|
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 - donding
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 70
226
« on: May 14, 2011, 19:02 »
I'm almost to the point I don't want to mess with them any more. I just let what's there earn what it will. My % is at its lowest
227
« on: May 13, 2011, 11:39 »
I have used mpix and they do excellent work. I'm not sure about your question about password protected albums, but I'm sure you can research the site. If they offer albums for sharing, I am almost certain it can be password protected, that seems to be typical of all places.
It sounds a lot better. I would think it is password protected since you share albums. They have a Facebook page as well as a forum so I'll probably ask on there. I just hate to see them order a bunch of prints from that other place and they turn to crap. I'm going to try to convince her to go with Mpix.
228
« on: May 13, 2011, 10:25 »
I use Mpix for singles and WHCC for Mutiples..price wise. Both's quality is great.
The option to get the nicer paper for prints looks so much better at Mpix and I've only read good things about them. Shutterfly looks like it is a mail order Walmart. Mpix also has a Mpix Pro which looks like you have the option of printing on more profession paper and you can get 8X10 prints to you initially so they can show you the quality. Do you know if when you share these Albums they can be password protected?
229
« on: May 12, 2011, 21:14 »
"There has to be an easier way than riding the back of a now dead photographer."
Good point. So... how does this differ from images of almost anything except natural landscapes and model/property released images, ie most "Editorial" images? Are we "riding the back" of these artists or other subjects, whether dead or not. Examples include: statues, paintings, ice carvings, architecture, or unreleased images of people? Whether these are in public places or not is irrelevant IMO, we are still riding the back of others intellectual work or, in the case of unreleased people, their likeness. Yes, I understand the journalistic view and reportage of events etc, but many, if not most, editorial images I've seen in portfolios do not fall into this category.
In respect to There has to be an easier way; of course there is. I was not suggesting that we try and live of the income of a few rejuvenated editorial only images sold for pennies. There's lots of other photography to do.
"I think because the images are that old it's ok for you to use them however you like, even without putting any work into them. They should be in the public domain."
In a legal sense I suspect you are correct. But I was not suggesting simply turning around other's work. It's really about compensation for the considerable work undertaken in cleaning up and making an image useable in the public domain.
You can get by with a property release at shutterstock showing you are the owner of these images. Same thing goes with Big Stock. Now iStock and Dreamstime can be butts about it. I had some go through at iStock with just a property release and other ones that they wanted property release and a model release from two living descendants...lol All these were from the same batch and era. Dreamstime requires the same except they only require one heir...lol Mine sell on Shutterstock and the few that got through on iStock sell every now and then. None of the ones on Big Stock have ever sold and I didn't mess with Dreamstime over it.
230
« on: May 12, 2011, 21:06 »
I've gotta shot a wedding in September for ...of course...a family member and they were wanting me to upload the photos to shutterfly.com. I know nothing about this place and some of the reviews I've read said it takes a long time to upload to. Does anyone have any experience with them?
I was doing some research and came across Mpix.com and they look like they do some quality printing. Any one know of them?
Any advice here would be helpful.
231
« on: May 11, 2011, 11:05 »
I couldn't get it to open up last night. It seems ok to me today, but of course I just logged in too.
232
« on: May 09, 2011, 22:51 »
233
« on: May 09, 2011, 14:50 »
LOL...I don't even know what CSS is..tells you how much I know about it all.
234
« on: May 09, 2011, 12:23 »
If you're going to mess around with the hTML code I would suggest copy and pasting the original code into word...so if when you make changes it screws up you can always go back and copy the original code from word back into Zazzle.
235
« on: May 09, 2011, 12:14 »
I personally like the looks of the page...but that's just me...  I have my default % set at 30.5%.
236
« on: May 07, 2011, 09:47 »
I sometimes have sales every day with more than one, but mostly I have sales every other day. It's been normal for me.
237
« on: May 05, 2011, 10:36 »
That's a lot of problems with microstock...good selling images will eventually be copied by some one else. Some of them I am sure are innocent, but when you see it over and over in someones port, it pretty obviously that they are trying to copy the best sellers.
238
« on: May 05, 2011, 10:32 »
The number of the beast and the beast has to be fed.
All his profits would be eaten up by the beast and he would forever be stuck in debt...lol
239
« on: May 05, 2011, 10:28 »
I probably should bump up my files in future.
I just did a search for "solar panels" by resolution. Funnily enough mine was the largest one there with no TIFF. From that search th largest file with a TIFF was 29MP and from what I've gathered, it looks like the TIFFs for all are converted to double the size of the orginal jpeg.
I'll do a few more searches later when I have more time.
I have a 30.8MP file that does NOT have the TIFF offered - so it seems the cut off must be around 30MP...
Yes, you're right. I just did four more searches and the cutoff is exactly 30MP. So as long as we keep the file size under 30MP we get the TIFF. This makes my day because it means I no longer have to create two different sizes for different agents.
I didn't know that. I'm glad you pointed that out. It makes sense though. How do they handle the Raw files though? Do you know?
240
« on: May 05, 2011, 10:09 »
ROFL!!
Doomsday at Dreamstime
241
« on: May 04, 2011, 20:21 »
I have a D90 too, I dont see why to get the D7000 unless selling now the D90 a dont lose a few bucks.. why not waiting for the D800 that will be out in October?
I didn't even know they were coming out with the D800. I've still got my D200 and have been thinking of selling the D90. I've hardly used it and the reason being is I don't really like it. Have you had pretty good luck with the D90?
Luck? Arent we talking about Nikon? Love D90 (1 year almost with like 50k clicks perhaps) 
Isn't Nikon the best?  ......  I just can't seem to get the D90 set up the way I want it. One time it exposes right and the next it overexposes. I'm just so use to the D200 and the way it was set up. I'm just very frustrated with it.
242
« on: May 04, 2011, 18:57 »
I went from D200 to D7K, I've still shot less than 1000 frames but notice quite a big difference.
Better colours. Much better dynamic range - all kinds of detail in black regions that turn to muddy bubbles on D200.
I think I said this in another thread - HOLY CRAP IT'S FAST!!! All the same lenses, it focuses and fires instantly. A significant difference. Can't wait to shoot some soccer. One complaint I have heard about this camera is that the buffer is poor when shooting bursts. But -I shot in the hockey rink for a while and didn't experience a problem with burst.
The flash synch is supposed to be 1/350th too. Haven't tried that fast, but when shooting kids it will be handy, and where it will be most helpful is in daylight so you can use a wider fstop when adding fill.
I had posed dance photos a couple weeks back and every single jumping shot I took was sharp at 1/250th. With the D200 I found that maybe 1 in 4 leaping photos would be sharp. I barely missed anything with D7K thanks to it's reaction speed, with D200 I miss a lot when the girls fly across the setup - even when we mark it and count it out - you want to catch them at the peak of their jump and just a millisecond changes the whole photo. The D200 was just not reacting fast enough, and here I thought it was me. This new body is like lightning.
The buttons are a bit quirky on the back but you just have to get used to them.
I've shot a few clips but haven't even put the software on my computer yet, so have no idea how the video looks.
You have to invest in SD cards. Class 6 or above or the video will drop frames.
There were a lot of years between these 2 bodies, so maybe I'm not the best one to compare them because I missed all the advancements along the way. I have to say that I am very pleased though.
I'm off this weekend to shoot a grad and then have 450 soccer kids when I get back. LOL, I might have a different opinion by the end of May when I have used it a little.
That's a lot of what I've been reading on the internet. I to had missed a lot of shots with the D200...which I also just thought it was me...that's good to know it wasn't just me...lol. A lot of the reviews I've read refer to it as Nikon's "best ever" DX camera. I haven't heard to much negative about it except the burst problems reported by some, as you mentioned. I had to purchase SD cards for the D90 so I got that covered. I've read it takes a different battery also. It just sounds better all the way around.
243
« on: May 04, 2011, 18:00 »
A lot of the Getty photographers are traditional macro stock photographers aren't they? Being put on a microstock site would be considered a insult to a traditional photographer. I can understand why they would be upset.
244
« on: May 04, 2011, 17:55 »
I have a D90 too, I dont see why to get the D7000 unless selling now the D90 a dont lose a few bucks.. why not waiting for the D800 that will be out in October?
I didn't even know they were coming out with the D800. I've still got my D200 and have been thinking of selling the D90. I've hardly used it and the reason being is I don't really like it. Have you had pretty good luck with the D90?
245
« on: May 04, 2011, 17:40 »
Anyone got their hands on the Nikon D7000 yet? I recently got the D90 and really don't care for it and am thinking of going for the D7000. If you've got it...what do you think about it. The reviews I've read are very good and most of the sites are sold out and back ordered..
246
« on: May 04, 2011, 17:04 »
Risamay posted this link into another thread but I thought it needed it's own thread.
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/ASMP-to-Getty-Photog-2608.shtml
Very interesting information in there.
The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) has released a memo that all but advises Getty contributors to quit the agency and find other ways to distribute their stock photographs if they can. American Photographic Artists (APA), meanwhile, has issued a veiled threat of legal action against the stock photo agency.
This was posted today on the PDN website [/quote] I hope they follow through! [/quote] I hope they do also....if they do it might make iStock take a closer look at the treatment of their contributors.
247
« on: May 04, 2011, 16:29 »
Risamay posted this link into another thread but I thought it needed it's own thread. http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/ASMP-to-Getty-Photog-2608.shtmlVery interesting information in there. [/quote] The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) has released a memo that all but advises Getty contributors to quit the agency and find other ways to distribute their stock photographs if they can. American Photographic Artists (APA), meanwhile, has issued a veiled threat of legal action against the stock photo agency. [/quote] This was posted today on the PDN website
248
« on: May 04, 2011, 16:23 »
I'm going to start a new thread about this. Memos and "a veiled threat of legal action" against Getty. Interesting reading!
The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) has released a memo that all but advises Getty contributors to quit the agency and find other ways to distribute their stock photographs if they can. American Photographic Artists (APA), meanwhile, has issued a veiled threat of legal action against the stock photo agency.
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/ASMP-to-Getty-Photog-2608.shtml
249
« on: May 04, 2011, 13:44 »
Memos and "a veiled threat of legal action" against Getty. Interesting reading!
The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) has released a memo that all but advises Getty contributors to quit the agency and find other ways to distribute their stock photographs if they can. American Photographic Artists (APA), meanwhile, has issued a veiled threat of legal action against the stock photo agency.
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/ASMP-to-Getty-Photog-2608.shtml
If legal action is brought against Getty...maybe iStock will think twice about it's treatment of contributors.
250
« on: May 03, 2011, 17:01 »
A very wise man's words:
I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
Amen to that...
Apparently he never said that, it's a fake
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/out-of-osamas-death-a-fake-quotation-is-born/238220/
Heh I still like the saying rather it was said by Martin Luther King or not...  Actually I didn't even notice who said it.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 70
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
