|
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 - Difydave
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 24
201
« on: April 15, 2015, 14:56 »
Removing the descriptions is completely stupid.
And I'll bet the search engines soon figure out viewable and non-viewable fields (just like keywords on HTML pages) and these descriptions rate them lower priority in search results. Hence the SEO long descriptions IS has asked for will have to become viewable again on the ADP. Then these long descriptions will be less than human readable and we will again be asked to shorten them up. Ha!
Chasing a search engine by SEO results may produce short term gains but likely is futile in the end.
Yes the search engines will just move the goal, which is (I imagine) to get paid for showing favourable results for other businesses. Whatever, in my case, and I'm sure yours, any re-doing of information represents a mammoth task, many, many hours of work, with no real promise of any return.
202
« on: April 15, 2015, 05:06 »
I guess my point is that subs are overtaking the regular image sales and so there is no need for iStock to change royalty rates as our income is turning into cents per image rather than dollars.
If they choose to call their RC system into action, they'll be cutting a lot of royalty rates, as subs, GI, G+, PP, Fotomore etc don't earn RCs.
I know they haven't demoted people after the first year, but I wonder why they insist on keeping the functionality there, since it's bound to be a fairly sizeable overhead, and they've cut other features to reduce overhead.
Certainly from our point of view as contributors, there would need to be a serious shake up of the numbers for there to be any chance of us getting to a better rate. If the rates go down then there would be an outcry, but that didn't stop them when RCs started. If this year continues as it is, then personally I'll have a job to keep my present level, and that's always been easily achievable in the past. I'm all real, achievable, incentives to do better, but not for RCs. Time to get rid of them!
203
« on: April 14, 2015, 15:11 »
Update. best month so far now, but only just. Still not seeing the growth or the numbers that are really needed to make subs a success for me there.
204
« on: April 14, 2015, 05:35 »
Whether there's any more to come yet or not who knows, but mine are down on February, and I haven't really seen any growth in subs this year. Having said that last month was OK overall, so who knows? I don't like this uncertainty though of having these things added in lumps at some random time. Better to see them in real time, whenever they are finally paid.
205
« on: April 13, 2015, 09:13 »
The actual law varies from country to country, or at least the interpretation seems to. However it seems to me that the law is about right where it says that people in a public place have no "right to privacy" as far as having their photograph taken goes. Use then is a different thing, and while I wouldn't agree with defamatory use, or use which made false claims about a person, I don't see that general interest shots which don't show people in a bad light hurt anyone.
I don't really see there is any difference between being in public where anyone can see you, and being photographed in public where a lot more people might see you, as long as it's kept in context.
Well by my personal criteria even showing people in bad light is sometimes ok, so I wouldn't generalize .
For example, public servants that are misusing their given rights by law. I stick to my rights to record any approach of theirs in my direction, and its for their protection as much as for mine. If they choose to perform under"bed lights" its absolutely their decision to do so and if they act politely with acts enforced by law im deleting the record at the spot anyways.
I already had situations from their side trying to enforce fictions of their imagination as law and from then Im recording every conversation if they like it or not its my legal right and I choose to use that right. As they are doing public job anyways so they shouldn't be uncomfortable to appear in public if they are performing "by the book".
On the other hand, anyone chasing random people on the streets and pushing lens in their faces against their will deserves at least a punch in the nose 
I think a book can be written on this matter and every single case can be a story on its own so its very slippery area.
As you say, every case is indeed different and that does make[/size] it difficult to generalise. [/size]Here in the UK, while there is no right to privacy in public as such, there can also be an "expectation of privacy" in some spaces which are open to the public like restaurants etc. There are also quite strict laws against harassment.
206
« on: April 13, 2015, 06:08 »
The actual law varies from country to country, or at least the interpretation seems to. However it seems to me that the law is about right where it says that people in a public place have no "right to privacy" as far as having their photograph taken goes. Use then is a different thing, and while I wouldn't agree with defamatory use, or use which made false claims about a person, I don't see that general interest shots which don't show people in a bad light hurt anyone.
I don't really see there is any difference between being in public where anyone can see you, and being photographed in public where a lot more people might see you, as long as it's kept in context.
207
« on: April 07, 2015, 05:58 »
That seems to be it Jens, yeah, I know its horse drawn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpgM4ngTx_k
Exactly. When I see it I remember that I have seen those machines in use. After a grey ferguson back in 1963 or something.
Lovely little tractors the grey Fergusons. I had a three-cylinder MF35 from 1958 which was totally reliable (despite the reputation of the 3-cyl model as being hard to start), that was pretty much the next generation after the greys, I think. It cost me 300 in about '86 and I sold it for more a few years later when I sold up and moved on.
Yes, they're the generation on from the Fergie. I had one of those. Nice condition it was too, TVO / Petrol. I wasn't using it so I sold it. Diesel 35 though if I ever get another. Still see people using 35s down here in Cornwall. Small fields. They're ideal for small farming. Approved yesterday, sold today 
Nice!
208
« on: April 06, 2015, 09:36 »
Interesting, and thanks for sharing.
You're an illustrator?
That would be different to photography only like me I suspect.
209
« on: April 06, 2015, 09:01 »
Really, without knowing exactly who you represent, and what you are doing, I doubt if you will get many answers beyond that already given.
Without trying to be rude, you could for instance represent a company who's interests are in direct conflict with most of the people who contribute to the forum here.
In any case no doubt being an IT company, you have a budget. Contact one of the many keywording services which exist. They may, or may not be able to help you for a fee.
As already said far as "Getty Standard" keywording is concerned only Getty themselves can do that.
210
« on: April 06, 2015, 08:00 »
-I've worked for banks (in marketing) for decades. They are predatory. They prey on the naive and poor and uneducated.
Excuse the snip. Banks are predatory indeed. They do no one any favours apart from themselves. No matter what the smiley, happy shiny ads would lead us to believe. Banks, insurance companies, estate agents, car dealers, stock agencies ( The list is endless.They all want their profit above anything else.Unfortunately, as adults we all have to take responsibilities for our own dealings in this world. We have to understand the rules that govern any of those dealings, see the pitfalls, and if necessary be prepared to use the law, or at least the threat of it to sort out problems. Being naive or uneducated will always get people into trouble of one sort or another. If a bank didn't take money off those people, a magic bean seller would. There is no such thing as "fair" in this world. Life isn't fair.
211
« on: April 05, 2015, 12:28 »
I'm going to the pub tonight, and I'll bet if I ask there'll be someone in there who has either used one, or who has one in the back of a shed!
I've got the mower to go with it down the field here holding the brambles up!
More than likely. When I bought a croft it came with a mildly fire-damaged late 19th Century binder hidden in the back of a barn (which is why I was intrigued by this one). There must be a lot of old stuff hidden away. That stuff really was built to last.
Yes, this mower here is well past it's sell by date. beyond repair I'd say. I should sell it really as a antique! It looks as if it's been used behind a tractor at some time though, as does the "cultivator" that's also here which looks as if it was originally made to be winched by a steam engine. Think roughly triangular frame of big wrought iron bar, couple of iron wheels and big tines wedged into brackets. It's amazing what does turn up though. Farmers never throw anything away!
212
« on: April 05, 2015, 09:49 »
I'm going to the pub tonight, and I'll bet if I ask there'll be someone in there who has either used one, or who has one in the back of a shed! I've got the mower to go with it down the field here holding the brambles up!
213
« on: April 03, 2015, 10:37 »
I agree with you on the no minimum wage part. The imposed minimum wage actually eliminates jobs some people would be willing to perform.
in germany they "fixed" the issue with the so called "minijobs" that pay maximum 400 euro/month.
so now you've people running 3-4 different minijobs and working like a mule to earn barely 1200 euro on a good month.
and yet as bad as it is this is the BEST solution that came out of the EU in the last decades so go figure...
About typical of any such attempt at government intervention I'd have said. Make everyone except themselves equally poor.
214
« on: April 01, 2015, 09:59 »
Couple of people I have known in the past went to India in the 1960s on the "Hippy trail"
They both said you could live for a dollar a day out there back then. . .
I thought hippies don't need money
Hey man you must be a capitalist! Can you lend me some bread?
215
« on: April 01, 2015, 05:41 »
Couple of people I have known in the past went to India in the 1960s on the "Hippy trail" They both said you could live for a dollar a day out there back then. . .
216
« on: March 30, 2015, 08:56 »
Will those who believe that the acquisition of any company by a bigger company is good news for anyone apart from those at the very top of the acquiring company, please form an orderly queue to have their blinkers and rose tinted spectacles removed.
Thankyou.
Will those who believe in doom and gloom and cant stop whining about it just leave (micro)stock and let others get on with business?
Thank you 
Ah! Denial! A serious case too! May things continue to go so well for you, but if you ever need it the queue is always there! Thank you too.
217
« on: March 29, 2015, 13:47 »
I had one "stick" from a batch uploaded on the 9th. Mail to support got it sorted.
218
« on: March 29, 2015, 12:58 »
Asking the same question over and over again won't make any difference to the answer you will get.
You know what that is already.
As a relative newcomer to photography I assume, then if I were you I would spend more time learning about exposure, lighting and general photography techniques, as well as understanding what makes good stock, rather than worrying too much about getting accepted to Getty, or for that matter buying new gear.
Have you been accepted to contribute to any of the other agencies apart from iStock?
I'm not trying to be rude, but having work accepted at iStock, since the standards were lowered there, does not automatically mean that you will be accepted elsewhere.
219
« on: March 29, 2015, 10:52 »
Will those who believe that the acquisition of any company by a bigger company is good news for anyone apart from those at the very top of the acquiring company, please form an orderly queue to have their blinkers and rose tinted spectacles removed. Thankyou.
220
« on: March 29, 2015, 09:56 »
SnowDog, I'm in the same boat with you. Those of us Exclusive have a tough decision as to when it no longer makes sense. For beginners, I recommend not going exclusive. It's to tough to get the RC's to advance up the pay scale as an exclusive. iStock has had to grandfather the RC's levels to stop any outcry of the people falling due to lack of sales. Sales are increasing on the sub sites that do not generate RC's. It's just not a good plan for a beginner. For those of us grandfathered at higher RC levels - it's tough to calculate a non-exclusive approach that makes sense.Looking at the numbers at the right - if an IS Ex is making 210 units of income, to give that up means he has to work in the top 7 sites to break even. I know that many of my 2003-2005 era portfolio shots would likely not pass inspections at many of these sites today. I can't jump. Again, exactly the same here. We made our choice back when things were very different, and having looked long and hard at the options it seems to me that the only thing is to stick with it. Too much to lose as things are at least.
RCs have become pointless. If I carry on as I am this year I won't keep the level I have a present. I already had a level taken off me at the beginning of the RCs, after the promise for "grandfathering" and I was so, so, close to the next level at that time too. . .
I can only hope that yet again they will "grandfather" the levels.
221
« on: March 29, 2015, 08:57 »
Only buy gear when you actually need it.
The shops are full of better, bigger, faster, brighter, shinier.
The manufacturers need to sell new stuff. They want to make you "need" it.
None of it will make you a better photographer, unless it really does allow you to do something you can't already do.
None of it will sell any more images for you if you are doing microstock and already have a DSLR.
222
« on: March 28, 2015, 07:43 »
SnowDog's post above says it all for me.
223
« on: March 27, 2015, 11:38 »
There is no answer really, as others have already said. Certainly if I was new to this I'd be looking very hard at the options before tying myself to any single agency. It was different 10 years ago.
Again agreeing with others, I don't think iStock will suddenly vanish, but lets admit it, it wouldn't take much for any of the agencies to change beyond all recognition. All it takes is for someone to be put in charge who thinks that they know a better way.
225
« on: March 22, 2015, 09:29 »
In the UK PayPal is quick and convenient. All banks are businesses who are there to make a profit. You have to pay in some way for any service you receive.
No bank gives you the headline rate.
Last time I actually paid a $ cheque into my UK account many years ago, I was charged a flat fee, plus a percentage and I still didn't get a great exchange rate.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
