|
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 - topol
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 20
226
« on: April 01, 2014, 18:17 »
227
« on: April 01, 2014, 18:08 »
@all
yep...200 photos of Tokio must be enough!!
Its one city - so every batch with more than 200 images must have duplicates / similars , right??
Why not restrict on lets say 10 images per gender?
If you have seen one portrait you have seen them all.
One photo is enough for everything, all photos are taken on Earth and are similars for being closeups of this one:
Don't you see how absurd is to compare a collection of portraits from a single theme event to a whole city, a gender or the whole portrait category?
If the resolution is high enough, including the dimension of time, that's all we ever need 
228
« on: April 01, 2014, 07:45 »
You are a very arrogant individual, one who infers that he/she is far more educated and experienced than the masses who choose to be a part of this forum...
Yes, out loud: I am actually 100% sure of that. Last time I checked this wasn't exactly a high art academy board. But you are welcome, raise your hands: how many have taken years of classical/contemporary/applied art classes, drawn/painted hundreds of portraits, figures, nudes, done posters, billboards, annuals, you name it, anything since photoshop (and the rest) 1.0? Of course this is arrogance to you, what else could you say. . You make COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED statements in here that we are all STUPID, yet you are the mighty engine of success. Your rhetoric essentially states that if we micro stock contributors had your level of expertise, we'd all be successful. Have you returned from fantasyland yet?
What does this delusional rant has to do with my posts? Did I say anything about success in micro or it's relation to expertise in art? You don't need any of that to be successful in micro... and yes I insist: running around claiming that these things like a balancing elephant montage or a handshake shot is his/her idea to be safeguarded from concept thievery, does make them look extremely stupid * 100000000000... but that's not everybody. I'm sure there are many people here that get same amount of laughs out of these originality claims in micro. Here are some caps from me too : It's STUPID Just check SS forums, people going in there all up in arms about their "idea getting stolen" then others just keep posting the link after link after of "his idea" often from decades ago. How can someone be that stupid? Quite amazing.
229
« on: April 01, 2014, 02:07 »
Ok then I bet Nobody had copied THIS idea!
do 500 -800 of these and there you go, Bobs Your Uncle!
That's not even an idea. Every second family album since the 60s' may have a similar snapshot. Any shot you might see in microstock is a regurgitation of something that has been done to death decades ago in ads or hundreds of years ago in art, it's just that most microstockers are way too uneducated to realize it. Their claims of others stealing their nonexisting ideas just makes them look like a stupid rube in the eyes of anyone with just a minimal art education....
Your stupid posts make me laugh.
I see I hit the nail on the head with that post...
Oh you silly boy.
It was such a perfectly unnecessary (=butthurt) reply by you, I just couldn't resist pointing out...
230
« on: April 01, 2014, 02:04 »
Any shot you might see in microstock is a regurgitation of something that has been done to death decades ago in ads or hundreds of years ago in art,  And you believe this?
It's hardly a question of belief. Not everyone comes to microstock photography from burger flippin' you know. I know this will inevitably sound snobbish but to clear things up: my father is painter and I'v been an art director for a decade, art major from a pretty elite university. When I'v been browsing stock as a buyer for years I don't think I ever seen anything original with some rare exception, which was usually something pretty nonsensical. Read a few (many) art/art history books, ad awards publications, annuals & get a clue.
231
« on: April 01, 2014, 01:56 »
I had a sale there last year.
233
« on: March 31, 2014, 14:23 »
Ok then I bet Nobody had copied THIS idea!
do 500 -800 of these and there you go, Bobs Your Uncle!
That's not even an idea. Every second family album since the 60s' may have a similar snapshot. Any shot you might see in microstock is a regurgitation of something that has been done to death decades ago in ads or hundreds of years ago in art, it's just that most microstockers are way too uneducated to realize it. Their claims of others stealing their nonexisting ideas just makes them look like a stupid rube in the eyes of anyone with just a minimal art education....
Your stupid posts make me laugh.
I see I hit the nail on the head with that post...
234
« on: March 31, 2014, 13:18 »
Ok then I bet Nobody had copied THIS idea!
do 500 -800 of these and there you go, Bobs Your Uncle!
That's not even an idea. Every second family album since the 60s' may have a similar snapshot. Any shot you might see in microstock is a regurgitation of something that has been done to death decades ago in ads or hundreds of years ago in art, it's just that most microstockers are way too uneducated to realize it. Their claims of others stealing their nonexisting ideas just makes them look like a stupid rube in the eyes of anyone with just a minimal art education....
235
« on: March 31, 2014, 04:26 »
Shoot 300-500 of these and Blam Bobs your uncle!
ohh, this is one of those brilliantly original shots that microstockers fear someone may start to copy  this and happy smiling beautiful people... don't post those people, someone will steal the idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
236
« on: March 30, 2014, 18:28 »
I have a few photos that get downloaded every day, some even multiple times every single day. They get downloaded without fail, even on weekends. I get in a panic when I don't see them sell by noon. If I were somehow good enough to create 500 of those, I would easily make $3K a month. You'd really not even need that many. $3k a month is probably 150-200 downloads a day after throwing in OD, ELs and SODs that would naturally come with that many sales.
Unfortunately, I'm not good enough, but I have no doubt there are people out there who are.
You can't just have a go and purposely create a guaranteed super-seller, because very often the most mediocre, unremarkable shots become the best sellers. beautiful shiny near perfectly executed stocky stuff will generally sell ok, but the mentioned before kind of shots often leave them in the dust.
237
« on: March 28, 2014, 03:48 »
Why are people so amazed? Living under a rock? There are places where people literally work for a few handfuls of rice/day. They usually make some of the clothes you wear.
238
« on: March 28, 2014, 03:40 »
Is it even possible to make that much from 500-800 photos on SS? At all?
I know vector artists do better with less, but that's still a stretch for so few files. More power to them if they can manage it though.
Obviously not possible, but there always are virtual babies who believe any bs. Maybe several years ago...
239
« on: March 26, 2014, 12:06 »
Yep that's one of the problems with this business model, it lets basically useless sites linger around forever. They take some of your time and energy with some stick & carrot thing, than you just ignore and forget them... and all that wouldn't be a much of a problem, but the next thing you hear is that they suddenly come up with the idea of giving away your stuff almost free.
240
« on: March 26, 2014, 11:59 »
starting to look like the istock they love to hate, people swapping places, site goin' nowhere...
241
« on: March 12, 2014, 01:41 »
It's not a technology thing: bad taste got even worse.
242
« on: March 09, 2014, 18:25 »
I have like 1100 images on SS. Again today they have downloaded another like 25 images. I'm just concerned about two things
1. What SS thinks, i don't want them to think I am doing something dodgy which I'm not.
2. What exactly are they going to do with all of these images? My port isn't that varied its just people on white.
Boring and unimaginative. However, stock is just a hobby for me.
I have some sweetie-type-prettydarn-hot models, I noticed time to time some people tend fall in love with some of them (one in particular) and go on a download rampage of her pics. Probably some lonely peon who knows there's to-be-wasted reserves in their subscription and his time... and porn gets boring... and khhmmm.... you know......
or maybe they are setting up a fake facebook profile and needs some photos of 'themselves'... or maybe I've been watching too much catfish
That too, my fav model has been 'entered' into playboy miss social contest, with only two letters changed in her real name... profiles both on g+ and facebook. The creep even took some of her friends & party type photos from facebook.
243
« on: March 09, 2014, 14:16 »
I have like 1100 images on SS. Again today they have downloaded another like 25 images. I'm just concerned about two things
1. What SS thinks, i don't want them to think I am doing something dodgy which I'm not.
2. What exactly are they going to do with all of these images? My port isn't that varied its just people on white.
Boring and unimaginative. However, stock is just a hobby for me.
I have some sweetie-type-prettydarn-hot models, I noticed time to time some people tend fall in love with some of them (one in particular) and go on a download rampage of her pics. Probably some lonely peon who knows there's to-be-wasted reserves in their subscription and his time... and porn gets boring... and khhmmm.... you know......
244
« on: March 09, 2014, 14:03 »
it's not that photographers are de-valuing their work -- the world has changed. when creating stock was time consuming and expensive (physically mailing slides to customers, so that only a handful could see them at a time), simple stock images could command $100 or much more. digital stock changed that -- you could then buy a cd with 100 images for that price!
it's not that the images are worth less , rather too many photographers still believe their images had that value in the first place; forgetting it was the process, not any intrinsic value in the image.
technology, not microstock agencies, has torn the innards out of the photography business -- agencies, flicker, getty et al are merely RE-ACTING to the reality that photos ARE now a commodity.
so photographers need to decide which path to take -- find the few remaining areas where individual photographers can still command a livable sum; or find ways to make money in this new world.
Assignments, Prints, Exhibitions, that's where the money is.
true -- but how many of the thousands of microstockers can even attempt that?
Assigments & co. will provide enough work for about 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of people bit more involved wih photography
245
« on: March 09, 2014, 14:01 »
I think contributors will see income from the ad revenue generated by images in the embed viewer.
Working that crystal ball in the dark again? Where do you get this "I think" from. Any shred of evidence? Or you just want to believe in something that I think will never happen.
Now who's I think has more credibility? (possibly neither) But we don't know!
Did you read Sean's article and all the loopholes and conditions and vague limitations? It's obvious by the terms that imbedded ads will be added at some date. (I think?)
As for data collection, from IS or other sites? Nice try, who cares. All sites do that and they have no obligation to share it.
Well, he didn't say when, or how much... in an infinite universe, in infinite time, anything will happen sooner or later.
20%, when they start monetizing it.
"There are multiple statements from people in positions to make them along with more information on the Getty website (if you are a Getty contributor you can go there and see more details). You can look a couple posts up and see the link ShadySue posted. jjneff posted a quote from Lobo. "
http://pdnpulse.pdnonline.com/2014/03/gettys-greg-peters-on-why-free-images-are-good-for-photographers-and-for-the-photo-industry.html
that's a percentage, not an amount. I will give you 20% of my earnings from driving racecars.... I have no hands.
246
« on: March 09, 2014, 10:26 »
I think contributors will see income from the ad revenue generated by images in the embed viewer.
Working that crystal ball in the dark again? Where do you get this "I think" from. Any shred of evidence? Or you just want to believe in something that I think will never happen.
Now who's I think has more credibility? (possibly neither) But we don't know!
Did you read Sean's article and all the loopholes and conditions and vague limitations? It's obvious by the terms that imbedded ads will be added at some date. (I think?)
As for data collection, from IS or other sites? Nice try, who cares. All sites do that and they have no obligation to share it.
Well, he didn't say when, or how much... in an infinite universe, in infinite time, anything will happen sooner or later.
247
« on: March 08, 2014, 04:57 »
The picfair letter misses the entire point.
Getty is shifting their business model in a very drastic way. It is not about licensing images.
They are using high quality professionally produced images and handing them out for free to millions of unregistered users to build a data mining and advertising network on the back of our files.
And they dont even have a plan how to really monetise that network, they admit that freely.
Getty right now is in the business of selling itself (again). In the next 6 - 12 months, maybe 18 months max.
They need to create buzz, they need to create a "story". That is why they also partnered with eyem.
The whatsapp deal (20 Billion dollars for a start up with 50 people) has made many people hot for easy dollars. Fair enough.
Data mining and Google adwords type revenue is the big thing in investing trends today. Like the internet bubble 10 years ago.
Somebody compared Carlyle and investors to selling business like they flip burgers and it is true. It doesnt really matter what the company does. It just has to look attractive to the investor community.
Getty was last sold for 3.3 billion. But they havent been able to grow their revenue from licensing images. It is stuck at around 870 million (?) from the last report Carlyle published. They also have 1.6 billion in debt.
So how can the owners demand more money? How can they upsell?
By adding something modern, cool and trendy.
The embedded viewer, data mining and advertising prospects, plus eyem sounds like a very good mix.
Throwing out high quality images for free will of course get them spread out by the millions.
I wonder what profit they are shooting for? Can they sell Getty for 5 billion? 10 Billion?
Why would you care about licensing images if you can make a few BILLION dollars in the coming months from selling Getty?
And the deal only works because of the very high quality files they are throwing around, encouraging unregistered users to post them everywhere.
The competition can probably sue Getty for unfair business practises because the market with bloggers might be ruined by the free files. The other agencies cannot compete with free.
But a clever lawyer representing the artist should go for the billions of profits when Getty is sold and the data mining and advertising revenue.
The business model has been changed completely and the artist did not send the content to Getty so that they can make millions from "promotional use" without paying us.
Any kind of use of our files that makes money is revenue created by the images and should be shared according to the royalty percentage we signed up for.
Yep, it's the continuation of the IPO hype method to sell/flip mediocre crap waay overpriced,the apple marketing model. They are not 'building a data mining and adverstising network', that's just BS, they are just handing out links. Data mining is crawlers, high class Db and SQL, it shows you how layman are clueless about these terms.... and what advertising networks? How? They gonna suddenly, heeyy, surprise, change the illustrative images to ad-banners from paying advertisers?? They are not building anything, but they might fool some the more naive old folk who just don't get this whole 'internets' thing.
248
« on: March 06, 2014, 16:03 »
The usual bleak, depressing, sterile peon-hub.
Notice how the big money class that creates these for the peons, shoves it down their throat by everyone having to be amazed at how grand and stylish making the absolut minimum to create a spece for humans is... but they themselves never-ever live like that? Their homes are always old style luxury, warm, homey ancien rgime lush feel. (or they just plain and simple buy chateaus)
249
« on: March 06, 2014, 11:47 »
... go through the motions of putting the viewer on his/her site, deciding it looks like crap, and then saying, but I still really like that image and to buy it would only be a few dollars. ...
Considering how people weren't even bothered by large watermarks all across the image they used, this is unlikely
250
« on: March 04, 2014, 09:39 »
If IS and it's contributors hope that this will bring a large increase in volume to compensate, this will end in an ocean of tears. People, customers forming the markets are so far from being that rational, it's almost funny - there have always been sites as cheap or even cheaper than SS, and they hardly grown, just stagnated, or even went out of business. People are more likely to be creatures of habit.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
