|
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 - GeoPappas
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 51
251
« on: December 04, 2008, 08:31 »
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that they offer an unlimited amount of downloads in a year for $299! That means that someone could basically download their whole library for $299.
If this is true, then why would any contributor support them?
For comparison:
- It costs $2,559 on SS for an annual subscription and there are limits of 25 DLs/day.
- It costs $1,649 on FT for an annual subscription and there are limits of 25 DLs/day.
- It costs $999 on DT for an annual subscription and there are limits of 10 DLs/day. If you want 25 DLs/day, then the cost would go up to $1,999.
- It costs $999 on StockXpert for an annual subscription and there are limits of 25 DLs/day.
252
« on: December 03, 2008, 16:28 »
I remember that here, on this forum, someone said that microstock business will start having technical problems because todays servers can't support extremely large databases as in microstock business. Is this already happening? Seem that most big agencies have some problems... 
I'm not sure who said that, but (if they said that) they don't know what they are talking about. The problem with many of the sites out there is that they want to use free software (Linux, MySQL, etc). Free software is fine for most stuff, but when a site gets large, then you should pay for the big guns.
253
« on: December 03, 2008, 04:32 »
Hi!
Well about the Getty and Jupiter deal? I got it from reliable sources that the deal included Jupiter and photos.com.
HAAP is still the owner of Stockxpert and was not included in this deal. This is the Info I got.
best. Christian
I don't think your source is very reliable. From what I have read, Jupiter images bought a majority holding in StockXpert and when the company that own Getty bought Jupiter images, they took ownership of StockXpert. HAAP still have a minority holding in StockXpert but that isn't going to give them any control.
This is from an StockXpert admin on the StockXpert forums (@ http://www.stockxpert.com/forum/show_messages/18361/1): "Jupitermedia owned 90% of HAAP which owns two sites, StockXpert and SXC. Getty only bought that 90% share, so the remaining 10% of StockXpert/SXC is still owned by HAAP."
254
« on: December 02, 2008, 19:03 »
It has been really shocking to see how poorly exclusive vector artists have been treated with this latest best match. I can't imagine why istock would risk losing some of the most popular exclusive artists by not addressing this issue.
When did IS start accepting vectors? If it is true that the new best match is heavily weighted towards the length of site membership, then it might be possible that this is affecting vector artists more than anything.
255
« on: November 28, 2008, 09:58 »
Can someone please post the old rankings, so that I can compare the two.
256
« on: November 24, 2008, 08:46 »
DPReview.com (@ http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkII/page2.asp) states that you can record 1920 x 1080 (16:9) up to 12 mins and 640 x 480 (4:3) up to 24 mins. What are these limits based on? Is this because of some sort of memory card limit? If so, what is the card size that this is based on?
257
« on: November 18, 2008, 12:14 »
259
« on: November 18, 2008, 08:08 »
According to their website, the Canon's suck.
For cameras > $2500, both the Nikon D3 and Nikon D700 beat the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III.
For cameras between $1000 and $2500, the Nikon D90 beats the Canon 5D.
For cameras between $500 and $1000, the Pentax K10D, Pentax K20D, Sony Alpha 350, Nikon D200, and Nikon D40X all beat the Canon 40D.
Makes me wonder how "unbiased" they actually are!
260
« on: November 17, 2008, 08:44 »
A $500 monopod. Wow!
261
« on: November 16, 2008, 19:36 »
It is hard to tell with such a small image, but it looks fake to me.
The bolt seems to cut in front of the crane (on the left side), pass through the crane, and then ends up hitting the ground way off in the distance.
I'm no lightning expert, but I don't think that air-to-ground lightning would travel such a distance horizontally.
262
« on: November 15, 2008, 08:22 »
One thing that I have noticed is that they don't use the username associated with 123RF, but rather the full name. This is different from the way 123RF does things. This causes a problem for those people that have their full name private (which can be changed at http://www.123rf.com/profileprivacy.php) because their images will be displayed on MagnetQueen without any associated username or name whatsoever. For example, if you go into your privacy settings (@ http://www.123rf.com/profileprivacy.php) and set your "Real Name" to private, and then go back to MagnetQueen and find one of your images, you will notice that your name is no longer associated with the image.
263
« on: November 13, 2008, 20:43 »
Why not just look to the right (at the Microstock Poll Results). Your poll seems to basically be replicating that poll.
264
« on: November 13, 2008, 06:52 »
While it does look very interesting (from a technical viewpoint), the estimated production dates start in the next year or so and the prices are astronomical - the "brains" start at $2,500 and go up to $55,000 and that doesn't include lenses, sensor modules, I/O modules, recording modules, batteries, etc. Before your finished your probably looking at a $20,000 camera that only shoots 5 MP.
265
« on: November 10, 2008, 17:01 »
Yes, it is possible that power surges can fry some equipment and not others.
266
« on: November 10, 2008, 15:20 »
As Tubed mentioned above there are no jumper settings to adjust on SATA drives.
Both of my SATA drives have jumpers, but I checked and you can't set up master/slave through the jumpers. The jumpers are basically used for networking drives. Are you sure that the drive itself isn't dead?
267
« on: November 10, 2008, 11:39 »
Thanks for the hard work.
It would be nice if a person could choose images from multiple pages. Sometimes 60 images just aren't enough.
268
« on: November 10, 2008, 08:52 »
Well I am certainly a RB fan here myself, as far as the watermarks go, they now also have a 1px gif overlay, so anytime u right click on someone's image that has this protection enabled (yes, it is up to the artist if they wish to enable this) it only downloads 1px.[/url]
It still does not protect an image from a thief that uses screen capture (e.g., via the PrintScreen button).
That is why a proper watermark is the only true protection from pirates.
And your work there is watermarked. If you are worried about that, why even put your work online to begin with then?
The smaller view of the image (which is about 550 pixels on the longest side) does not have a watermark at all. This would be considered a blog size or web size image on most stock sites. The larger view (which is about 650 pixels on the longest side) contains a small watermark in the bottom right of the image. Someone could just crop this out or remove it with Photoshop in less than 5 minutes. The watermark there is pathetic. To even call it a watermark is crazy. To not protect the intellectual property of the contributors makes absolutely no sense to me. They will never see any of my stuff (and lots of others on this board) on that site until they fix the watermark (and their attitude).
269
« on: November 10, 2008, 08:40 »
I'm not sure that I am understanding your predicament. Some more details might help. Does the computer put up an error message on screen when it tries to boot? If so, what is it? Does the old computer beep when it tries to startup? If so, count the number of beeps. The beeps will tell you what the error is. What are you trying to recover? If the drive just had the O/S and applications on it, then you won't be able to do much with them if you recover them. Almost all applications have information stored in the Windows registry and won't run properly (if at all) without it. And you can't just move registry information from a dead drive to a new one. You say that you attached two of the SATA drives to a CD connection in another VISTA computer. This confuses me slightly. Most CD connections are PATA (which are extremely different than SATA). FYI: If you are using a PATA cable with two connectors (one on the end and one in the middle), then where you connect the drive on that cable will determine if it is a master or slave. I'm not positive, but I believe that the connector at the end is the master and the one in the middle is the slave. I also took a look at my SATA drives (I have 2) and they all have jumper settings on the back. You might need to set those appropriately to have the drive configured as a slave. See here for some additional info: http://www.mfslive.org/setupcomputer.htmHope that helps.
270
« on: November 10, 2008, 07:12 »
Well I am certainly a RB fan here myself, as far as the watermarks go, they now also have a 1px gif overlay, so anytime u right click on someone's image that has this protection enabled (yes, it is up to the artist if they wish to enable this) it only downloads 1px.[/url]
It still does not protect an image from a thief that uses screen capture (e.g., via the PrintScreen button). That is why a proper watermark is the only true protection from pirates.
271
« on: November 07, 2008, 08:21 »
Here we go again.
Another "strategic" partnership.
So what does this mean for contributors?
Will we be paid for the free images that Fotolia is giving away?
Who wants to volunteer and post a question on their forums?
272
« on: November 07, 2008, 05:34 »
...(and of course Sean Locke now that he has given up exclusivity  )?
When did this happen? I still see a crown on sjlocke's profile at IS!
273
« on: November 05, 2008, 17:46 »
Quoting two messages from the FT forum, one from a member and one from a reply received from Pixmac:
Okay, I decided to buy some credits with Pixmac and buy one of my photos to test. I chose a photo that is displaying at Pixmac for a starting price of 2 credits, the same file here at Fotolia starts at 3 credits. I was concerned that selling a photo through Pixmac displayed at a lower price would result in me earning a lower amount. This is not the case. The sale came through at Fotolia instantly and I received the same amount I would have done if it was directly through Fotolia.
I bought an extra small size (or 0.1 Mpix as Pixmac calls it) at Pixmac for 2 credits.
The file shows in my account here at Fotolia as a sale to pixmac.com for a sale price of 3 credits. My commission is 1.62 credits which is normal for a sale of this size and priced at 3 credits.
I am happy now and I hope this will reassure others with similar concerns. The thing that baffles me is why couldn't Fotolia have spend 5 minutes typing up a response that would have basically said this from the beginning? Why do sites keep their contributors in the dark? Keeping people in the dark just makes them feel suspicious.
274
« on: November 05, 2008, 11:33 »
It took them a few days, but I finally got the following reply from Pixmac.
Hi,
those numbers are sums we got from Fotolia. We see now that displaying them is confusing for photographers so we will put them out and we will display only our numbers - sums of downloads from our pages as soon as possible.
We are sorry for this inconvinience,
thank you for your patience,
Lucie
275
« on: November 04, 2008, 20:39 »
There are also 3 different time zones in the US with a 3 hour difference between the east and west ... there are different closing times at the polls in different states - so there is a valid reluctant to announce results in the east that would serve as a disincentive to people voting in the west where polls are still open - if they feel the result is already set they will not vote ...
There are actually 4 main time zones (Eastern, Central, Mountain, and Pacific) and then Alaska and Hawaii have their own time zones.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 51
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
