|
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 - lthn
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15]
351
« on: April 29, 2011, 11:49 »
There is a solution. A dollar is still worth a dollar here. 
I heard more and more shops accept euro in th USA, so....
352
« on: April 29, 2011, 08:33 »
yeah, I'd really like to collect credits in something else, it's not gonna be worth tin crap soon... another devaluation of comissions
353
« on: April 27, 2011, 13:39 »
Also when was the last time you saw the owners of IS or SS f.e. talking directly to contributors here (or anywhere)?
354
« on: April 26, 2011, 21:26 »
Ok I'm trying to get excited about StockFresh. I look at their site and see that it says "We believe in fair compensation and fair pricing." And right next it that it says "subscription packages - 35 cents per download".
I couldn't find that...
http://stockfresh.com/info/contributors
Do we want to contribute to the success of yet another 35 cent subscription site?
Read buyers info too, you can only buy up to medium size with subscription. They can't skip subscription, or the buyers would skip them... at least this way they force them to pay more for serious print use basically.
355
« on: April 25, 2011, 02:59 »
^^ +1
What we really need is for someone to come up with a way to get our images in front of more people than just designers. With all of the blogging, school projects, personal websites, etc. out there, a huge market doesn't even know that we exist!
What?  Where do you ppl even come up with stuf like that? That market is what makes up most of microstock customers. The type that someone would call a real designer, graphic artist at an ad agency etc, is but a small minority, and they work 50% with commissioned stuff, if you only had them you wouldn't even have fraction of the sales you may experience. Even 90+% of the tear sheets with print stuff are small-local-amateur stuff, and then you get the ppl who ask the contributor to horizontally mirror some stuff they just bought from them - totally design software illiterate, even the browsre can do that actually.
356
« on: April 21, 2011, 15:46 »
To be honest it's a bit unstylish 'square' design, especially for such lively shots. It's a bit like an IT-guy's, or a smalltime local dentist's homapage with that high conrast blue-white theme. Some more delicate styling would serve those shots better. Imho. It looks ok for functionality to me, except for that blue-white thing dominating over the photo showcase (which could be bigger)
357
« on: April 21, 2011, 13:13 »
This is mostyl not image sleut, just one of the many wonders of RF licencing. Checked a few links, seems to me most of these hires (semi hires in my book) are up there simply out of neglectance from web designers, who instead of actually resizing the pic in photoshop, just let the browser resize it. They probably are in a severe rush, as most graphic designers. They buy a decent size and keep using it for anything they need. There you go, RF. IS and the rest probably (wisely) elect not to go on harassing 1000s of costumers about this, which wouldn't achieve anything except pissing them off.
It's not the point whether the listed images have been licensed or not (hopefully they are...).
It's about the fact that anyone who can use Google...  can get a hold of high resolution files.
No need to be familiar with peer-to-peer networks or file hosting services like rapidshare and the like, just plain old Google.
I'd suggest that the agencies should strip all EXIF and IPTC as well as any commonly used identifiers such as format and/or image ID from the file name. At least this way the images wouldn't show up in such image searches.
It is a piont, because thats one of the reasons they will up there like this forever. Using p2p or filesharing is just about as common nowledge as google btw.
358
« on: April 21, 2011, 12:02 »
This is mostyl not image sleut, just one of the many wonders of RF licencing. Checked a few links, seems to me most of these hires (semi hires in my book) are up there simply out of neglectance from web designers, who instead of actually resizing the pic in photoshop, just let the browser resize it. They probably are in a severe rush, as most graphic designers. They buy a decent size and keep using it for anything they need. There you go, RF. IS and the rest probably (wisely) elect not to go on harassing 1000s of costumers about this, which wouldn't achieve anything except pissing them off.
359
« on: April 21, 2011, 07:00 »
^^^That's partially true but I still think buyers like to see new images. Their old collections would start to look dated after a while. I just think its something that a lot of people could do, instead of complaining and carrying on uploading as normal.
Some probably do, but if buyers liked new images so much, how do the sales pile up, and how did the '80% income from 20% of the port' come to be the standard? I support your cause, but this will not hurt them at all. Removal would... or maybe ppl just shouldn't have given their shots in the first place. Their moves are pretty radical, they can only be countered by equally radical moves on your side. Imho, crowd sourcing will always become crowd shafting, because each contributor in the crowd is expandable. It's just a matter of time untill they start to abuse that. : /
360
« on: April 21, 2011, 06:01 »
Shutterstock recruits inspectors from contributors -just like most other sites- and that means that most inspectors are amateur 'photographers' of the "heey, I was flipping burgers, and now I got me a dslr" type from a few years back, and they know little to nothing about imagery or style, not even the basic technical things, especially when comes to process printing. I saw the port of one person who claimed she is/was a longtime inspector... I wasn't expecting much but it was some of the most distastefull amateurish photoshop junk I'v ever seen in my life. Terrible lens flares badly pasted on everything, and the sort, just rubbish. On the other hand I can't complain, they accept just about everything from me... just dont send them flowers, they hate that : ))))
361
« on: April 21, 2011, 05:53 »
Thats all very nice, and subjective, but according to buyers I know personally SS is one of the easiest sites to use, 'it works like magic'. How 'bout that? : )) Of course they are not trying to find one particular shot among the 40000 newly uploaded, which is gonna hard, what a surprise...
362
« on: April 21, 2011, 05:44 »
Its very likely that are being treated like that partially because of H&F. Istock is a pie chart, or a slice in it for them. They probably gatherd some essential information, which includes that the contributors have little to no ability to fight for their interests, and gave the orders to squeeze more juice out you.
"Per the fraudulent purchases from December onward, thousands (if not millions) of dollars were clawed back from contributing artists."
When they read this, they will probably say: Good job! Did they manage to do anything against it? No? Do it again!
363
« on: April 21, 2011, 05:37 »
Illustrator 'master'? That phrase would bring someone like Escher to and educated mind, not an amateur who copies a tutorials... tutorials for g.s. : }
What in gods name does he have to do with computer vector illustrations ?!?
This guys work is amazing. I wish I had 10% of his IS downloads (or his work).
Illustration, means graphic art work regardless of the medium... Lets not try to reinvent the language just because this includes digital tools now. : ) I'v got nothing aganst the guy or what he does, its ok, neat, etc. But mastery is bit far fetched to say the least. : ) Thats for stuff that stood the test of time.
364
« on: April 21, 2011, 04:16 »
For $250 I tell anyone in a single minute how to avoid creating overprocessed junk.
365
« on: April 21, 2011, 04:11 »
The real point is that with the 5D mkii you can crop and still get XXL selling potential. You shouldn't worry too much about the noise up to 400. Just expose so that the important, in focus stuff is pretty bright, the rest is bokeh and use some decent software like topaz denoise 5 on those. If you keep to that, you can even shoot 1600 iso and get thru the amateur inspectors.
366
« on: April 21, 2011, 03:21 »
Suppliers don't have to walk away from istock. Just stop uploading until the site has been sold or until they realize they need us. That might be enough to tip the scales now. They aren't going to do anything until they see its going to hit their profits. If everyone just complains but carries on using the site as normal, we are going to just see more of the same.
They make most of their money on pics that are already popular, and basicaly 'old', the whole system is geared to promote those, so they hardly have any need for any of you, unless you remove stuff. They can live off the 10+ million images they have for years if they want to. They might even realize that without having the need to expand their strage they would make more money! Just look at what dreamstime is doing....
367
« on: April 21, 2011, 03:13 »
Illustrator 'master'? That phrase would bring someone like Escher to and educated mind, not an amateur who copies a tutorials... tutorials for g.s. : }
368
« on: April 21, 2011, 03:08 »
Agreed with most of the above, the situation is pretty nasty, most big companies can safely rely on the fact that people can't finance going thru with legal action. This is one of the many failures of democracy in capitalism. Maybe if you suffered some 'physical trauma', you might even have a chance of getting rich. Try falling off the chair out of shock from the copyrioght infringement, or maybe a nervous breakdown... and have a friendly doctor check you out : }
369
« on: April 21, 2011, 03:00 »
this is old news and you sell licences anyway, not hires files. At least now you can see how poorly done most of these shots are. : }
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
