|
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 - yingyang0
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 30
276
« on: February 14, 2008, 00:41 »
Wise man say: "don't join a site where you don't know the terms." (wise man being the egotistical me  ) If you don't know the language then you should never, ever, join the site. You don't know the language so you don't know what you're agreeing to. I speak three languages and wouldn't consider joining sites that I don't understand the site's terms.
277
« on: February 13, 2008, 09:13 »
I've never had a single with IS reading keywords. I add keywords in adobe bridge in the raw files. Open photo with PS, and do any editing, then save as a jpg. The keywords are transfered perfectly and IS has never had a problem reading them.
278
« on: February 11, 2008, 17:41 »
Last week i did a search for business seminar and the results out of the first 100 images where like this:
Yuri Arcurs: 7 images.
Lise Gagne: 38 Images.
Make your own conclusion on this. Just facts.
Wow, you not only made up your own conclusion, you made up the facts to go along with that conclusion. Yuri =8 Lise = 4 Not to mention you own the top row. Lets keep the fairy tales to Bill Clinton speeches.
279
« on: February 10, 2008, 13:49 »
I have 40 files at Istockphoto. I make $45+ a month there. At that rate, 1,000 photos would be $1125 a month. 
You must be getting a lot of extended licenses. I see 102 downloads in in the 12 months.
280
« on: February 09, 2008, 23:12 »
Quote from Rebekka Guleifsdttir:
"I mean for crying out loud, out of 31 images this particular user has on his 'portfolio,' 25 of them are mine, and at least 3 are of me," she said in the caption for a screenshot of the iStockphoto page. So than I wonder.....how did the thief get the model release?
If you're willing to commit outright theft, I don't think you'd be concerned about faking a model release.
281
« on: February 09, 2008, 18:39 »
and how does it make life easier?
282
« on: February 09, 2008, 18:37 »
creationist moron from the bible-belt, I have no clue. I will reupload when I have time on 5 new free accounts. Flickr doesn't get a cent from me any more.
Is it really necessary to demean those who believe in God in order to get to your point?
He didn't demean those who believe in God, only creationists. Huge difference. I don't know what creationism had to do with lesbian marriage other than right-wing republicans have taken both up as causes (though creationism/intelligent design is falling out of favor, and rightfully so).
283
« on: February 08, 2008, 09:42 »
You see - I am not really arguing with the reviewers. They are 100% right - according to their standards. I just need to decide whether it is worth my time to meet those standards, and essentially converting to entirely different type of photography to meet their requirements.
I don't think you have to change much. Just stop inflating image size. Look at GeoPappas post. Your camera's native resolution is 3504 x 2336 and your submitted image 3000 x 2400. Istock summarily rejects any photo where you've have upsized. Only upload photos that are at the native resolution of your camera, or smaller.
284
« on: February 08, 2008, 00:52 »
I still don't see where the evidence is. Did you have a image of dirt rejected? Take a photo of dirt and submit it. As long as it is technically sound, I bet it will get accepted.
285
« on: February 07, 2008, 13:35 »
Well i was going to direct your attention to a thread on dpchallenge.com but it appears to have been removed.
In any case the membership agreement had the word 'istock' in it. Of course one can't say for sure but perhaps from a copy and paste of part of the legal documents??
Yep, most of the documents were directly copied and pasted from the iStock's agreements. Not to mention that a few of the clauses they did manage to change are actually invalid under Illinois contract law (the jurisdiction set forth in the agreements). It's obvious that the person behind the website didn't have lawyers draft the agreements. My favorite added clause it the bold one that reads, "Digital Stock Co. may at any time reserve this Licence Agreement by updating this posting. By using this Website, a Licensee agrees to be bound by any such changes." 1) The term "Licence Agreement" is used in this clause only, where the rest of the document refers to itself as a "License Agreement". Since License Agreement is a defined term in the contract, this clause's validity comes into question. 2) They meant to say revise, instead they used reserve, which makes the whole clause nonsensical. 3) A clause that allows the terms of the contract to be unilaterally and retroactively changed at will, not to mention without notice or recourse, renders the contract null and void in every jurisdiction I know of in the US. And that is just one example. A person would have to be crazy to submit images to this site under these contracts, and even crazier to purchase images under that licensing agreement.
286
« on: February 07, 2008, 01:19 »
...If there are minor defects at 100%, but in the opinion of the reviewer the image is going to sell...
And there is the problem. iStock does make allowances for images that have technical defects if the image is of something unique and salable. When it comes to images of dime-a-dozen isolated objects they have gotten very picky over time. Microstock sites do not exist to promote quality (although it is a vital factor in their continuing existence and sales) - but to sell images. At least this is my (maybe misguided) opinion.
You're right that they don't exist to promote quality, and you're right that quality control is important to continuing existence (hence my tragedy of the commons reference). Some how you're agreeing we me and yet missing my point. Adding your photo won't increase iStock's sales, only yours. iStock has hundreds and hundreds of photos of isolated glasses and flowers that don't have any defects no matter how minor. When the subject matter is already heavily covered in iStock's collection then any added images just take downloads that would have gone to the already existing images by showing up higher in the best match search. From iStock's point of view it doesn't make sense to except images that have "minor" defects at 100% when they already have defect-free images in the library of the same subject matter. To continue the tragedy of the commons reference, right now iStock is close to the carrying capacity for isolated images of everyday items. Without strict quality controls on isolated dime-a-dozen photos, Hardin's famous quote would come true. "Freedom in the commons brings ruin to all".
287
« on: February 06, 2008, 23:51 »
Funny, I wouldn't describe what I see as "artifacting". I see a very plastic look, lacking texture and an imperfect white background. Stem edges are what you must consider "artifacting" but to me the flaws look like part of the plastic effect.
I had the same exact reaction. And, on a more general note: I always thought (and still do) that the No 1 criteria for an image is: is it going to sell ?
Yes an image may sell well, but that doesn't reflect quality because buyers don't typically inspect the image at 100% before buying (they already have high quality expectations from iStock). Focusing on short-term sales rather than long-term quality of the images at iStock is a "tragedy of the commons" type of thinking. The stem on the flower has an out-of-focus, artificial look to it. My guess it that the reviewer was referring the the area of the stem just above the glass. Why did you strip all the camera data from the photo?
288
« on: January 31, 2008, 21:55 »
Clever, but over the edge legally, IMHO. ShutterStock explicitly forbids in its TOS the automatic harvesting of data. Moreover, you infringe on the copyright of the contributors by presenting the thumbs on your own site. Finally, I saw some of my shots turn up on your commercial site, and I forbid you explicitely [sic] to do this unless you buy a license of my shots from DT and SS. Clear?
1) ShutterStock's TOS is irrelevant. It's a contract and most likely the search is conducted without being a member, and therefore not a party to the contract. 2) He's not infringing on your copyright, ask any IP attorney familiar with the issue. (This is a issue Google has litigated and been successful in defending its image search). 3) It's not a commercial site, it free. It's always best to consult an IP attorney before making such bold assertions. If you still believe there is infringement of your copyrights occurring, then consult an attorney about sending a DMCA takedown request to the ISP for the website. @uliss. I'd recommend a few changes. The images should link back to the either SS or Deamstime to make sure this use of images can't be distinguished from current case law in the US. Also, if the numbers being displayed next to each check box is the companies' actual file number, then I would stop displaying that because it is proprietary information that the company may and can take issue with.
289
« on: January 30, 2008, 22:21 »
Forum participation doesn't effect your best match search results. How do I know, well basic business logic. Sales would go down if you let an irrelevant variable like that into the equation that doesn't have a legitimate reason for being there.
This doesn't mean that forum participation has no effect on your sales. People tend to look at your portfolio when you post in the forum. That probably leads to some sales. To what extent, I don't know.
290
« on: January 30, 2008, 10:25 »
Please stop with the pimping threads, or at least limit them. The cheesy sales pitches are getting very old. "Act now and you'll receive a second __________(insert product name) absolutely free....." If I wanted to read commercials I wouldn't come here.
291
« on: January 28, 2008, 23:26 »
You need a DSLR. Even a cheap used one from a few years ago like a D50/D40 or Rebel XT/350 would be a huge improvement.
or and old canon 10D would be good as well. The 10D has a larger sensor than the Rebel, so it might be a better bet.
The 10D is still my favorite camera purchase I've ever made because it was the best value (biggest bang for the buck).
292
« on: January 28, 2008, 00:50 »
The list is incomplete:
Dr. Phil (well he tried anyway)
Lynne Spears (her mom)
Jamie Lynn Spears (lets face it, she wouldn't have the Nickoledeon job if it wasn't for Britney)
The future psychiatrists that will be needed for all the kids of these people.
293
« on: January 27, 2008, 23:51 »
I've only submit pictures to DT and they should be reviewed in 68 hours, so I can still delete them. Do you think it's worth to try be exclusive on iStock or it probably wouldn't pay out as Big 6?
You have to have 250 dowloads and 50% or better approval to be exclusive at iStock, so stick with submiting to a bunch of sites. Be aware that DT requires you to keep your images for sale at their site for at least 6 months.
294
« on: January 27, 2008, 02:40 »
Why is this woman taking an orange crap on the nice wood floor? 
295
« on: January 24, 2008, 13:58 »
anyone else find that because you aren't exclusive, most folk assume your skills consist of cracking off a whole load of shots on holiday with your Cybershot set to auto .....
thanks for taking the time to respond yingyang0. not at all patronsing [sic]
Wow. Man I love anonymous posters who ask for an exclusive contributor's response and then criticizes the person for giving a sincere response that was not patronizing (notice correct spelling). May I ask what rejections you are getting? P.S. A lot of the top producers are not exclusive so your assumption about my previous post is based on personal paranoia.
296
« on: January 24, 2008, 13:03 »
I found it interesting that you acceptance rate went up after you went exclusive. Do you think that the quality of your shots went up or you think that the exclusive inspectors are easier?
I've only submitted "stockie" photos since I went exclusive. It has cut my "not a stock photo" rejections to zero.
297
« on: January 24, 2008, 12:45 »
Regardless of the slowdown in sales (that I also see), do buyers prefer the smaller sizes now anyways? Not getting any L DLs any more. The only party benefitting [sic] from this price hike is IS. It certainly is not me or the buyers. Featurepics is clearly picking up for me.
Not for me. The size and number of my downloads hasn't changed, only how much I get for them. I think the size of the downloads is highly dependent on what you actually photograph.
298
« on: January 24, 2008, 12:40 »
Well I went exclusive. I had a 75% acceptance before going exclusive, and I now have a 95% acceptance rate. The quality of your equipment doesn't automatically give you acceptance (nor should it). It's much more important that (1)you know how to use whatever equipment you have, (2)you understand the basics of composition, (3) you understand DOF, f-stop, shutter speed, etc. I like being exclusive, but I'd suggest to anyone not be a contributor to IS (the less competition the better ).
299
« on: January 23, 2008, 18:58 »
- I have the impression people here confuse between a template and a CMS.
Well I wasn't confused because I didn't know there was such a thing as a CMS. The way I've created websites is to used a template, mainly for the graphics (tabs, etc.) and then coded the front and backend myself. Since the Joomla demo is down, what exactly does it do for you?
300
« on: January 21, 2008, 20:10 »
I could envision a scenario where they spin off iStock from Getty and fire bitter and the rest of them and bring in someone else to run the company... pure speculation, but not out of the realm of possiblities.
That's such an utterly pointless and random thing to write. You have to be trolling.
Meanwhile he's one of their best assets. You fire people who are unsuccessful - not people who are successful.
Don't know about the trolling, but I agree about the rest. iStock is the only part of Getty with increasing revenue and profits. You don't fire the people that are doing it right. I also doubt they'll spin off the company that is the only quality unit in the company.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 30
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
