|
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 - anonymous
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20
326
« on: April 29, 2008, 23:31 »
the guy is a dolt-tard..will pass him on the highway with his flat tire and he doesn't know how to operate the jack...where's that Mr. T photo (I pitty the fool)  ? 
327
« on: April 28, 2008, 17:10 »
to quote a former poster who was banned from this forum, i';d love to c things from his point of view but i don't think i could get my head that far up my ass 
Lots of booze and lube 
328
« on: April 28, 2008, 11:44 »
Lets hope this isn't your 15 minutes of fame
who's? Lior's or Judge Ross'?
329
« on: April 28, 2008, 07:47 »
The legislation would enable users to exhibit orphan works if, after a thorough, documented search, the copyright owners are unable to be located. The legislation outlines the criteria for such a search, and provides for court review to determine if a search has been adequate and done in good faith. If the copyright owner later emerges, the user must pay reasonable compensation to the owner. The bill also includes provisions to further protect owners of these orphaned copyrights, should any user exhibit bad faith.
...I'm not too woried as their is legal and financial recourse if you find it being used without permission.
330
« on: April 28, 2008, 07:34 »
very sweet comp. congrats!
331
« on: April 28, 2008, 07:27 »
In the early days of Crestock i complained about the humiliation to the photogs with that worst image of the day.
They replied to me that the photog in question is asked if image may be portrayed as worst of the day.
Still, i think it is no good to do so... this has been one of the reasons I quit crestock in the early days already.
Patrick H.
Golden rule of biz never "EVER" humiliate your best ppl.
...or your worst...they may get better or be in a position down the road to "help" you. The ole Judge is definately a "bridge burner"...
332
« on: April 28, 2008, 07:22 »
answer: Content Filter to protect those offended by such images (It's very easy to select "none" if desired). The irony is I used one of those 3 images on a Hedonism II direct mail piece, and yes my boss saw it as he had to approve it.
333
« on: April 28, 2008, 07:08 »
that is correct
334
« on: April 25, 2008, 23:42 »
I opted out of there a year ago...but they have handled their demise with grace. I'm glad to see you guys making some $cratch. Hats off to the LO for keeping the ship afloat after the iceberg. 
335
« on: April 25, 2008, 23:35 »
not the type of subject matter that i shoot, but in this market, any "niche" site is likely to fail. All of those photos (as you said) are available for a fraction of the cost on SS, IS, etc...
The portfolios there (for the most part) are quite stunning. But when I have a greater choice for cheaper change, you know where the shoppers will buy.
Sad to see another one go but it is survival of the fittest.
336
« on: April 25, 2008, 12:20 »
Are they still paying an industry lowest 25 cents for subscription downloads? Or have they upped it yet?
Nope..they still hold the lead there.
337
« on: April 25, 2008, 12:16 »
ditto
338
« on: April 24, 2008, 16:43 »
I can just see the Miz now...
Kicking back in a chair, having a nice cold beer, reading all of these replies, and smiling.
Bingo...EXACTLY what he's doing
339
« on: April 23, 2008, 07:39 »
more like "outofstock"
340
« on: April 22, 2008, 17:36 »
another reason not to join crestock!
I consistently earn more at Crestock than at BigStock, 123RF, and sometimes even Fotolia.
you are certainly the exception to the rule...be thankful...VERY thankful
341
« on: April 22, 2008, 09:43 »
no
342
« on: April 22, 2008, 09:41 »
perhaps...but that wasn't the reason for rejection. As of late, FT has become the "all-knowing" masters of "what is or is not stock"
343
« on: April 22, 2008, 07:39 »
Brother...when it comes to FT rejections, question not. Asking for logic from their rejections is like asking a 2 year old where dark matter comes from.
344
« on: April 21, 2008, 22:44 »
I know most of you dislike the "anonymous" approach, but it has saved me some battles that I would normally avoid (so no-posty-the-photy). My point is that someone at IS actually gave a detailed reason for flushing the image and I'm rather impressed as opposed to being pissed off. Just wish other reviewers (Atilla-the-Bugger) would take the time to be so gentle as they plunge their bayonet into your flexing chest while you whimper "please...the designers will "love" this".
345
« on: April 21, 2008, 18:08 »
Had to post this,
they're correct and i'm still misty eyed over the fact that they took the time to shoot me in the head so nicely (sorry, no "smily face with a tear)
** Too big a levels/curves/exposure adjustment in your RAW processor or image editor has created blocky posterization in shadow areas or has spread the color information out too much causing a degradation in image quality.**
Wow...a first for me and I'm in love with my terrorist/captor....(sniff)
347
« on: April 21, 2008, 08:01 »
Title rejection "Black #1". Photo was a model with jet black hair. Black #1 is a standard label for "true black" in hair color. It is not trademarked or copyrighted in any way...oh well
348
« on: April 21, 2008, 07:39 »
I've had some surprising rejections at Crestock. And some surprising accepts. While rejections are no fun (and I'm awaiting what happens to a batch that I uploaded the other night), I've learned to pick and choose which battles to fight. If I feel strongly about an image, I'll question it. If not, I'll usually just let it go, chuckle to myself (because more-than-likely the image has been accepted elsewhere), and not worry about it anymore.
If you feel strongly about an image that has been rejected, I would encourage you to contact helpdesk[at]crestock.com. There are cases of misunderstandings here, and, while we do have comparatively high standards, we by no means, want to appear unfair.
As for Judge Ross, I've thought about getting a tee shirt with the grumpy photo on the front and a big "I <heart> Judge Ross" on the back.  I may not always agree with what he says, or the images that he selects, but it's oh-so-fun reading the  "Worst" section. I don't get as many sales as I'd like there...it's either their upload procedure or that scowl that keeps me returning. 
We're looking at getting some merchandise done, right now. We've been wondering what to put on a t-shirt, so I might pass this idea onto the design team and see what they come up with Thanks for the tip.
Josh
The Crestock Team
Josh, Having to contact support just adds another layer of "work" for $.25 per sale and I think i speak for the majority in saying instead of putting $$ into merchandising the judge, how about bumping up the payouts for the sales?
349
« on: April 21, 2008, 07:35 »
so far they have not shared the fruits of their growth with me. ..................... All I know that IS and SS are doing quite well.
Same here, StockXpert dropping from 12% of my microstock revenue in Nov-07 to 4,6% in Mar-08.
Dropped about 20% for me...I hope things improve for me in the upward direction that several of you are reporting...as i continue uploading to feed the beast.
350
« on: April 19, 2008, 17:33 »
If any of you find threads on any of these sites pertaining to this subject, would you please be so kind as to post them here? I cannot find any and I'm EXTREMELY curious to see how the individual sites "deal" with the posts. If they close them or punish any of the "posters", this might lend credibility to the "insider" speculations.
THX
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
