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 - Pixart
Pages: 1 ... 74 75 76 77 78 [79] 80 81 82 83 84 ... 131
1951
« on: March 24, 2009, 00:27 »
5 x 2gb Extreme III's for $49 while quantites last. http://www.adorama.com/IDSCFE32G5P.htmlHoly crap, I paid $160 for ONE 3 years ago. I'm starting to feel like the old granny of digital when I can start saying such things. Too bad 2gb are almost too small now for all the megapixels... If I can just hold out 3 more years, maybe I CAN get a D3X!
1952
« on: March 23, 2009, 16:21 »
I wonder if he's included in the 110 Getty employees who were asked to leave last week?
1953
« on: March 21, 2009, 15:35 »
 Or buy one of the aforementioned  Much more fun than a private jet, and I might have enough left over for a D3X!
1954
« on: March 21, 2009, 15:33 »
I use the actual conversion rate on the day that I converted it through PayPal. You should be able to find it in your history, or does it go back more than 6 months on PayPal.
1955
« on: March 21, 2009, 13:36 »
Wow, 2 Les Pauls for 100 bucks! That has to be a find of a lifetime. I am actually one of the few people in the world who have a Strat.  I was visiting my parents, I'm the only musical one in a family of 6, and my dad hands this old violin to me. He says "Do you want this, it was Dad's. It's a Stratavarius." Yes, my heart stopped. And a Strat had just sold that year for something like 1.5 million. It's old, it has Strativarius label, facibat ano 1726. My sister and I looked it up in some of her antique books and supposedly around the turn of the century some clever crooks were going door to door in the northern US and Southern Cdn prairies selling these things "I'm having hard times, I need to feed my family... you can pay your mortgage with this some day". I never bothered to have it checked. The book said that it would be more valuable as a spoon rack. It's the only thing of my grandfather's I have though, and it IS an antique, so I think it's kinda cool. And, it is actually better quality than MY violin (neither get played though  )
1956
« on: March 21, 2009, 13:14 »
Maybe its this one.. http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3349&navigator=3
LOL, that legendary green "hiking" lens (NOT!) popped into my mind when I read green. Could you imagine if one of those babies was on auction and no-one knew that it was worth, what - $40k Canadian. Thanks for the insight guys, it likely is a birding telescope, not a lens - so I won't go down to the auction.
1957
« on: March 21, 2009, 11:57 »
There is a police auction of stolen/unclaimed goods here tomorrow and one of the items for sale is:
VERY LARGE CAMERA LENS F:500 D:80 WITH MOUNTING BRACKET IN GREEN CARRY CASE
Anyone know what that might be?
1958
« on: March 21, 2009, 10:47 »
I know this is a 123 thread, but personally, I wouldn't give a freebie anywhere but IS or SS where you get front page placement on a site with a lot of traffic.
I had the free photo spot last week at Shutterstock. I had a couple very good days, but the rest of the week was maybe 10-20%% better than usual. The good thing is that older photos that sold *may* get a slightly better ranking from the deal. They picked a rather unremarkable photo - it was new in Feb and had sold 11 times before the freebie week, 4 times during freebie week, and not once since the photo was swapped out on Wednesday. They don't let us know how many freebies went out. It was a nature shot, I wish they had picked something more "stocky" that might have benefited in the long term from an artificial boost in downloads (if that's how it works?).
Anyhow, I was quite thankful/flattered to get a free photo spot at SS. I thought it was a very good opportunity for my little port.
1959
« on: March 20, 2009, 21:48 »
Off topic: youtube can be a free marketing tool even for photos. AndresR, Arcurs, etc...
Hey you forgot the well known Vonkara advertisement video on youtube
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPmeLDn_ylA[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh-f4GCxXNY[/youtube]
I know it's terrible. But I had so much fun making them LOL
We should have a challenge... who can put together a youtube to flog their stock images. Would be a first for me.
1960
« on: March 19, 2009, 17:52 »
As a non-American, I didn't have to send a SS number to FT, but remember sending my Drivers License.
1961
« on: March 18, 2009, 14:06 »
I am Canadian and if I remember correctly I sent photo ID to Istock and before I could get paid I also had to mail a completed TD-1 or whatever that employment form number is with my SIN # and tax info on it. I get a T-4 (earnings) from them every year for taxes. I doubt they send documents to non-residents though.
Don't you (the agency) require some kind of declaration of citizenship? Doesn't the IRS care about what Americans earning with your agency? I would expect that this is the main reason the agencies require id.
And the original question, yes I would have a difficult time uploading ID to just any new agency. You are quite new, but seem trustworthy. Maybe you can request it upon the first payment.
1962
« on: March 18, 2009, 10:54 »
Geeze, forget the 20 bucks, who would want photos with watermarks on their menu?
I had a client last year give me a half dozen awesome photos to use in his marketing...
All with the Getty watermark. He says "but they're royalty free!"
LOL, out of all the agencies he could steal from, I would think that Getty would be the one with the biggest legal team! I don't think most of them are really theifs, but the word "free" confuses them.
1963
« on: March 17, 2009, 17:55 »
Mine yesterday was agriculture - not sure if that is industrial but on DT that is under the industry category.
Hey, Sharply started this thread - maybe he won the lotto and is trying to make us all feel good? Thanks dude.
1964
« on: March 17, 2009, 13:38 »
Gotta work on that "Exposure" line.
1965
« on: March 17, 2009, 08:40 »
Even though my new uploads are largely being ignored, my RPD has been going up each month thanks to OD's while my actual number of DL's are going down. EL's almost stopped for me after the last price adjustment, but they seem to be back to the old norm in 09. It seems that OD sales are making up about 25% of my monthly $ now and looking at the last 2 months, only one was a new photo, most were from 07 or 08. Subs buyers moving to on demand or a shift in client base?
1966
« on: March 15, 2009, 10:55 »
So many times, back before the day of the "ignore button" I wished for an ignore button for him. Now, I can't say how many times I've read something here and thought "Oh man, would the Miz ever start a riot with this one." He was kindof like a prof I had. We butted heads. Argued all the time. I thought he was a first class A*-hole. At the end of the term I got the best mark I've ever had, rightfully so because of how much I progressed that term. Funny thing about remembering Miz was his voice-overs on those tutorials. For some reason I hear his voice sometimes when some topic comes up here that reminds me of him. Didn't even know the guy, but his legend lives on.
1967
« on: March 14, 2009, 20:39 »
I stay the heck away from reporting spam. For example, I have a photo of a bull elk. No there is no bull (as a farm animal) in the photo but it is technically a bull elk, ask any hunter and they will say "I shot a (male) bull elk" or "I shot an (female) elk cow". It is wrong though when you do a search for elk and you bring up moose or muledeer. But I think that I would give the city slicker the benefit of the doubt, and guess that it is an honest mistake. Also, you don't know why the keywords are there, they may be a required word for some esotaric reasoning. If you feel there is a problem, you should inform the photographer before reporting it to the agency. You can destroy their ranking, but I am sure that is the intention of many who report bad keywords.
1968
« on: March 12, 2009, 14:53 »
I'd say it's a little uneven, the bottom left seems proper and the light falls off. There is nothing wrong with it for my taste, but agencies seem to want bright and even lighting. Let me guess, Dreamstime?
1969
« on: March 12, 2009, 09:57 »
I wonder if they get new buyers from stories like this? Likely not many, but maybe the ratio is similar once all the MWC's are rejected.
1970
« on: March 11, 2009, 21:22 »
Lee's been quoted in USA Today! Very Cool for our bloggin friend.
1971
« on: March 11, 2009, 19:30 »
Is anyone in touch with Avava? I think he's from Seattle and would be a great interview.
1972
« on: March 11, 2009, 12:56 »
You are right, those blankets definitely have the WOW factor, don't they? I have an account with Portrait Weavers in South Carolina and they make the most incredible jaquard woven blankets. Very very gorgeous. The venders up here charge between $139 and $159 CDN for them. With the fluctuating exchange rate (now 25%) it makes it hard to price these things, but there would still be a decent profit. You are right, I should let them know about it. I could put something in when I return their package "If you liked this photo, Grandma will LOVE a jaquard woven blanket".
1973
« on: March 11, 2009, 10:52 »
Love the ideas. I really love the playing card idea, but no manufacturer in Canada. Both Blacks and Walmart sell them but neither have whole-sale accounts so they would cost the client quite a bit. You are so right though, this is a great product for portrait sessions where the markup is higher.
RGebbie reminds me, I should look into T-shirts again. My pro-lab makes a photo-T, it's SUPER CONVENIENT, but it's "Fruit of the Loom" which isn't the best quality so I kindof steered away from them. Maybe parents wouldn't expect a nice American Apparel t-shirt though?
Thanks
1974
« on: March 09, 2009, 21:05 »
Ah, CCK. The "frills" have been great to me because many around here offers the same old/same old and I've got a lot of jobs from being a wee bit different; but, of course now I dream of no frills.... Those teams that order just a few plain old packages are so quick and easy, it's a dream! I do believe I make extra $ offering the personalized stuff though. (*Cough*, perhaps not enough more $ per editing hour, but still more at the end of the day.)
One mom even bought the same big package 3 times last year with a different poster selection each time (same girl on 3 different seasons/teams). If it was just the same old magazine cover package I bet she would have got the single and team photo and that's it.
Interesting to hear you do the teams too. I don't do thousands of kids, but I did more than 1k last year with just the sports, so it has been my busiest year yet.
I've seen some neet products from the U.S. but I really need things I can make right here.
1975
« on: March 09, 2009, 16:18 »
Sales way down and mostly subs...Sad story. Almost 0 views on new uploads there lately.
I had noticed that almost my entire first page of uploads had 0 views (for AGES) and then last night they all have 1. Makes me think they were just indexed at JI or P.C . or something else that wasn't random. I had 5 approved today, I'll try to watch when they get views and if they are at the same time again.
Pages: 1 ... 74 75 76 77 78 [79] 80 81 82 83 84 ... 131
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|