|
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 - BaldricksTrousers
Pages: 1 ... 66 67 68 69 70 [71] 72 73 74 75 76 ... 206
1751
« on: November 23, 2013, 16:33 »
He indicated they just plucked what they needed off of social media and used them wherever they were required.
Without even checking if they have been released under CC or similar?
I'm not sure but I think that CC doesn't allow taking images for commercial resale, which is what media agencies would do.
1752
« on: November 23, 2013, 16:30 »
That's right.
1753
« on: November 23, 2013, 14:54 »
But, in the end, the people who steal it won't buy it and the people who buy it won't steal it, so it probably doesn't really make any difference.
1754
« on: November 23, 2013, 12:48 »
There was a piece on the news yesterday where all the major and minor news agencies, from CNN to AP to NBC, CBS, ABC and others (some 40+) sent a petition to the White House complaining about restrictions on theirs and other photojournalists. Seems photojournalists are being restricted from decent access to the president and the agencies are forced to rely on sub-standard images or only use the "official" images handed out by the government. During an interview with one such agency, he admitted that they were oft times forced to use images from social media such as Twitter, Facebook and others. He indicated they just plucked what they needed off of social media and used them wherever they were required.
Except, of course they are not "forced" to do anything, they choose to steal because they want to stay ahead of the game and they reckon they are too powerful for anybody to dare take them on. It's corruption, pure and simple. It's actually exactly the same syndrome that is about to put a pile of News International hacks (as in Editors) in the UK behind bars, where they belong. The idea is that if I break the law, then my media group gets a "scoop" but if I stick to the law, the enemy media might get the (illegal) scoop. So we have a right to ignore everybody's rights and the law of the land because media competition "forces" us to do it. And let's face it, how many pictures of the American President does the world really need? Love him or loathe him, he's been photographed enough.
1755
« on: November 23, 2013, 12:43 »
Today I have got a rejection for "Dust and Scratches" for a perfectly clean image
I never seen this reason for a rejection before.
And if my sensor was dirty for this image why it was clean for other images of the series?
 (I prefer to laugh about it)
Whether dust is visible depends on the aperture. Something shot at f/2.8 can be as clean as a whistle, but stop down to f/22 and it can look like you've squashed a swarm of flies on your windscreen.
That's not just true of sensor dust, I've shot straight through a chain-link fence at 2.8 and blurred it out of existence (it was just about touching the front of a 200mm lens).
Yes I think that here we all know what is dust and the effect it has on the images at different apertures.
Btw it is well to remind it.
The fact is that this photo rejected for "Dust and Scratches" has absolutely not this kind of problem or similar.
I could say that it is smooth as the bottom of a newborn
Fair enough, I just thought you were inquiring about how it was possible. People come here with all sorts of different levels of skill and experience. I don't go trying to check out who knows what.
1756
« on: November 23, 2013, 11:57 »
Today I have got a rejection for "Dust and Scratches" for a perfectly clean image
I never seen this reason for a rejection before.
And if my sensor was dirty for this image why it was clean for other images of the series?
(I prefer to laugh about it)
Whether dust is visible depends on the aperture. Something shot at f/2.8 can be as clean as a whistle, but stop down to f/22 and it can look like you've squashed a swarm of flies on your windscreen. That's not just true of sensor dust, I've shot straight through a chain-link fence at 2.8 and blurred it out of existence (it was just about touching the front of a 200mm lens).
1757
« on: November 23, 2013, 09:50 »
I don't know where you get that from Paulie. This was a guy who was on the spot at the time of a major disaster, uploaded some shots to Flickr and had them stolen by the Agence France Presse news outfit who then recycled them via Getty (they have a standard arrangement with GI to host their old Press photo stock).
If it was a "new model" for stock, then it is the model of news agencies stealing new pictures from the internet and selling them to subscribers without recognising or paying the photographer who shot them (and threatening and bullying anyone who dares to complain about the behaviour of the corporation involved). It's the "everything on the internet is free" model that some people argue for. Only, fortunately, this turned out not to be a free ride, to the tune of $1.2m .... I just wish the fine had been 100x that to make people really sit up and think before thieving.
My guess would be that AFP will pay more than half of the fine - and what's a $600,000 loss to companies of this size? It will just mean the chairman's next yacht has to be a metre shorter than he expected.
1758
« on: November 23, 2013, 08:34 »
I presume the camera loses date/time if batteries are removed for a long time. At least in my P&S it is so. It can stay minutes, maybe hours, without batteries, but at some point it loses date and other settings.
Many (all?) canon dSLRs have a "date time" battery hidden in the body. They last for years but they're also a pain because when they start to die the camera malfunctions without giving any indication of what's wrong and the manual says nothing about it.
1759
« on: November 23, 2013, 06:55 »
Never mind myself and may more buyers are quite happy to buy from IS. They still have pictures that no other agency can deliver. Thats what counts. Noting else.
They do. But then other agencies have images that iStock can't deliver. Swings and roundabouts, really.
By the way, is it accident or strategy that has two of your three posts over the last week attacking shutterstock because you had a problem accessing it (the first time in 10 years, with SS, I think) which makes it "unsustainable" and forces you to go elsewhere, while your third post proclaims the wonders of iStock's exclusive images and ignores the frequent outages it has had for years? It seems a bit odd, though I can see why if you are buying at other agencies you would want to use iS if you couldn't find what you want elsewhere.
Grey is our permanently banned friend.
Ah-ha!
1760
« on: November 23, 2013, 06:53 »
^^ remember that you can choose your settings as to whether someone arriving at 'your' FAA port can see photos or galleries. I have mine set to 'galleries' as after I put up the original set, I might add to each gallery as and when.
Mind you, I'm not exactly successful over there.  (My own fault.)
Thanks, I didn't know that.
1761
« on: November 23, 2013, 05:40 »
My concern is the impact it has on the appearance of the portfolio. I put a pile of food photos up because they now have a bulk-sales sideline for the interior design trade and sometimes they use generic images across an entire brand. I stopped because it didn't sit well with my other stuff, but perhaps I should just downrate all that stuff so it goes to the back of the portfolio and will only be found if someone searches my food folder.
1762
« on: November 23, 2013, 05:09 »
Never mind myself and may more buyers are quite happy to buy from IS. They still have pictures that no other agency can deliver. Thats what counts. Noting else.
They do. But then other agencies have images that iStock can't deliver. Swings and roundabouts, really. By the way, is it accident or strategy that has two of your three posts over the last week attacking shutterstock because you had a problem accessing it (the first time in 10 years, with SS, I think) which makes it "unsustainable" and forces you to go elsewhere, while your third post proclaims the wonders of iStock's exclusive images and ignores the frequent outages it has had for years? It seems a bit odd, though I can see why if you are buying at other agencies you would want to use iS if you couldn't find what you want elsewhere.
1763
« on: November 23, 2013, 04:56 »
Oh, yes, Jens is right about not changing the aspect ratio on resizing - I was thinking that you just meant cropping the edges off.
1764
« on: November 23, 2013, 02:05 »
You'll probably get composition rejections on the third and fourth of those (you need to straighten them) and "badly lit" on the rest of them - the lighting looks flat an uninteresting. Adjusting the contrast and saturation might help.
I don't think the aspect ratio matters. I never think twice about cropping to an odd shape if the picture needs it and I don't get rejections as a result. It may limit the sales a bit, if people are looking for something to fit a "standard" shape in the page.
I'd also use a wide aperture to lift the statues out of the background, and avoid having the corner of a building growing out of the top of the statue's head.
1765
« on: November 23, 2013, 01:34 »
That's excellent news.
1766
« on: November 22, 2013, 15:37 »
There is a fundamental difference between a prepaid (microstock) site and a post-paid agency. The clients of a post-paid agency will always delay payment for as long as they possibly can. Boosting cash-flow by delaying settlements must be in Economics 101. It ain't pretty but it's the way the world works.
1767
« on: November 22, 2013, 15:30 »
[@TS] No, no! Just provide solutions that are more cost/benefit favourable and aren't trivially obvious.
1768
« on: November 22, 2013, 15:23 »
Do people want to get stats or just complain that iStock isn't working?
My interpretation would be that people want stats but they balance the desire for stats against the cost in terms of effort of getting them. The methods you outlined did not meet the cost/benefit requirement. Obviously the fact iStock charges contributors heavily for doing business also enters the equation.
1769
« on: November 22, 2013, 15:13 »
Something happened in July that killed sales. Period.
That seems to be the bottom line. And apparently the epitaph.
July itself was dead for me, but from August on I seem to be back to four or five decent sales a month on 4,000 images. It's not great but it's still firmly "middle tier" as far as my sales go.
1770
« on: November 22, 2013, 14:54 »
Don't worry about it Lisa. It's always a bad move to let a tick get under your skin
1771
« on: November 22, 2013, 14:36 »
Does anyone have Consistent Reviewing? 
You mean any site? I get 100% acceptance at Alamy and Canstock. That's pretty consistent. My percentages at DT move in a very narrow band and most of the time I get near total acceptances on SS, but once in a while they drop a bombshell on me.
1772
« on: November 22, 2013, 14:29 »
Why don't you just quit responding altogether?
I've been thinking that might be a good idea. You even got a +1 from me.
i don't think you should let yourself be beaten. There are too few people posting here with a positive or neutral outlook.
What do mean by "a positive or neutral outlook"? Do you want people to not express their considered opinions or just post happy-clappy stuff or what? Or are you just looking for more people to agree with your point of view on everything?
I was thinking there were plenty of "positive or neutral posts", just look at the Symbiostock threads. Perhaps BHR and TS loiter too long in the wrong places.
1773
« on: November 22, 2013, 14:24 »
Wow! What a train-wreck of a thread - and it started so well, too.
All I can say is that I think it shows tremendous moral courage by iStock to list McDonald's as an "Adults Only" sort of place, which is exactly what it should be (I should point out that I don't venture in there myself, if I want to go somewhere at night I prefer a cosy strip-club).
I doubt if an American-based company would have had the courage to take a stand against Big Mac. Go, Canucks!
1774
« on: November 21, 2013, 15:15 »
I'm surprised you would continue to contribute to a site where you don't trust the reporting, I know I wouldn't.
ETA: Judging by the negatives, I guess some people don't care if a site reports sales accurately? Hard to believe that at least 4 5 people here would continue contributing to a site where they don't trust the reporting of sales. Seems crazy to me.
It seems curious that, being in possession of the facts about the reporting, you seem to want to continue to supply iStock despite saying that you wouldn't do so. Or are you saying that I am lying about the PP reporting having got screwed up? Perhaps you have your head so deep in the sand that you failed to notice what happened in July. As I've said more than once before, I consider iStock to be fundamentally honest in their dealings, my concern is not that they are trying to cheat me (when I thought a site did that I left it - that's on record) I am worried about whether they have got a proper grip on the reporting. I hope they have but neither you nor I can be sure about that and we both have good reason to be concerned about it. However, since you've now declared you will quit iStock, it won't be a worry for you any more.
1775
« on: November 21, 2013, 02:37 »
It isn't crucial - we can still see what we have earned, which images have sold etc and we can assume that sooner or later it will be back in some form. Though frankly I would be quite happy with a monthly report updated as a batch FWIW.
While I agree that the bottom line is what counts, not the timeliness of reporting, the repeated problems they have had running the PP batch sales script make me think it could be a serious problem if they try to do that for everything. Batch reporting is also contrary to the psychology of microstock, which relies on instant gratification to keep the punters supplying pictures. I'd be all in favour of reducing the incentive to supply but iStock wouldn't want to do that.
Pages: 1 ... 66 67 68 69 70 [71] 72 73 74 75 76 ... 206
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
