|
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 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15
226
« on: July 08, 2011, 13:59 »
Yes, yes, we've already gone over that. If it was so simple, newbs wouldn't come rushing in here after getting a dslr looking for step by step instructions.
I still don't get it: what being at the level of 'reading my first dslr manual ever' has to do with some kind of inner sanctum microstock secret?
227
« on: July 08, 2011, 02:58 »
What do you think?
I think... actually not just think, but know, that quite a few micro contribs are pathetic liars when comes 'how great' the business is for them. It's the usual saving face effect when someone points out: it seems to be that they pretty much got owned. It's like boys at the end highschool when it comes to how many gals they'v had : )) Divide by 3 or 4... or move one decimal sometimes... or just ignore the whole thing : )))
228
« on: July 04, 2011, 09:22 »
Btw, dealing in large numbers means most of the clients are 'the plebs', and the plebs has no taste whatsoever... what do they like to consume in large quantities? Jerry Springer, cheeseburger, big gulp cola...
I always love reading about the disdain some people have for the customers  . Always makes me wonder why you contribute to microstock.
Ppl should only deal business with ones they respect? Yeah thats what capitalism is all about, just look around : ) The whole world would stop.
229
« on: July 04, 2011, 06:09 »
letting the crowd kick the doors down is an awful mistake. Leads to chaos eventually and nothing else, and in the end the dumb crowd that wanted to get rid of that * door will be whining the most about the cesspool they created for themselves. Of course the world is indeed full of idiots who think 'kicking the door down' is democracy and freedom... it's none of that. It's ochlocracy.
230
« on: July 04, 2011, 03:01 »
"The differentiators for success are as follows: highly distinctive imagery reflecting a clear and compelling aesthetic vision, marketing savvy, sharp business skills, adaptability and persistence. Todays professional photographer must deliver nothing less. BJP" if they wrote that for microstock, it's total bullsh*t. I can't beleive there still are people in the world stuck at that banal nonsense level. A big portion of the bestsellers are simply repulsive junk aesthetically, visually or even conceptually, and theres nothing distictive about them: they could have come from hundreds of phtotgraphers. If the name wasn't there, most of the time the only way you could recognize them is from the models. Btw, dealing in large numbers means most of the clients are 'the plebs', and the plebs has no taste whatsoever... what do they like to consume in large quantities? Jerry Springer, cheeseburger, big gulp cola...
231
« on: July 03, 2011, 17:00 »
What secrets? Someone really needs some harry potter magic book to manage floodlighting people (or anything) on white background or to choose attractive friendly-faced models?... *... must be a joke. If someone is so confused about reading the lighting from a pic f.e., just zoom on the model's eye. Many photogs don't have the resources to produce some of the best selling stuff, that is the problem for most, there are no secrets.
If it were so easy, we wouldn't have people who just bought their camera coming in here looking for step by step guides to the easy-micro-life they imagine.
Give your knowledge and experience some value, eh?
There are ppl who need a manual and several warnings about temperautre for a McDonalds apple pie, so what, that deosn't mean it's a secret, just that they'r stupid.
232
« on: July 03, 2011, 03:39 »
How many complaints, how long did it take for them to produce a goddam price filter? Like half a year? Thats an insult in itself, too late.
I was thinking that myself, the price filter should have been implemented such along time ago. It probably wasn't, as they probably wanted to push more expensive images. It's probably only been implemented now because they realize that it's beneficial to them to have it, as maybe they have realised they have scared off too many customers (more than they anticipated) who see high priced images pushed to the front. Lots of probablies in my sentences here, as I can only speculate. Buyers who have recently switched to other microstock sites, probably won't be aware of the price filter and even if they are, may well be unwilling to switch back, especially if they are happy with the other site or sites they have chosen.
Well, if you sh*t on your buyers for months, they aren't gonna come flying back just because you suddenly corrected something. They obviously refused to do this since it's not a task that would be considered a challenge for a pro coder. I had some support for IS in the past because they seemed to be demanding more for images instead of selling out for pennies, but with 12 and 8 cent commissions that crap, isn't it? ...not to mention the moblike staff : )
233
« on: July 03, 2011, 03:31 »
What secrets? Someone really needs some harry potter magic book to manage floodlighting people (or anything) on white background or to choose attractive friendly-faced models?... *... must be a joke. If someone is so confused about reading the lighting from a pic f.e., just zoom on the model's eye. Many photogs don't have the resources to produce some of the best selling stuff, that is the problem for most, there are no secrets.
234
« on: July 03, 2011, 02:56 »
How many complaints, how long did it take for them to produce a goddam price filter? Like half a year? Thats an insult in itself, too late.
235
« on: July 02, 2011, 09:44 »
Almost all of the creative imagery I have ever tried to upload got rejected for 'not suitable for stock' or something similar (of course much of my artwork gets funny looks from the art geeks, as well).
...Because it really does get boring making photos that look like an example in Kodak's old "Taking Better Pictures" guide.
IDK, food for thought. I found the path this thread deviated onto interesting.
Therefore I started my own Project, I simply got terribly bored ... www.artshader.com
Are you sure you actually started it? 
236
« on: July 02, 2011, 04:26 »
... photos that look like an example in Kodak's old "Taking Better Pictures" guide....
They are generally far too overexposed for that. : )
237
« on: June 30, 2011, 07:38 »
Must be the number of keywords that led to a download relative to the total number of keywords . I think this model is more adapted to the agencies using CV . The problem is I'm already seeing images on top of 1st pages for some terms that are obviously keyword spammed . So for now it looks more like a lottery search . Let's see what the sales show the next couple of months
what do you define spamming? I have quite a few shots of teens, who are very obviously not women but young teens, but always I do insert "woman" a... and voila, they have been downloaded for "woman" again and again.
238
« on: June 30, 2011, 04:22 »
Maybe unrelated to your subject but I did notice that "Most Sales" is not necessarily "Most Popular" on SS. It seems their "Most Popular" is based on a ratio of Sales to Views?
Not sure but do see that a new image makes it to the front of Most Popular as soon as the first time it sells.
Maybe somethng like that + it has relevancy for a kinda short and recent time period. I have handful of pictures in the first lines for young brunette with most popular, none of them are spectacular sellers at all, they just do ok imho. I also suspect that viewsa have more effect on it, ergo there's a lot of ppl looikng at them but fewer buying.
239
« on: June 29, 2011, 12:00 »
The last thing I want is to look sycophantic towards any agency (I basically at least mildly dislike any of them) but when I checked these threads on SS, and took a look at the ports of ppl with many complaints, they did look pretty novice-yyy to be honest. Inapt models, grayish skin especially at 'on white' isolations, dull contrast even by regular standards, dull subjects, etcetc...
And those are the ones that were accepted, right? Maybe those should be deleted rather than rejecting my "fabulous" images. 
Maybe there is honeymoon with that too... but I do agree it's inconsistant
240
« on: June 29, 2011, 10:50 »
The last thing I want is to look sycophantic towards any agency (I basically at least mildly dislike any of them) but when I checked these threads on SS, and took a look at the ports of ppl with many complaints, they did look pretty novice-yyy to be honest. Inapt models, grayish skin especially at 'on white' isolations, dull contrast even by regular standards, dull subjects, etcetc...
241
« on: June 26, 2011, 07:55 »
It's stuff like this that keeps pushing me closer to just not bothering to help or share knowledge anymore.
It always makes me giggle a bit when some of the basically noname amateur photographers in microstock expect the red carpet to roll out for them, because they sold many pictures somewhere : )) Face it dudes and dudettes, teen starcraft shoutcasters are known by 'bout 10000 times more ppl then these guys who started with reading their forst DLSR's manual something like 6 years ago.
242
« on: June 26, 2011, 07:45 »
I always thought it was some silly little girl, with legs up on the desk, filing her nails, chewing gum and the odd weed puff, hence the weird inspections. Ten hours later she is so dizzy from all the garbage shes been watching that for the next ten hours, everything is accepted.
Might be closer to the truth then most would think : ))
243
« on: June 26, 2011, 04:52 »
pretty much the same applies
244
« on: June 26, 2011, 03:45 »
^^Now ur exaggerating;). There are a few "women with butterfly-fairy wings, and other 'flowig' stuff on their backs or birdies flying arouns them f.e.", but they represent a very small percentage. Of course everyone has a different view of uniqueness (which she is, I can't find a similar port at any MS agency), I'm curious to know what or who you find interesting (not challenging you or trying to prove you wrong, I'm just genuinely interested;)
ohh you gotta be joking again. fairy women (or men) with wings a rare unique image? Women with flowing stuff + textures + lots of PP is just a current overcrowded fashion in image theme, deviantart is swimming in it. I like this. It's not super original because he is inspired by paintings, but very few ppl do stuff like this imho. http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevsyd/
245
« on: June 26, 2011, 03:04 »
His "pathetic" percentage (Laflor) is 40%. not that bad if you ask me.
And with all due respect to Yuri's work, he is no longer unique and has many clones today that don't fall from his quality IMO.
Has ever been anything even slightly unique about Yuri's work? It's as generic as it gets. The ligthing 'style' hardly changed an inch in like 7 years or smthng, and it's almost exactly the same lighting that has been used for some stock before micro, and is used by 39456243856798 other ppl for microstock, regardless of Yuri. That's how he wanted it since he started to chase sales. It's so production line stuff that I have hard time telling whether he is a good photog at all, I can just kinda suspect reading between the pixels that he is very good. I always wondered why he never-ever takes a break from the bubbegum stuff to shoot something insiparional, would be ineteresting (or maybe it happaened I just missed it?)
He has said quite openly that he subjects big selling genres to intensive analysis and reproduces all the elements that sell best, including the lighting. If you are a business you don't change a winning formula. The only problem is that he himself has become the best-selling genre so he becomes trapped in his own style.
He's probably only a "good" photographer in his technical ability. He has no interest at all in originality. But maybe he is right. Maybe photography is a purely technical medium where everything original was done decades ago and all we can do now is copy.
Sure, thats what I'm saying, but what's with all that talk about unique? It's nonsense. I always had a rasied eyebrow when I read stuff like that on the infamous shutterstock forums, certaib ppl telling newcomers to be 'unique'. If you go for sales in micro, being unique is out of the question.
Not sure about that, Elena is doing pretty well being really unique. She's not earning millions (but she still makes a decent living), but she enjoys her work and people look at her stuff with their jaws dropped on their desks. That would be much more important to me and I'd rather be the kind of photographer (and graphic designer) she is than Yuri for instance.
Dunno who she is, but I have my doubts. Ppl in micro have a tendency to call some postcard shot with a grungy texture overlay hiper-super-peta original.
At least slightly above some postcard shot with a grungy texture overlay, wouldn't you say http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/5767540/?facets={%2225%22%3A%226%22}#a80ef49 ?
Not really : / I'v seen that, I still have the same opinion: a few are very nice, motsly terrible kitsch. But this is exactly what I'm talking about: women with butterfly-fairy wings, and other 'flowig' stuff on their backs or birdies flying arouns them f.e.... does anyone seiously think thats original and unique? : O You gotta be joking. Thats the most overabused kitsch theme in the universe.
246
« on: June 25, 2011, 09:54 »
His "pathetic" percentage (Laflor) is 40%. not that bad if you ask me.
And with all due respect to Yuri's work, he is no longer unique and has many clones today that don't fall from his quality IMO.
Has ever been anything even slightly unique about Yuri's work? It's as generic as it gets. The ligthing 'style' hardly changed an inch in like 7 years or smthng, and it's almost exactly the same lighting that has been used for some stock before micro, and is used by 39456243856798 other ppl for microstock, regardless of Yuri. That's how he wanted it since he started to chase sales. It's so production line stuff that I have hard time telling whether he is a good photog at all, I can just kinda suspect reading between the pixels that he is very good. I always wondered why he never-ever takes a break from the bubbegum stuff to shoot something insiparional, would be ineteresting (or maybe it happaened I just missed it?)
He has said quite openly that he subjects big selling genres to intensive analysis and reproduces all the elements that sell best, including the lighting. If you are a business you don't change a winning formula. The only problem is that he himself has become the best-selling genre so he becomes trapped in his own style.
He's probably only a "good" photographer in his technical ability. He has no interest at all in originality. But maybe he is right. Maybe photography is a purely technical medium where everything original was done decades ago and all we can do now is copy.
Sure, thats what I'm saying, but what's with all that talk about unique? It's nonsense. I always had a rasied eyebrow when I read stuff like that on the infamous shutterstock forums, certaib ppl telling newcomers to be 'unique'. If you go for sales in micro, being unique is out of the question.
Not sure about that, Elena is doing pretty well being really unique. She's not earning millions (but she still makes a decent living), but she enjoys her work and people look at her stuff with their jaws dropped on their desks. That would be much more important to me and I'd rather be the kind of photographer (and graphic designer) she is than Yuri for instance.
Dunno who she is, but I have my doubts. Ppl in micro have a tendency to call some postcard shot with a grungy texture overlay hiper-super-peta original.
247
« on: June 25, 2011, 06:41 »
His "pathetic" percentage (Laflor) is 40%. not that bad if you ask me.
And with all due respect to Yuri's work, he is no longer unique and has many clones today that don't fall from his quality IMO.
Has ever been anything even slightly unique about Yuri's work? It's as generic as it gets. The ligthing 'style' hardly changed an inch in like 7 years or smthng, and it's almost exactly the same lighting that has been used for some stock before micro, and is used by 39456243856798 other ppl for microstock, regardless of Yuri. That's how he wanted it since he started to chase sales. It's so production line stuff that I have hard time telling whether he is a good photog at all, I can just kinda suspect reading between the pixels that he is very good. I always wondered why he never-ever takes a break from the bubbegum stuff to shoot something insiparional, would be ineteresting (or maybe it happaened I just missed it?)
He has said quite openly that he subjects big selling genres to intensive analysis and reproduces all the elements that sell best, including the lighting. If you are a business you don't change a winning formula. The only problem is that he himself has become the best-selling genre so he becomes trapped in his own style.
He's probably only a "good" photographer in his technical ability. He has no interest at all in originality. But maybe he is right. Maybe photography is a purely technical medium where everything original was done decades ago and all we can do now is copy.
Sure, thats what I'm saying, but what's with all that talk about unique? It's nonsense. I always had a rasied eyebrow when I read stuff like that on the infamous shutterstock forums, certaib ppl telling newcomers to be 'unique'. If you go for sales in micro, being unique is out of the question.
248
« on: June 25, 2011, 06:17 »
His "pathetic" percentage (Laflor) is 40%. not that bad if you ask me.
And with all due respect to Yuri's work, he is no longer unique and has many clones today that don't fall from his quality IMO.
Has ever been anything even slightly unique about Yuri's work? It's as generic as it gets. The ligthing 'style' hardly changed an inch in like 7 years or smthng, and it's almost exactly the same lighting that has been used for some stock before micro, and is used by 39456243856798 other ppl for microstock, regardless of Yuri. That's how he wanted it since he started to chase sales. It's so production line stuff that I have hard time telling whether he is a good photog at all, I can just kinda suspect reading between the pixels that he is very good. I always wondered why he never-ever takes a break from the bubbegum stuff to shoot something insiparional, would be ineteresting (or maybe it happaened I just missed it?)
249
« on: June 25, 2011, 06:01 »
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?
250
« on: June 24, 2011, 05:34 »
This tool is amazing and will help a lot of artists track down unlicensed images. Go get em guys!
You go get 'em. We shoot, create, you take care of our images.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
