|
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 - lthn
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 15
176
« on: August 09, 2011, 06:39 »
See above, I'd like to keep my speech 'free'.
177
« on: August 08, 2011, 03:47 »
In a way it is laughable that we Earthlings have an energy problem. The amount of free energy reaching this planet from the Sun could power our wildest dreams - if we could, for example, harvest it from orbiting panels and beam it down via microwaves. Instead we're still burning fossil fuels, a Stone Age technology.
I'll enjoy the pictures and data from the new unmanned probes NASA will be sending up (one to Jupiter this week, a new Mars rover on the way) but I'm less excited about those missions than I used to be. I'd rather see the billions poured into basic research in hard sciences like physics and chemistry. We need some breakthroughs, and soon.
It wouldn't be so laughable if someone gives you the duty of harvestng it efficiently. Just beam it down scotty, right? This is like when some kids see squirrels jumping from one branch to anther... hey that looks so easy, lets try it... and voila, there comes there ambulance : )
178
« on: August 08, 2011, 03:43 »
LOL, ok, it's not 500 years. It is basically possible with today's technology...
Oh really? Could you at least vaguely discribe to me the technology the allows us to contain and store any significant amount of anti matter? Just so you know, even handling pure hidrogen is a big problem...
179
« on: August 07, 2011, 05:21 »
^^ A lot of your rants seem to be based on what you see on TV. Going by what you posted above, you seem surprised by how people can be nice and helpful wherever you are. Turn off the TV and talk TO people, not AT them and you may find out that people the world over are actually pretty much the same. As for Americans speaking other languages, many people I know speak more than one language. I speak French, my son speaks German, Spanish and Chinese. But we're not on television, so you wouldn't know about that, I guess. As for being afraid of the "suspicious looking people" on the subway, you would be amazed to find that they are the same as you and I , just trying to get through the day. You really should be at a point in your life where you put all that hate and fear behind you. It seems to be the only thing you have to contribute here.
yep I always thought when watching the news, TV, movies, that american ppl and their surrounding, their attitude... it's all not real, made of plastic. Now that I'v been to the US several times staying a few months each time... I still see it the same way : ) There are very fundamentel things missing completely regardles off whether the people are nice or not, but it would take a really long explanation clarify what they are. What comes to my mind is what Sylvia Plath wrote, that when she started dating some european lad for the first time, she realized that he is the first men he ever got together with who had intuition.
180
« on: August 06, 2011, 16:19 »
Oh yeah, just implement this, and watch it get abused by hackers, black-hat 'seo experts' and the rest... You'll wish it was never thought of.
181
« on: August 06, 2011, 16:17 »
Thats moron needs to be fired asap, along with most of the reviewers... and no I'm not saying this because of low acceptance, it's 75%+
182
« on: August 05, 2011, 03:49 »
From the istock forum:
Huge Thanx Kelly for all things what you've done for us...
...more than the money and downloads stats, his achievement is the many lives he changed. I am very thankful.
Rock on Kelly! I hope this means less travel time for you. And more delicious restaurants...
Kelly you truly are a rockstar...
Can't wait to see what happens next 
This is way beyond sycophancy, these ppl are sick. Not joking, I mean it dead serious...
183
« on: August 05, 2011, 03:46 »
"I just got a camera, and I want to make money selling pictures..."
... or reviewing them : )
184
« on: August 03, 2011, 03:58 »
that 1.6..... is pretty unusable. The correct way to describe this is the a+b/a=1+b/a. This is the original classic rule of composition, that rule of thje thirds recited by photographers is hoax invention by unadeucated wannabe photog-educator-experts (the kind you find on SS forums) for even more uneducated amateur photogs. What confuses most ppl is that this rule is used (and supposed to be used) recursively, especially in classic art pieces.
185
« on: August 02, 2011, 07:01 »
186
« on: August 02, 2011, 06:52 »
I submitted 60 pics yesterday, all accepted, not a single rejection. I just wrote this to annoy ppl.
I'm sure they're boring as hell and won't make any money 
Of course its boring, its ******* micorstock... : ))
187
« on: August 02, 2011, 06:34 »
I submitted 60 pics yesterday, all accepted, not a single rejection. I just wrote this to annoy ppl.
188
« on: August 02, 2011, 06:21 »
I had hoped that by this time, some new site like GL or CC would be getting some traction, but at least for me, nothing has happened at those sites. I suppose that being small, they find niches, and my stuff just isn't the right thing.
so what is your stuff? can you show us?
189
« on: August 01, 2011, 21:10 »
doesn't matter, the whole world's social and market system is collapsing, and when the goods stop going across the borders, the soldiers start to... you'll probably be nuked soon.: )
190
« on: July 31, 2011, 06:32 »
The 1000D is fine for microstock and alamy but it might not be a wise investment.
Well microstock will be my main target, I can always take a crack at Getty if the images are exceptional. I understand that Canon EOS1000D isn't the best but I dont want to blow more than $600 on a camera and will most likely buy a new better one in two years once I have graduated.
dude, wipe the exif, and thats it. : )
191
« on: July 31, 2011, 03:33 »
Then there really wasn't a point to the thread was there? Being exclusive doesn't mean I question less, in fact it means I'm risking far more than you are. That risk is a calculated risk that is almost always cut down to cheerleading or blind faith by many (certainly not all) posters here. I'm sorry you don't feel exclusives have a valid POV....because I guarantee that we're far more aware of what's happening on iStock than many of those here who simply join the negative chorus without any firsthand contributor knowledge.
you can rant all you want, but brainless sychophancy by dependent ppl is commonplace. spread that out to as many shades as you want up to total honesty, you should still end up with exclusives' opinions being worthless.
192
« on: July 30, 2011, 16:25 »
Something I've been wondering about for a while....a hypothetical question....
How would you feel if one of the top tier sites (Shutterstock, iStock, Dreamstime, Fotolia) made the following business decisions effective January 1, 2012:
1) Close to new contributors
2) Purge all contributor accounts with an image portfolio of less than 5,000 images as of 1/1/2012
3) Change contribution standards to be stricter (similar to what Shutterstock is currently doing or what iStock does)
What would you do? What is your perception of what customers would do?
1. nonsense 2. nonsense 3. Which standards?
193
« on: July 30, 2011, 16:21 »
'No more insulting and no less accurate than comments on any of the various critique fora - folks who commit to ANY single agency are going to be more inclined to buy into the crap. I'm doing contract work for one of the big IT multinationals at the moment and see exactly the same thing in the permanent staff. '
Sorry, obviously you were only looking for negative comments, under the guise of asking for positive ones, else you'd be happy to hear from anyone.
well, maybe the ppl who said things like "wow, thank you istock", "wow, thanks istock for this new inspiration" when new credit limits and the agency collection was introduced will pop up here if we wait long enough : ) btw, istock is somewhat better than cancer (not sure tho)
194
« on: July 30, 2011, 15:07 »
I just had a sale there for which I received 17 cents. I think that's a new low.
Obviously, all IS will do in the future is just continue to grind commissions into dust.
I had one of 12 cents ... I think I read a thread that was one of 9 cent...
I had one get me 10c the other day.
But then, this means the buyer paid what, 85c or so for an XS image. What is more edible than a XXL for 36c or less as subs elsewhere.
These XS sales are a plague. Yes, buyers like getting images at very small size, for web/tablet/phone applications, at correspondingly reduced prices. But we still have to produce full size images at ever-higher quality; we can't submit easily produced, low-quality images as "XS only". We're required to produce full-size images even though the likelihood of selling them at that size is rapidly decreasing. And of course all the rest of the work we do - finding subjects, props, lighting, composition - is still there in the XS image.
XS sales are just another part of the 'race to the bottom'. I realize this isn't new.
Most XS sales are tryout DLs for layouts --> no watermark + somewhat better quality. We bought XS by the dozens to try them out in layouts... the winner got fullres DL.
195
« on: July 30, 2011, 07:16 »
Istock is better then diareea
196
« on: July 28, 2011, 06:29 »
I wonder if this dumb cow realizes that she's helping her newcomer rival become famous.
197
« on: July 28, 2011, 03:45 »
It doesn't surprise me and shouldn't surprise any one of us. We are photographers and know how photoshop works.
Best way to keep your skin healthy...stay out of the sun and when you do go out there make sure you wear sunglasses to keep those crows feet away...That's my beauty product...lol
If you are a photographer, you should also know that a razor sharp unretouched portrait printed in some larger format (or viewed in larger size on screen with decent resolution) is NOT a fair representation of a person at all. You are going to see unfavorable details accented and poking at your eye that you would never-ever even notice IRL unless you are dermatologist.
198
« on: July 28, 2011, 03:37 »
I don't see this as a debate about beauty standards, as much as a simple case of false advertising. If they are advertising a product that is supposed to make your skin look flawless, then they need to achieve that look using the product, not photoshop or air brushing tricks.
There are are actually people naive enough to believe that a certain type of makeup or skincare products could make Julia Roberts, a 43 year old woman, look that perfectly smooth. After all, it's right there in the picture 
You are the one who is incredibly naive. Look at the comment above yours... if what you are saying is the case, why is this issue not being constantly jumped on with food products, f.e. where its even worse? Because no overexitable yappping she-dog official or wannabe politican is going to feel jelous of retouched strawberries, thats why. : ) You ppl always fall for the facade and then taken advantage of, because you truly beleive these are common sense agendas pursued by some 'common sensed' crowd... and actually if you dig in, these things always spring from a single individual's mind with some utterly selfish motivation. Also, where the heck do you think the custom and directives of retouching come from, if not from our beauty ideals? : )
199
« on: July 28, 2011, 03:25 »
Protecting IP in today's world of the internet will require new international law and cooperative policing - in essence, the beginnings of a world government. I don't think that's just hype. When law enforcement becomes uniform and perpetrators can't hide behind national boundaries, those boundaries no longer mean what they used to mean. And it can't happen soon enough for me. It's one world and the sooner we acknowledge that the better for all of us.
If we ever end up with a 'world government', petty IP issues will be the least of your worries, beleive me.
200
« on: July 27, 2011, 12:52 »
this messing around about retouching is just a small spinoff of this ' lets make ugliness a standard out of sour envy' movement.
I'm not sure why your feelings are so strong on this - or why you're talking about fat vs thin (which wasn't the topic), but FWIW, I think it's more 'Lets bring things a little closer to reality, so as not to crush people's confidence with standards that even the models themselves can't achieve'.
nah, thats just an excuse for a 'take-your-ideals-away' rally. Fat vs. thin is basically the same issue as this.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 15
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
