is a site to aspire to.
THANKS again RT
You're welcome, I only mentioned it because you said in your first post that you had specialist shots, and they thrive on that type of imagery. I don't think you need to aspire to them, Jean Hosking that runs it is a nice lady and although I don't know their minimum requirements for submissions now, I know that if you have a few once in a lifetime shots they would probably be interested. But remember this is a 'specialist' site, you won't see instant results and in fact you only get paid every six months, but they will promote your work and any serious buyers in that sort of market will come to them.
1685
« on: June 16, 2008, 17:36 »
RT... sorry, please FLPA ... is which site? fotolia?
No FLPA is the site - Frank Lane Picture Agency, www.flpa-images.co.uk it's a specialist nature/wildlife site, and is 'probably' the best in the world for this subject, it's not a microsite and they only sell RM.
1686
« on: June 16, 2008, 15:18 »
FLPA is one of the best specialist nature sites.
1687
« on: June 14, 2008, 19:37 »
Our shoots cost tens of thousands of dollars to plan, cast, locate and pay for locations, travel, style, light, produce, and edit.
Can you show some examples of these shoots please. I had a look at the site and to be honest all I could find were your general lifestyle type of photo's, nothing wrong with those but I'd like to see some examples of the 'tens of thousands of dollars' shots.
1688
« on: June 14, 2008, 18:23 »
Standard practice on most traditional stock sites, I imagine they took that idea and have applied it themselves, especially as I belief some of the management are from a traditional stock background.
And Laurin you must stop exagerating, you've only got 559 photo's on there so far out of which about 50-60 are people shots and some are of a mannequin, so to say 600 models is stretching it a bit!
1689
« on: June 13, 2008, 04:49 »
But Limited Use is not Microstock.
Is there a definition for when a license is deemed to be Microstock? Personally speaking I define it as the price point not the usage, in which case no matter how any site dresses it up if the idea is low commission/high yield of sales I think of it as Microstock.
1690
« on: June 11, 2008, 12:15 »
As I mentioned yesterday I emailed Alamy about the possibility of just featuring RF images in the novel use and my reasons for wanting such, they said they'd have a meeting to decide, this is the reply I got this morning:
"Hi Richard,
I hope you are well.
I'm afraid we don't have the option of including only the RF collection
for novel use. As of now, you only have the provision of opting in your
entire collection for Novel use.
Kind Regards,
name removed
Member Services"
So it appears you can only be in or out.
1691
« on: June 11, 2008, 08:19 »
It is not nice reading derogatory comments from anyone....
It's the highlight of my day The challange is to see who can until midnight your local time Sunday, not post a derogatory answer or a unqualified comment towards another site or photographer.
You have got to be f*****g kidding, you can take your suggestion and shove it up your a***.  Sometimes pointing out the truth is necessary.
Nobody likes you. I tend to agree with you here. I ran across this on the internet quite awhile ago - can't rememeber where:
So you're not just a kiss-ass but you have amnesia aswell. no problem  =tom
Coward ... OK I'm done, did I win?
1692
« on: June 10, 2008, 16:57 »
You and I have to accept or reject the offer. They could have the option, if you don't respond, you are not included, they can not Opt us in, without permission.
Dreamstime, iStock and recently Fotolia all did exactly that with their subscription services, they announced it and told everyone that their images will be included, iStock at least have the decency to allow you to deselect subscriptions on individual images. So I'm sorry Pete but yes they can do it, when Alamy introduced novel use everyone was told to make a decision to opt out by April if they did not want to have their images included, and now with the new change they've given another grace period of two weeks, after that if you haven't made a decision they're within their rights to opt you in. You do of course have the rights to delete all your images there with a 45day hold on period. Now I'm not saying that Alamy will do that for people that haven't made either choice, but they can should they so desire.
1693
« on: June 10, 2008, 16:46 »
"IS is working on technology to allow the upload and download of SMELLS"
You must be really pleased, soon there will be somewhere else apart from here that you can upload a load of cr*p.
1694
« on: June 10, 2008, 06:23 »
However for iStock you couldn't have a Red Delicious Apple Against a Red Background, even if that is what you had.
Enter 'cut out' and it then gives you the option to select 'plain background' of course you could just add 'plain background' then also add the word 'red' as a descriptive colour and the two combined will then give you the search results that should bring you your image. It's a PITA but when you get used to their ways you can cover a lot more things.
1695
« on: June 10, 2008, 06:15 »
Alamy have now given contributors a two week window in which to opt out if they'd previously opted in.
I've emailed them to find out if there are any plans to allow just psuedonym opting in, for me I have a number RF images on other macro sites that I'd like to opt out, but I have a few thousand I'd like opting in, because of the arrangement with other macros I'm going to have to opt out the lot.
I'll let you know if I get a reply.
1696
« on: June 09, 2008, 06:19 »
They will have novel use subscriptions next 
Don't even think it
1697
« on: June 09, 2008, 05:15 »
Alamy have just announced a new license that will compete with microstock sites.
See the contributor blog for details.
This no doubt is going to cause high blood presure for some there!
1698
« on: June 06, 2008, 06:36 »
Hi Brian,
Yes it's good to see you here.
Sort out FTP uploading.
A good site is worthless without images, and yes I know I could send them on DVD by snail mail but that's not something I or many others are prepared to do. Too risky, I don't trust our own postal service let alone yours.
1699
« on: June 06, 2008, 06:30 »
Give images with a medium production value only to sites focussed on single sales and offer the very best stuff only via macro agencies like Alamy or Photoshelter.
That statement is fast becoming redundant.
Meaning what? Do you disagree or do you feel this is already common knowledge?
No I mean that there aren't many sites that focus on single sales now, they're all adding subscription packages.
1700
« on: June 06, 2008, 05:37 »
Give images with a medium production value only to sites focussed on single sales and offer the very best stuff only via macro agencies like Alamy or Photoshelter.
That statement is fast becoming redundant.
Pages: 1 ... 63 64 65 66 67 [68] 69 70 71 72 73 ... 77
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
