|
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 - bunhill
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 62
226
« on: February 14, 2015, 05:37 »
I remember ads with fish jumping out of fishbowls from waaaaay before the days of iStock. "A fish out of water" is an old idiom. There's nothing new under the sun.
It would be great if you could dig up a specific example done in that style. Because I can picture it in my mind - I think I have seen it - but I cannot find an example. Which makes me wonder whether I am mis-remembering.
227
« on: February 14, 2015, 05:11 »
Was fish jumping from a bowl a clich until people starting stealing the concept ? I would love to know who came up with that first.
Interesting question. The first person I remember getting big sales with versions of that was Lise Gagne on IS.
That is also how I remember it. (I also have the impression that there is a whole look and feel which either started with her -- or certainly that was the first place I saw it). Back to the fish - I think that there may have been some either British or European (possibly cigarette) advertising in the 70s or 80s which might have used this concept or something similar. Possibly from whichever agency was behind the surrealistic stuff which Benson & Hedges and Silk Cut were using in that era. I might not be exactly right but I think I am in the right area. Maybe Shelma1 would know.
228
« on: February 13, 2015, 10:25 »
What about cliches? The concepts that everyone does?
The business handshake, the flag on face, the fish from the bowl, etc, stuff that has been around for years and years?
Was fish jumping from a bowl a clich until people starting stealing the concept ? I would love to know who came up with that first. I never saw the face flag overlay thing done as a complete series before duncan1890 did it at iStock before the 2006 World Cup. I reckon that most people doing those today were either directly or indirectly inspired by his work (actual paint on faces is obviously a sport fan thing and is very different). Early handshake stock: 
229
« on: February 10, 2015, 08:35 »
744,917 sunset photos. I wonder whether the world has enough sunset pictures yet.
230
« on: February 05, 2015, 15:12 »
Unless the VAT issue is addressed (or unless EU clients are specifically blocked) this is not a viable platform for anyone.
231
« on: February 05, 2015, 09:21 »
The lens is supposed to be sharp corner to corner. It was taken 125 iso.
Yes but the lens is wide open and, more importantly, you are focused relatively close. So that means a very narrow depth of focus. Even with the tiny sensor. And the subject matter is not all in one plane - so some is in focus and some is on the edge of focus. Also - lenses are seldom sharp corner to corner wide open. ETA: I realise that I am talking about focus when this is actually about sharpness.
232
« on: February 05, 2015, 07:23 »
You could post a full size image to dropbox and add a link here ?
+ if you save your processing (all steps) from RAW as a new preset you can export that as a .lrtemplate file - which is in a plain text format. That way you can quickly share the processing which will probably help people work out what you are getting wrong.
233
« on: February 05, 2015, 05:25 »
@NorArt - does FocalPool handle the administration of VAT ? This has become a big issue for independent suppliers - since anyone doing business with EU clients is now required to charge and administer VAT at the various different rates on electronic goods and services. And the customers need to be able to show the accounting.
234
« on: February 04, 2015, 07:21 »
They're either selling 5-year licenses as RF They are not selling 5 year licenses as RF. The 5 year licenses are not RF by definition - and underneath each image it says - " or choose a royalty-free license" / " or choose a rights-managed license" - respectively, depending upon how the image has primarily been offered. But let's be 100% clear. Content which is primarily (only) listed as RM is not also being sold RF. It is only that content sold as RF is also available via a less costly prt--porter 5 year licence - which is therefore RM, by definition. or they are selling images as both RM and RF at the same time, which is something they used to say could never happen.
I did not know that they had ever specifically said this. I know that they have said that content which is being sold as RF elsewhere cannot be primarily listed as RM with them. And that makes sense because it protects the RM customer. And - RM content is not being sold RF. I do not believe that there is any discrepancy apart from that the contributor accounting page says "royalty free" - somewhat ambiguously referring to the original listing of the image rather than the specific license.
235
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:49 »
Yes they are, it's in the sales report
In the contributor accounting. But they are not selling 5 year licenses as RF, are they ? (The 5 year license, by definition, is not RF.) I am sure that 'Royalty Free' in your contributor accounting is a reference to the fact that the image has primarily been offered as RF. But the accounting page has become somewhat ambiguous because the 5 year license actually isn't RF. ie the accounting page has not been updated since the time when images offered as RF were only offered as RF. All of my content at Alamy is RM only. I have sold 5 year licenses and even in the accounting these all show as Rights Managed. Not RF.
236
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:07 »
My guess is that they are calling the five-year licenses RF because it is against their rules for the same image to be offered both RF and RM
Where are they calling the 5 years licenses RF ? I do not believe that they are. Images which are primarily offered under RM are only being offered under RM (including simple off-the-peg 5 year licenses). Images offered under RF are also available under various more specific 5 year (off-the-peg RM) licenses.
237
« on: February 02, 2015, 13:47 »
I have a router running openwrt and need to execute a huge file. (Huge in prop. To the internal storage). I need this router running linux to downlaod the file if it fonds it on the camera and run it
I do not believe that you are going to be able to do this using ptp. Some cameras (eg Nikon) allow you to configure the settings such that the camera is seen as just another drive. Depending on what it is you are trying to achieve, I think that you might be better addressing this question to stackexchange. None of my business and I hope you don't mind me asking - but why are you trying to do this ?
238
« on: February 02, 2015, 10:38 »
i do have a sd card reader, but thats not what i need.. i need to be able to download that file while the card is inside the camera.. thats the Whole point of this question.. 
If you explain why you need to do that I can probably help you with what you are trying to do. Maybe link to the instructions which you are following. What are you trying to achieve ? ETA: have you tried using MSC instead of PTP ?
239
« on: February 02, 2015, 09:43 »
At some other agencies that got bitten by the "I want to be Shutterstock" bug, like Dreamstime, subscriptions ate into credit sales and reduced overall earnings (their level system notwithstanding).
Tech investors currently love SaaS (Software as a Service) - stock subscription is more or less the same business. Recurring subscription can typically mean higher valuations even on potentially smaller revenues. Especially at the moment - because it's the current thing. Subs may well be about preparing Getty for an IPO exit if and when the market and the business are in sync.
240
« on: February 02, 2015, 05:53 »
Use a USB SD card reader instead of the camera. Eg - something like this sort of thing
241
« on: January 31, 2015, 18:28 »
I must say that I am flabbergasted that they impose a tax on non-taxable income just for not filling in a bloody form.
Render unto Caesar etc heh !
242
« on: January 31, 2015, 18:26 »
I will be studying the statements carefully to check that they stick to it.
243
« on: January 31, 2015, 18:12 »
"What happens if I don't do the Tax Interview?
You will be subject to maximum withholding tax."
So I'm not going to bother since there is no relevant tax treaty between Qatar and the US, I'll end up with 30% tax on all US-based sales regardless of whether I waste my time filling in the form or not.
It is to your advantage to complete the interview. This is the explanation: I am also tax resident in a non-treaty jurisdiction. According to Lobo: if we (people like you and I) do not fill in the tax interview then we will be subject to 30% withholding on US sales and 28% on everything else. If we complete the interview we will only be subject to US tax on US sales. PS - You have to remember that part of the purpose of the interview (from the US govt perspective) is to identify US citizens living abroad. US citizens are subject to US tax wherever they live. Completing the interview is therefore also about identifying yourself as not being a US citizen. Here is Lobo's post in which this issue is specifically addressed:Even if youre not in a treaty country its still extremely beneficial to you to complete a US tax form via our tax interview.
If you do not complete the interview your payments will be taxed at 30% for US sales and 28% for non US sales.
If you complete the tax interview, but are not in a treaty country, your payments will be taxed at 30% for US sales and 0% for non US sales.
244
« on: January 29, 2015, 13:48 »
Bunhil, thanks for the link, I know it, not many people on A. forum and that's why I asked here... 
Not sure what the rolleyes is for - since I was trying to be helpful. I assumed that you did not realise that there is an Alamy forum where any technical issues are invariably quickly highlighted. Also a good place to ask.
245
« on: January 29, 2015, 11:30 »
246
« on: January 28, 2015, 12:17 »
If this was a poll we could vote on whether they really are hilarious or not. I would vote not.
(I don't find clowns funny either)
247
« on: January 22, 2015, 11:15 »
Interesting bunhill that you clean the sensor every lens change, and I've never really cleaned mine apart from the odd blow out
Illuminated loupe makes it trivial matter. I just do it as a matter of course. Like checking the film gate for hairs when changing a roll.
248
« on: January 22, 2015, 07:44 »
Last time (in 2014) they cleaned my camera (not only the sensor!) they charged ca. 35 Euro.
Have you watched them do the cleaning and seen what the rest of the clean involves - apart from the sensor ? My bet would be a cursory once-over with a mini-vacuum cleaner. Anyhow - it would typically cost me over 100 per week to keep my sensor clean at those rates. That's why I think that knowing how to clean the sensor, under all circumstances, is a basic skill worth learning. Especially if you end up needing to do it at short notice for a job. I am surprised that some people only get these things cleaned occasionally. They must either be shooting with a wide aperture or else spending ages spotting skies.
250
« on: January 21, 2015, 14:18 »
Don't try to get rid of these yourself, you'll make if worse.
I clean mine any time the lens has been off. It's easy.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 62
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
