|
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 - Fran
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11
26
« on: May 30, 2012, 13:00 »
Yes it's odd but when you develop in Lightroom, you can go back and alter anything you did and the master image is never changed. Kind of nice when you think about it? Instead of multiple edits and versions, you have the master and the Exports.
Sometimes I wonder if there could be a use for a forum just about things like this. Producing and processing stock photos?
I know there are great sites for PS and I'm sure there are LR forums, (gimp, irfanview... long list) and of course The Strobist and others. But what about one just for "Stock Photos" making and editing?
That'd be VERY useful!
27
« on: May 25, 2012, 16:45 »
...looks like veer is doing its best undermining its own credibility by not responding anymore here on the board. Too bad, one less on the upload cycle 
Absolutely, this behavior is too dodgy, I'll wait until I get my next pay cycle and then I'll close my account there if there's no change.
28
« on: May 18, 2012, 15:39 »
That's not really feasible because of different approval times and different uploading practices when approaching different sites. Just because a file is on Veer today but not on Alamy doesn't mean that tomorrow it won't have been uploaded directly to Alamy.
That's a good point. Doing an automatic check when moving old images would still be at least a step forward from the present scenario that is less than ideal.
29
« on: May 18, 2012, 13:07 »
If they don't want to give an opt-out (which would be the most transparent and profitable solution in the long term), they should at the very least write an automatic system to check for duplicates and NOT transfer them.
30
« on: May 18, 2012, 00:30 »
At least with RM, we know what images sold are being used for and it should be easier to catch a thief. With microstock RF, it's hard to know who has paid for a license and who is using stolen images. I hope one day there will be a way to put something invisible on images to track them.
Try this: http://quickcrypto.com/free-steganography-software.html
31
« on: May 09, 2012, 00:41 »
Jeez! a bit late in the day, isnt it? maybe two years back. Having a site, search, CV, and not a million collections, would ofcourse be a good start. Oh yes, nearly forgot, looking after your life-support, namely the contributors wouldnt be a bad idea.
Surely, insulting and threatening contributors in their private communication isn't helping them, is it?
32
« on: May 08, 2012, 18:24 »
Inspired marketing move.
33
« on: May 08, 2012, 02:41 »
Having worked at Microsoft before and now working at Apple I would suggest..... Apple! Jokes aside, it's now a matter of taste more than anything, both OS are very good and will do what you need very well. I'm personally using OSX cause I need it obviously for work, but I also find it very consistent and well designed. It appeals to "me". But I would have no problem using Windows 7 (and Windows 8 when it comes out) as I did in the past. Try them out and choose. You will be fine with both.
34
« on: May 02, 2012, 12:50 »
Getting rid of categories all together might be a lot of work, but "suggesting" categories programmatically so we don't have to do it manually should be pretty straightforward.
1. Analyze the entire database to see what keywords are associated with each categories and sort by frequency
2. Match keywords for each new image to categories based on some "fuzzy" heuristics.
I'd say a week of work, not including testing, plus some CPU time to do the initial data mining.
35
« on: May 02, 2012, 12:26 »
Nothing to be done online, I don't understand why this hasn't happened. It would make a lot of sense not to do hardly anything online. To match releases for every single photo its just too much work that could be spent for us in improving our photos.
Also, Face Recognition would help matching MR to photos most of the times: you just need to upload a MR with a photo of the model and the FR algorithm would do the rest.
36
« on: April 29, 2012, 11:31 »
Rules are rules. But some rules are ridiculous.
37
« on: April 24, 2012, 13:41 »
There's nothing actually wrong with the prices that our images sell for; our real problem is the excessive commission that the microstock agencies take. The trouble is that we contributors have come to see such takes as 'normal'.
If phone app's can be sold profitably with only a 30% commission cut then so could our images.
To be fair, gostwyck, 30% commission on the app store just pays for running the app store itself, with no profit. Said that, 50% cut would seem fair to run a business with healthy profit.
38
« on: April 10, 2012, 17:39 »
I just got a NEX-7, it's very small, handling is wonderful, the IQ is on par with the 5D MK III (!!!!), and you can mount Canon lenses via the adapter. It's ooooh-soooo-good.
Cons:
- Lack of very good E-mount lenses
- Pretty expensive (but still 3 times less than the MK III)
39
« on: April 09, 2012, 12:04 »
Really interesting thoughts in this thread so far. Maybe I do have a prejudice. If so, it's one that has been beaten into me for 7 years by the level of technical excellence that has been demanded (imo quite correctly) by the agencies up to this point.
I fully agree with you. I've never accepted the concept:"Only the concept matters, not the technique". You can have the best concept in the world, but if the image is completely black (wrong technique), you are not going to see it. So the technical side does matter. Why can't a very good image have an excellent concept with excellent technical execution? Why some people claim that one is more important than the other, when the two concept clearly can not be separated?
40
« on: March 23, 2012, 17:38 »
And the winner is... Crestock.
+1 [they seem to lack grasp of the laws of optics]
41
« on: March 23, 2012, 17:34 »
Requiring a Model release for a 300 years old statue?
Rejected for noise when you submitted a 3D render?
Rejected for similars when the concept is totally dfferent?
Compression Artifacts when saved at 100% quality?
Tell me: Who`s got the most incompetent Inspectors?
- Image is out-of-focus Cityscape shot at f/11, nothing was close to the camera, it couldn't have been phsyically out of focus even if I tried This thread is useless! most people here who are casting votes, do so out of sour grapes, only because they suffer plenty of rejects, etc, no good.
In general I find inspectors from the most famous agencies to be very good, to be honest. Except for very few cases where I scratched my head, I can usually see the reason and it's way most often than not my fault. The best, in my opinion, being SS and IS (their customer care sucks, not their inspectors, oops, yeah, I know you read me... hope everything is well, how's family? all good? great to hear).
42
« on: March 14, 2012, 16:00 »
This is a link to a conspiracy theory website. And your first source was simply a powerpoint presentation. I expect a link to infowars.com to pop up here any minute now...
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-2/2-health-effects-chernobyl.htm#3
GreenFacts.org, clearly a branch of infowars.com. Nice try. Didn't work though.
Again.
The Union of Concerned Scientists estimate that for the broader population there will be 50,000 excess cancer cases resulting in 25,000 excess cancer deaths
This is the official Version and statet like that on Wikipedia an various other real science sites. 50.000 cancer cases. How can you be so cynic?
Again. This estimation has been proven incorrect. How can you be so blind?
44
« on: March 14, 2012, 14:19 »
Oh man! this is getting heavy! all this because some OP, wishes the oil price to escalde? KInow the biggest killer on earth? anybody? I will tell you, FOOD, and ofcourse the wrong food.
According to all health authorities, food, kill more people on a global scale then alcohol, smoking cars, etc, put together.
have a big-Mac and chips, very healthy.
BTW, Im not joking.
Gah, I feel like a no-sayer now It looks like hamburgers are not that bad. Give a look at this: http://www.laleva.org/eng/2012/03/world_renown_heart_surgeon_speaks_out_on_what_really_causes_heart_disease.htmlBut I need to research more on this, I'm getting mixed information.
45
« on: March 14, 2012, 13:54 »
Numbers can't lie, adjustments can.
Deaths per watt? That's a really disgusting joke.
Next thing we hear is war deaths or crime deaths adjusted by the money gained. Deaths per dollar.
Why a joke?! You need to produce X energy to satisfy the needs of a certain country, if you produce it using nuclear power, you can expect a certain number of deaths, if you produce it using coal you can expect 4.000 times more people DEAD. What will you choose? You always have the option of turning off your PC and live in a cave without electricity. Please try to be logical and not hysterical.
46
« on: March 14, 2012, 13:34 »
And to really sum it up: http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coalSeth Godin recently posted this simplified chart, from an altogether more complicated one. He maintains that this is a simple yet non-exaggerated version of the complicated one. The point is that for each person killed by nuclear power generation, 4,000 die from coal. This is adjusted for how much power is produced by each method of power generation.
47
« on: March 14, 2012, 13:21 »
"More than 4000 cases of thyroid cancer were diagnosed in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine between 1992 and 2002 among those who were children and adolescents at the time of the accident. Most of these cancers can be attributed to radiation. The majority of those patients have been treated successfully. "
The conclusion weve come to is that fear of radiation is a far more important health threat than radiation itself.
Numbers don't lie. I rest my case.
48
« on: March 14, 2012, 13:10 »
I can`t believe that....it is really a shame to have people like that amongst us.
Keep insulting me, it will make your arguments stronger. http://www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl/l-2/2-health-effects-chernobyl.htm#2The international expert group predicts that among the 600 000 persons receiving more significant exposures (liquidators working in 19861987, evacuees, and residents of the most contaminated areas), the possible increase in cancer mortality due to this radiation exposure might be up to a few per cent. This might eventually represent up to four thousand fatal cancers in addition to the approximately 100 000 fatal cancers to be expected due to all other causes in this population. Among the 5 million persons residing in other contaminated areas, the doses are much lower and any projected increases are more speculative, but are expected to make a difference of much less than one per cent in cancer mortality.
The real damage to people in the region, according to the Chernobyl Forum report, is from poverty and mental stress. The most significant public health impact of Chernobyl has been on mental health, says Luisa Vinton, who headed the forum, in the video Living with Chernobyl (2007). The conclusion weve come to is that fear of radiation is a far more important health threat than radiation itself. So many people making jokes of themselves. I find it more of a shame to have people amongst us who resort to insults when they lose an argument so clearly. Have a good day.
49
« on: March 14, 2012, 12:47 »
Lol! This is simply not true. No facts here. You are just making a joke of yourself.
I posted the scientific facts. Go tell them it's not true. http://www.sfrp.asso.fr/img/pdf/7-hindie.pdfYou can call me names as much as you want, it won't change the facts. Sorry. Here's someone who's also making a joke of himself:
One of the most remarkable scientists of our time.
50
« on: March 14, 2012, 12:38 »
You really believe what you say, no? Yodium prevents cellular damage under low dose radioation exposure, but is totally useless when we talk about a fallout of the chernobyl category. Only when you are kilometers away maybe. Yodium does only prevent SOME sort of cell damage but is mostly useless for radioation sickness, frying organs, DNA damage and the most forms of cancer occuring after chernobyl. Do you know how many people suffered from that and are still suffering? Do you know how many children had
I believe in scientific facts, and these scientific facts show how there is no strong correlation between cancer rate and Chernobyl in Europe, as much as you would have liked it to be different for your perverse agenda. The study I posted (among many others) shows how many people suffered. Luckily not many. Are you serious?!?
Yes.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
