|
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 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15
201
« on: July 27, 2011, 12:12 »
We are already just few steps away from a world where ugly fat women are supposed to be the beauty standard and everything else just has to be fake.... and if you disagree with ugly fat women that they are indeed beautiful, and dare to not find them attractive, you get labelled jerk. Brave new world. : ))
Only in America my friend 
I tire of your pathetic anti american propaganda. You should realize that there are people living here that doesnt resemble your vision of the clueless overweight hillbilly red neck american. Your screen name just screams intolerant to me  + 1 ignored
He is a bit feral but he has a point in general. : ) Most of these excessively stupid and malintent movements originate from the US.
202
« on: July 27, 2011, 12:05 »
We are already just few steps away from a world where ugly fat women are supposed to be the beauty standard and everything else just has to be fake.... and if you disagree with ugly fat women that they are indeed beautiful, and dare to not find them attractive, you get labelled jerk. Brave new world. : ))
Only in America my friend
Nah, here in europe too. I see this all the time: another article on how horrible anorexia is in some hyperbumd magazine -when they manage to find a single starved teen in the ocean of overweight ppl- gets everyone pent up about "our current beauty ideals" and the "fashion industry" : )) Then you get all the fat women (males seem to stay out of this, maybe bit more sense of self criticism) going around with that fake-worried, accusing look on their faces, very agressivly pushing the agenda the everything else besides them is fake. It has gone to the point when they say stuff like (and its commonly accepted by the uneducated plebs) liking slender women is a current perversion and for most of history fat women were the ideal. They even dare to cite poor old Rembrandt and that prehistoric statue from Willendorf, I'v heard that 10000 times in my life - interesting how art history got narrowed down for this cause, even to men : ) They say stuff like fat ppl were the true survivors back is prehistoric times because of frequent famines. I hear bullsheit like that all the time... this is more serious brainwashing than most would consider, an agressive attempt to make men feel ashamed for their most natural preferences. It's heavily backed by the media which mostly feminist oriented, and this messing around about retouching is just a small spinoff of this ' lets make ugliness a standard out of sour envy' movement.
203
« on: July 27, 2011, 08:10 »
... 3 people in a office situation or a spa was done 30 years ago Folks....
So why do ppl like Yuri, Andresr, etc, keep reshooting those endlessly? You all go on fantasizing and seem to forget that its micro: sales need to pile up, which meands generic... well, generic everything. I also strongly suggest not to dream about things like getting bookmarked by whoever client. I'v been a buyer for many years without even knowing the pics belong to certain indivduals... it was just a site with lots of pics. I downloaded some shots from yuri, andresr, and many others without having the slightest clue that those come from different ppl (they are so generic). I had tight deadlines, looking for shots was considered the most wasteful time spent in the workflow, what I wanted was generaly hard to find, the clock was ticking so who the f. cares who shot what, to be honest? Forget it, I -or any of my colleagues, often a dozen at a time working next to me- was never-eva'-ever looking for certain shooters, but certain kind of shots.
204
« on: July 27, 2011, 07:52 »
The only thing that would make a difference would be if all the sites decided to hunt down and sue thieves and tell the world about it. If it entered the Internet mind that pinching pictures gets you sued there would probably be less theft and more sales.
Like Getty have been doing, Gaw bless 'em!
Look what they achieved... (nothin')
205
« on: July 27, 2011, 03:35 »
She also looks outwards cross-eyed. : )) Besides that, I really dislike this anti-beauty campaign. It is supposed to be in good intention, but It already became an exaggeration, just like reotuching. We are already just few steps away from a world where ugly fat women are supposed to be the beauty standard and everything else just has to be fake.... and if you disagree with ugly fat women that they are indeed beautiful, and dare to not find them attractive, you get labelled * jerk. Brave new world. : ))
206
« on: July 25, 2011, 13:33 »
How long have you been with DT?
207
« on: July 25, 2011, 02:46 »
BTW PP program is pathetic, I've opted all in and there are only about a third on the PP sites, none have moved in months. Earnings are down as well, so I'm thinking of opting all out, but it won't work anyway, so why even bother...
You have to be a little bit more patient.Files do get migrated and Thinkstock will become the internets premier subsription site in the coming years IMO.
I joined the PP from the start when my nose was still the same color as my arse
now its your tongue the same color as somebody else's arse 
208
« on: July 24, 2011, 03:58 »
"face it: the # buyers is very limited indeed, while the # new pics that can be produced is unlimited"
The number of possible buyers is the same as the number of possible contributors. And the number of uses buyers can come up could be just as unlimited.
Hey-hey, It's not the number of contributors but number of images... but it's pure nonsense anyway, every prodouct has a limited market even coca cola, and this isn't nearly as everyday as drinking, is it? Do you seriously think there will buyers popping out of the void at the rate ppl can cram acceptable images out of their digital cameras?
209
« on: July 23, 2011, 19:32 »
That wishful-thinking mantra about an endlessly growing market is total nonsense. It reminds me of communist propaganda speeches about their countries economies outdoing it's previous year's performance two times every new year... face it: the # buyers is very limited indeed, while the # new pics that can be produced is unlimited. You basically expect a couple of graphic artists with workstations to spawn every time you press the exposure button. Dude, it's bullschitt : )
You should probably consider giving up then.
Seriously, what is the point of even being here if that is what you truly believe?
Good luck,
Mat
"Seriously, what is the point of even being here if that is what you truly believe?" I know that attitude. "dont you tell your opinion coz me no want it"... and that often comes from ppl living in a country proud of its 1st amendment!
210
« on: July 23, 2011, 17:09 »
The truth is very easy to catch:
Microstockers are people who work very hard to feed some gangsters who rule the liberal business and go to destroy all photography activities around the world in some years, just don't be blind please.
If blindness means loving what we do, doing what we want and living how we want ... then bring it on!!! : )
I suspect you fail to differentiate betwen loving phtotgpraphy, which is a craft or an art, as you wish preceive it, or loving microstock which is a business model / agency. Do you seriously say that you love fotolia / istock / ... whatever? You must be joking...
211
« on: July 23, 2011, 16:46 »
You can rant all you want but it's inevitable that this business model will eat itself for the photographers.
That's the spirit! I have never been able to wrap my mind around this type of hypocrisy. If that is how you feel, why are you participating? This subject has been covered so many times in so many ways but the root remains true. The need for current, high quality photographs will not go away. As the internet world continues to grow exponentially so does the need for relevant photographs.
What will happen in my opinion is that the cream will rise to the top and the days of mediocre photography will end soon. Lazy/passive photographers that only upload a couple hundred images every couple of years will struggle hard to find any success and will drop out.
Mat
"The need for current, high quality photographs will not go away." That's yada-yada, who said it will go away? It just won't grow while the stock database will. Have you ever heard of oversupply? It creates huge economic depressions. "As the internet world continues to grow exponentially so does the need for relevant photographs." Yeah... whatever more stuff on the net has to do with stock sales... ohh, actually it has. You want to know wthats one of the many things that make the internet grow? All those pics being uploaded every day to microstock sites : P That wishful-thinking mantra about an endlessly growing market is total nonsense. It reminds me of communist propaganda speeches about their countries economies outdoing it's previous year's performance two times every new year... face it: the # buyers is very limited indeed, while the # new pics that can be produced is unlimited. You basically expect a couple of graphic artists with workstations to spawn every time you press the exposure button. Dude, it's bullschitt : )
212
« on: July 23, 2011, 14:31 »
Let's hope his movement succeds and this business HAS TO move on to something bigger and better, from all I can see the photogs are impotent to do anything, so if this doesn't get a kick in the ass it will just go on like this untill sales dilute to nothin'. You can rant all you want but it's inevitable that this business model will eat itself for the photographers.
213
« on: July 20, 2011, 08:30 »
I'm not going to argue you with you on this point, you and I both know two of the worlds most successful stock photographers who's work wouldn't pass a microstock inspection and yet they outselll every microstocker that there is. ...
Who are they? Made me curious.
Superb! in their own rights, both commercially and quality. To spill their names wouldnt be fair.
Why? Being stock shooter is a pretty public thing.
214
« on: July 20, 2011, 07:51 »
I'm not going to argue you with you on this point, you and I both know two of the worlds most successful stock photographers who's work wouldn't pass a microstock inspection and yet they outselll every microstocker that there is. ...
Who are they? Made me curious.
215
« on: July 20, 2011, 07:19 »
nothin'. they are happy if they can get away with their lives : )
Indeed fear is the best motivator. Just scare the sheat out of them and they'll do anything for you 
They'r teen gals mostly, it's pretty easy to intimidate them : )))
nice attitude. remind me to remind my nieces about photographers like you....
yeah, I also beat them regularly, thats why they look so scared on the pics... I'm canon the barbarian ...lol you'r freakin' stupid, do you realize that? : )) unbeleivable... : )))
216
« on: July 16, 2011, 04:41 »
so how would someone become a reviewer? they ever post on craigslist or anything? It sounds like a pretty interesting job to me
You have to be a photographer first and a bloody good one at that.
Contrary to that, inspectors' galleries I'v seen were lined with piss poor shots. The funny part is that most of them were even technically piss poor too!
When i look at other people's photographs i always notice the good points.It's a posative approach that encourages my belief in creating beauty from my own camera ...If you do get the time please have a look at my lightbox via my istock account..:Inspectors Delight ".Not a piss poor shot in sight IMO.
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&lightboxID=6878823
Only looking at the 'nice points' is not positive it's just selective. Someone more critical might even say it's just simply ignorant. It will also not help you to improve, improvement comes from critrical thinking and critical observation.
217
« on: July 16, 2011, 03:31 »
so how would someone become a reviewer? they ever post on craigslist or anything? It sounds like a pretty interesting job to me
You have to be a photographer first and a bloody good one at that.
Contrary to that, inspectors' galleries I'v seen were lined with piss poor shots. The funny part is that most of them were even technically piss poor too!
218
« on: July 16, 2011, 03:25 »
what a bunch of dilettants istock is. btw they should just pay to licence shutterstock's submission applet, these braindead loosers will never-ever get it right on their own.
219
« on: July 15, 2011, 04:26 »
Never really anuderstood why ppl have endless questinarries and conversations about this. Go to a stocksite, type basic keywords for the subject you might want to shoot and arrange by popularity (donwload, whatever...) and check out the pics, thats what you need to do, and thats that. After all, a picture is worth a thousands words...
Imho the first most problematic part for most shooters starting out is resources like really attarctive models and nice locations, second is getting enough strobes + high quality lenses. The rest is pretty much self-explanatory from the pics.
220
« on: July 14, 2011, 06:59 »
nothin'. they are happy if they can get away with their lives : )
Indeed fear is the best motivator. Just scare the sheat out of them and they'll do anything for you
They'r teen gals mostly, it's pretty easy to intimidate them : )))
221
« on: July 14, 2011, 02:43 »
Sure, it's an awful concept. Obviously the sites can spare a lot of money this way, they just offer the job to ppl who they already know are cheapos anyway, and than you'll have a bunch dilettants reviewing images for a dime a piece. The worst case is istock, where the dilettant staff shamelessly hijacked the whole thing. If you think getty is bad for istock, what do you think of these admins-inspectors who play little mob bosses on 'their site', as if it was some sandbox for dumb and dumber?
1000% true. There might not be a Dreamstime or Shutterstock if IS reviewers had not rejected so many of the commercially viable images submitted to them. Then mocked and locked threads complaining about this.
It's not the locked threads that are really bothersome imho, but this: whenever I run into one of these lamers with inpsector badge on the forums, I do peek into their ports.... and voila! Junk pics that are badly out of focus, crippled by noise, camera shake... it's all there usually. It's not like someone lets thru shots that are just great but have some minor technical porblems, thats cool. These pics sucked as* and where technically very poor. : ) Submitted by some indep. a milder version of just one the issues I saw with those shots would mean instant rejection. I don't know if they are dumb enough to forget anyone can zoom in or just dont even care. Obvious mob anyway, should be removed asap.
222
« on: July 14, 2011, 02:29 »
I have an opinion on this matter.I shall post it tomorrow.I'm tired and emotional.I need to sleep !
Ohh, breaking news. When you wake up, don't forget to tell us what you intend to have for breakfast., and what are your feelings about that.
223
« on: July 11, 2011, 05:30 »
I think the winning formula would be food on a dirt bike.
maybe a baby seal eating strawberries with whipped cream, next to a bikini model holding a credit card and a laptop... all in the middle of a tulip field.
224
« on: July 08, 2011, 14:34 »
I hope the hype it up like hell, and the technomasturbators will be selling almost unused 5D mkIIs en masse.
225
« on: July 08, 2011, 14:14 »
I would expect, though, that some cycle will run its inevitable course and a new market will develop. What I think forces this is that the current microstocks have vastly too much cr@p - lousy, repetitious images loaded with spammed keywords - and going back through it now, to make real value judgements on 10s of millions of images, is prohibitively expensive. They're trying to force the junk to the rear of the search by all sorts of crazy tweaks to the search rules, "vetta" nonsense and so on - but they can't accomplish what they really need, and just get tied up in other knots. That huge collection of junk is just overwhelmig. Basically, they're hoarders, living in houses full of useless trash that they're unable to deal wth. This is where crowdsourcing eventually leads.
So there should be opportunity, at some point, for new sites that start fresh and are much more sophisticated about what they take in and how they index it - not to mention how they pay contributors.
ehh, there we go again... how do you expect images not to be repetitious when they have to as generic as possible to pile up $1 sales? You are cursing the microstock ports for the most basic attribute they need to have. As for being lousy and crap, well imho some of the bestsellers are utter crap as photography or just as 'visual content'. Most buyers have no taste whatsoever, I learned the being a graphic artist. The remember the very first studio I worked for, a pretty hyped up place with many awards ran by a former wunderkind student of the school I graduated from. He always said when insturctions came in: 'never to give into the clients bad taste or we will be swimming in an ocean a visual sheeitt sooner than you might think'. Well, there's no controll like that in microstock with totally uneducated inspectors only judging by technical merits... and it shows : /
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
