|
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 - CJPhoto
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 41
276
« on: March 15, 2007, 02:23 »
I only count two though.
I didn 't notice the4 first time. The shadows are wrong. 
277
« on: March 14, 2007, 16:58 »
RAW straight from the camera. Have considered DNG (adobe raw) and will do if I get CS3.
278
« on: March 14, 2007, 07:34 »
Vicu - I think what the prof is trying to say is that a model release is there for legal reasons. If those legal reasons are met, why does it matter what form it is in. Prof - I think what Vicu is trying to say is that reviewers aren't lawyers and cant be expected to review your release to ensure it covers all areas legally when they have already paid lawyers to review their one. Two sides to every argument.  istock is normally considered the strickest on this front which is why most people base their "generic" release for all sites on Istocks one.
279
« on: March 14, 2007, 07:27 »
Congratulations.
280
« on: March 14, 2007, 06:26 »
They look very good.
My guess is that the last one will sell best.
I dont do people shots but my guess is you need to think about what people want and do photos to cater for that. Otherwise all you have is very high quality family portraits. Just looked again and the first might sell well too.
281
« on: March 14, 2007, 02:17 »
they all have basically the same images uploaded. So if they have the same photos, why would people go there as opposed to other sites. I think this is one issue with the microsites. They either need good exclusive pics (IS), cheap DL (subscription like SS), good search function (??), nice look and feel (LO??) or good marketing (IS). BigStock looks old and dated, is same price as other sites and has less photos.l
282
« on: March 13, 2007, 07:21 »
The forum is back up if anyone wants to post a question.
Note: I had to re-log in to be able to post (I just did a test one as I didn't think it was working properly, not anything important).
283
« on: March 13, 2007, 07:20 »
4. His hair is a mess. But messy hair is the new trend! 6. The white background is the first thing that I noticed and a bit overpowering. agree. This means the designer has to add a background unless printed onto white. I dont do people shots but I would think the question you need to ask is what is the message or how can it be used. that is why most people shots have a cellphone or laptop or look overly cheesy business shots (ie. man pointing at chart).
284
« on: March 13, 2007, 06:34 »
On there forum they have said they will review the commission at the same time they did last year (april) when the price went from 20 to 25c. A price increase seems to support they will  but maybe it is to avoid putting commissions down  Note that 123rf pays out 50% for their commissions and it has been averaging about 33-34c. I am not sure how their pricing compares to SS though.
285
« on: March 13, 2007, 06:29 »
Is that in Australia. i am sure an over eager cop could happen anywhere.
This petition seems to be in response to a news paper article. Is this real or just editorial license to print more papers.
Note: there is a similar petition in the UK which isn't even petitioning against government policy. Just doing a pre emptive strick so to speak.
286
« on: March 13, 2007, 02:39 »
As well as dollar totals, I also have a table that tracks number of DL and one that tracks number of photos on line at each site. This enables me to track certain stats such as $ per DL etc.
I also only track on a monthly basis. Daily takes to long. Go away for a week and you will have trouble filling it in (except SS).
287
« on: March 13, 2007, 02:16 »
The biggest one is probably a) above. It is not 750 per month but 25 per day. Each month has 8 weekend days plus some omonths ahve public holidays. So SS profits on these days when DL slow as the 25 per day is use it or lose it from what I understand.
288
« on: March 12, 2007, 07:34 »
Regardless of whether they are a good site or not, it begs the question, why would you look at a photo you dont want to buy. And if you do want to buy, why are you viewing 150-250 photo before you buy one.
Unless the google bots are increasing the views.
289
« on: March 12, 2007, 07:27 »
I was able to upload this morning. I hope they do well, they are the easiest site to upload to. Looks like they now will have FTP, even easier!
I was told they expected it to be up by Wednesday. Note taht the February final payout for subsriptions still hasn't been calucated so there might be a few more cents there.
290
« on: March 11, 2007, 04:19 »
What I was refering to wont apply to the situation you are suggesting. As YingYang says, that is work for hire just like any photag on a newspaper payroll etc. Just ensure the employment contract says you own the copyright or in the least says they dont retain it.
In some countrys, you cannot just give away a valuable asset. Say for example, you had a house that if you sold it at market value, you would have to pay tax of $50,000. If you gave that house away would tax be payable?? I dont know US or singapore but for UK and NZ, there would be implictions. Now if you owned photos which were valued at $x, and you sold the copywrite, you would you need to pay tax? If you just give them away, would there be any implications???
But it doesn't matter since this isn't way Phil is wanting to do.
291
« on: March 10, 2007, 19:26 »
(I assume you are transfering it from yourself to a company owned by you or something similar??).
Didn't read the original post?
That sentence referred to Phil Date.
292
« on: March 10, 2007, 05:53 »
I guess that is about all you can do.
293
« on: March 10, 2007, 03:22 »
Since we are all being helpful, you may want to consider tax implications. Might not be an issue if only transfering a few "unproven shots" but Phil, if you transfer your entire portfolio will the person you are transfering it to be making payment for them (I assume you are transfering it from yourself to a company owned by you or something similar??).
There maybe implications if you do it at nil value.
294
« on: March 10, 2007, 03:12 »
The best part will be when MS in 6-7 years finds out that it "forgot" to make camera manufacturers aware of the fact that they should pay a license fee for the new standard. If all of them have adapted it by then, which is absolutely possible, the $0.02 for each camera will see to that Bill Gates' retirement fund is again back in the black
No... that was a cynical thought.... they could never.... shame on you Jorgen, for making up things like this... 
Depends. Adobe has said something about its DNG (and tiff and Jpeg??) that it will be a royalty free format. MS could do the same. I am more interested in DNG being more widely supported - lossless compressed RAW with jpeg thumbnail and instructions to convert RAW all in the same file. Didn't MS announce this a while ago?? Leaf - my understanding is that unlike JPEG, the max quality will be a lossless compression, but lower quality will be lossy - Jpeg currently only does Lossy even at max quality.
295
« on: March 10, 2007, 03:07 »
The sony R1 also uses a APS sized sensor doesn't it?
Yes, but it's bigger and more expensive than most amateur DSLR's. It kind of has the disadvantages of both worlds, not being able to change lenses and not having a proper viewfinder.
The R1 biggest problem is that its zoom is not big enough to compete with the superzooms. It is in a category by itself and as you say, doesn't quite fit in.
296
« on: March 10, 2007, 03:01 »
297
« on: March 09, 2007, 07:28 »
Still not working last time I checked (about 4 hours ago).
298
« on: March 09, 2007, 05:17 »
How can you compare a wild animal to a group of kids I assume they are meant to have similar keywords but all it shows up is keyword spaming or bad disambiguation.
I hope this doesn't affect site placement as I dont really see how it could be accurate.
(the animal I assume was a baby goat - ie a kid).
299
« on: March 09, 2007, 05:11 »
We would really need to view them at 100% to ensure no noise. What are the reasons; is it noise or something else?
300
« on: March 09, 2007, 05:10 »
I agree Daneel. People are so use to zoom lens these days that I dont thing they are willing to go back to the good old days of having a fixed lenght lens.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 41
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
