|
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 - donding
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 70
276
« on: April 11, 2011, 10:48 »
I've been searching high and low to see a comparison of the 28-70 f/2.8 older lens to the new 24-70 f/2.8 lens on a Nikon D90. Most of the comparisons are on FX camera's. With the internal focus on the D90...would the 28-70 work just as well as the 24-70? I've read the sharpness is about the same, but like I said these comparisons are on FX cameras. Any one had any experience with this? I've found some used 28-70's and they are about 500.00 or 600.00 cheaper than the 24-70's. Is the speed of both lens about the same since the D90 has the internal focus?
277
« on: April 10, 2011, 21:52 »
We're pretty full now. The only contributors we can accept at this point are very high level contributors with highly downloaded portfolios. (In particular we could really use someone with excellent tropical images) We seem to be filling the most downloaded categories.
Donna - Sorry but we only have room for so many images under KTools storage. A lot of our contributors are diamond or black diamond crowns. If we had more space I'd take images from smaller contributors, but there just isn't enough GB alloted to us.
I understand and thanks for being honest.. 
278
« on: April 10, 2011, 17:36 »
Yeah permanent record...
279
« on: April 10, 2011, 17:26 »
Has anyone read the definition of Getty under Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images#cite_note-6This is a quote from their page "In September 2010, Getty Images IStockphoto Brand announced plans to cut payments to contributors by as much as 30% starting in 2011, while claiming that it furthered the interest of those same contributors. The royalty paid to non-exclusive contributors becomes as low as 15%[5] on the 1st day of 2011. Getty's motivation was greeted with skepticism by the iStockphoto community. Thousands of messages of complaint from contributors were posted on the iStock forum site within a few hours of the announcement,[6] "But money isnt going to be what makes you all happy." said CEO Thompson in his reply to the complaining contributors.[7]" They even have the link to the post on iStock where that is said. I thought that was kinda interesting. It looks like that is going to be a "But money isnt going to be what makes you all happy." trademarked saying..lol
280
« on: April 10, 2011, 17:06 »
Seems to me H&F basically sold Getty last fall. They could not find a buyer or pull off an IPO so "Hellman & Friedman is paying itself $500 million after borrowing $1.3 billion for portfolio company Getty Images."
http://blogs.reuters.com/columns/2010/11/03/short-memories-finance-private-equity-payouts-2/]
Credit to jsnover for posting this originally.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/photos-from-gettyimages-direct-to-thinkstock-ouch/msg194494/#msg194494
So if I'm reading this correctly, H&F borrowed $1.3 billion backed by Getty's assets, which would show up on the Getty balance sheet making it too ugly to pull off an IPO or sell.
Now Getty needs as much cash flow as it can get to pay off the bonds, so it decides we are unsustainable. Getty's income before interest has to be way less then $1.3 billion per year, so they will really struggle for a number of years to pay this off. If they can't, the bond holders take the company, but H&F keeps the $500 million
I don't know how those big boys operate but I know when we had our corporation dividends were payed out quarterly. If that is how they do...which is more than likely the case....at 500 million a quarter, that's 2 billion a year. At three years that's 6 billion dollars they collected in dividends. Dividends are usually calculated on profits. Don't know if that is the case here but if they sell it's pure profit on their part. Edit...thanks for the link also...that was a nice read.
281
« on: April 10, 2011, 16:45 »
Thanks Tab62 for having the courage to ask the questions I have been afraid to ask.As I often tell my flight students-"there are no silly questions".While you get many different answers there are "gems" hidden in some of them, that you can use.Some of the answers remind me of old crusty pilots who forget they where not born with 10,000 flight hours.
Smiling Jack
Well said....
282
« on: April 10, 2011, 12:39 »
One of the reasons private capital buys a public company is that actions do not have to be reported quarterly for shareholders and competitors to see. Most private hedge funds believe that they have the expertise to streamline and turn around management. In this case, the buyers seem to have put a lot of faith in the present management, and I'm sure they can't be happy with the results, hence the pressure to get the numbers up, no matter what. Any possible private capital buyer would have to feel that they could throw out old management and do better with a new team. While many here might think that is a great possibility, I doubt that there is much in the way of a talent pool to take over from the present management. I can't think of anyone, not that I have given it much thought. The management of Getty was brought down by a sea change in the rights managed business, and that can't be turned back. To me, that leaves an IPO, on the theory that retail investors will just look at a stream of rising numbers, and see happy days ahead. Once the present owners cash out, they could care less what happens 3 quarters down the road. We're in a rising bull market, tech companies are hot, and the low returns on bonds make the stock market the only place to reach for yield. It's the perfect time.
Exactly what I was going to say. H&F invested in a company to turn around in three years and they could care less who's toes they step on...all they want is the profit from their investment. They would have no reason to hold on to it...cash out ...make their profit and on to the next investment, that's how these companies work.
283
« on: April 09, 2011, 15:59 »
I don't think iStock is losing money and by reducing commissions they are making more. An investment firm has to make it look the best it can to take home a larger chunk. Think about it...wouldn't you invest more in a company that shows a profit of 2 million than one that shows profit of 1 million? Their goal could be to make 2 million so they can get X amount profit from a sale. iStock is making money...there is no way they aren't...the question is how much profit has to be there in order to maximize the profits from the sale. That's the question.
284
« on: April 08, 2011, 16:57 »
Also, with Getty most likely for sale
What makes you say it is for sale ? I think you hinted that on a previous thread too. Is it just a hunch?
I know that you might be right - but surely any potential buyer would be looking at any growth over the previous period and knowing full well that this had been achieved by cutting royalties and increasing prices. Is there much else left to do in terms of growing the business unless the economy actually starts to improve?
Well i suppose they could tweak the search engines to push more lower commission work ?
Also - if the business is profitable and genuinely growing then why sell it ?
Getty is owned by the private equity firm Hellman & Friedman. Somewhere someone posted a link on here awhile ago which was about the purchase of Getty and about the stock being pulled off the market and it said in there that they (Hellman & Friedman) usually sell off their purchases within 3 years for profit. They are a private company so there is no transparency there.
285
« on: April 08, 2011, 15:03 »
Go to this page: http://warmpicture.com/photographer_signup.php
Thanks...just did it, but realized I didn't include a stocksite. I thought he was talking about a personal website until I got the e-mail about it being reviewed. Oh well I guess he'll let me know.
286
« on: April 08, 2011, 12:18 »
I'll ask again...maybe someone here knows...do you just register then upload or do you have to be invited?
287
« on: April 08, 2011, 11:45 »
Well one good thing is that if they ever deny they said it you have proof in that thread....that is if anyone who would dare to post it on the iStock forum doesn't mind getting banned... More than likely permanently.
288
« on: April 08, 2011, 11:40 »
That just doesn't make sense....I hope you find out what is going on..let us know if you find anything out. Hopefully they won't give you the runaround.
289
« on: April 07, 2011, 20:21 »
I had this image rejected a long time ago by iStock....they said I needed a property release from the artist. Needless to say I did not mess with it...not worth the hassle...lol 
290
« on: April 07, 2011, 11:48 »
I haven't had that problem, but don't they do that when they feel there is copyright infringement? Have they said anything else about that or did you make someone mad in the forum?
291
« on: April 06, 2011, 19:40 »
Every time someone complains in the forum...we always here the same ol same ol from them "Kindly email your UID and the images codes to [email protected] so that we can re-evaluate them." It shouldn't have to be that way to begin with....that's why I don't upload to them anymore and I think a lot of others have done the same. We shouldn't have to go through the hassle when they are good photos to begin with and have already been accepted at other sites. My sales are terrible there and the reason being is because the biggest part of the big sellers were rejected there. They'd have more of a following with contributors if they did it right the first time and would be making money rather than losing sales and customers. Anglee I really think you need to take that into mind if you really want to compete with the big boys.
292
« on: April 06, 2011, 17:42 »
This is getting a bit frustrating. I find a good alternate lens then can't find them anywhere. I guess that means they are good?...lol
I'm still waiting for the call from my niece with the pricing info. She may run the other way. I think if I do end up buying rather than leasing I'm going to go for the
80-200 f/2.8
24-70 f/2.8 I hope
17-55 f/2.8 having trouble finding this one
Does that sound like a good enough combo?
293
« on: April 06, 2011, 15:22 »
294
« on: April 06, 2011, 11:14 »
She said she would make sure I was seated up front...so I don't think length of the lens will be a big factor.
Seated? You should consider calling wedding photographers local to you and asking them if you can haul their gear around during their coverage of a wedding. Basically be a fly on the wall and learn as much as you can as fast as you can.
If you intend to provide good coverage you will need to be moving around. Find good angles, get the Brides face and the Grooms face in different shots. If you stay seated you will have one angle for the entire ceremony. If that's the case then you had darn well better make sure it is a great angle.
Rent fast lenses. Lensprotogo.com Rent fast lenses.
Good luck, my fingers are crossed on your behalf.
Mat
Thank you Mat....I live in Alabama but the wedding is in Illinois, which is 12 hours from here. I'll do an online search to see if they have any rental places around there. I don't know any photographers. I just hope we get there early enough and are able to get in the church before hand so I can get the camera setting done before the wedding. They said they were going to sit me at the front so I can move around better and closer to the bride and groom and get pictures so I don't think that will be a problem. I think I need to purchase some more cards also so I am prepared. I know the person who did my daughters wedding was trying to delete pictures as the reception was going on because he ran out of room on his two cards. He missed the cake cutting because of it. Must of been a bad omen because they are divorced now.....lol
295
« on: April 05, 2011, 23:40 »
I hope not!!! Now that might give me nightmares....lol. I know one thing if I did something like that I would never live it down and it would be a very memorable wedding by everyone in the family...lol.
296
« on: April 05, 2011, 18:03 »
Ok I checked the prices on these lens and they are high. I guess what I'm asking now what is the second best? I've been doing a little research and read the 55-200VR or the 80-200 are both sharp lens. Kone mentioned he used the 80-200, has anyone used the 55-200VR. It is lighter than the 80-200 2.8 and has VR, but the 80-200 is faster. Am I right?
297
« on: April 05, 2011, 16:52 »
Dan....how do you upload...is it through the site or how? Also if you have time to look at my port and see if these will work let me know. If they don't I won't be offended. I would only upload the best sellers because the rest would probably be a waste of time. PM me and please be honest...
298
« on: April 05, 2011, 16:25 »
I pulled everything off of there except about 120 photos and have not uploaded to them since September and don't plan to unless there are major changes...which I really doubt there will be. But on the other hand my life style isn't dependent upon iStock as many here are. A lot of them will lose income which they depend on if they stop uploading all together. I can see why they would continue to upload, but it will not have any real impact if they do. That choice is theirs and we must respect their choices.
299
« on: April 05, 2011, 11:41 »
How much do you have to spend?
I agree with Matt - I use(d) the 70-200 for the majority of close up portraits and in the church (with a tripod) to get close to the front without actually being at the front of the church. The 24-70 for wider portraits or group shots, and a 16-35 for some wide angle love. If you can afford a 24-70 f/2.8 type lens it is a nice all-around lens for portraits and reception.
I explained to my sister in law yesterday I don't have the equipment for weddings and she still wants me to do and said that her niece would more than likely buy me the lens I needed, but I doubt she'll give me the price of the 24-70. That would be to good to be true. Even used they aren't cheep. I don't even know how the lighting is in the church. I live in Alabama...the wedding is in Illinois, so I can't go check it out first. I know the reception hall I've been to and it is not real bright. She said she would make sure I was seated up front...so I don't think length of the lens will be a big factor. I have the 18-200 but don't really care for it's lack of sharpness. I'm going to go look on KEH Photo and see what their prices run for the 70-200 and the 16-35. I have a 50mm...would that do for the portrait shots?
300
« on: April 04, 2011, 18:04 »
My niece wants me to photograph her marriage. I've got a 18-200VR, 50MM, 105MM Micro and a 18-70MM. Would it make sense to use a 50mm for portrait and but which zooms would be the best. I don't want to have to do change lens especially for the reception. I find the 18-200VR isn't always the sharpest lens, that's why I was wondering which zoom will work. I would have to purchase it.
I did a wedding several years ago before the digital, back in the good old film days. I've told them I can't guarantee what results and I thought they should hire someone else, but they insist I do it. I always told them I can't guarantee they will turn out the way they want them. I'm just a very picky person. What they consider good photography I don't always agree with it.
Thanks for the advice Mat...that helps.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 70
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
I have a lot of my port done on a Sigma, so worst cannot be, Ken likes it too, a lot actually
