|
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 - Perry
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 57
376
« on: May 25, 2012, 04:15 »
I put my images on many small sites, as long they have an easy upload process. Even a $10 more per month is welcome if it just takes a minute to get.
I really can't understand why there are new sites popping up that doesn't have an easy upload process. Do they really think bigger contributors will upload their stuff to a site with no track record but still have a upload process that is a pain in the *ss.
377
« on: May 24, 2012, 10:23 »
And how much are we going to get paid? If it's going to be Veer's standard royalties, then it's bye-bye Veer. I will propably lose more by Veer "cannibalizing" my Alamy sales than I will earn at Veer as a whole 
378
« on: May 23, 2012, 08:17 »
It would be interesting if they had image exclusivity, nominated by the reviewers
SS Reviewers choosing which ones they like? No thanks. They are currently "nominating" potential bestsellers with rejections.
379
« on: May 22, 2012, 10:36 »
What are you whining about? If the more expensive images are crappy, isn't that a GOOD THING for us regular contributors?
380
« on: May 21, 2012, 12:55 »
April 28 - 30 still missing...
381
« on: May 21, 2012, 08:38 »
18 months ago at iStock... I remember those times. Things were good then. Those were the days... 
382
« on: May 17, 2012, 11:57 »
...and I noticed today there is at least one micro that has a button allowing you to pin images from the site directly onto Pinterest.
Which site?
383
« on: May 17, 2012, 04:51 »
So it doesn't help if I try to change some shape of the letters and modify them a little bit? The name Facebook is "taken" so to say? Regardless of its shape and font?
If you can recognize it's Facebook, then it's Facebook 
384
« on: May 17, 2012, 03:46 »
I think Veer crossed the line here. Especially if they are going to receive full RF prices from Alamy and give us only peanuts. This is ROBBERY!
385
« on: May 17, 2012, 03:43 »
You can't use the trademarked company names at all if you are going to sell the image as RF. You could sell this image as editorial (but only a few sites might accept this since the most sites doesn't understand what "editorial" means)
Or you could remove all the names and logos and sell this as commercial (regular) RF.
386
« on: May 16, 2012, 17:06 »
Yep! these PP, programs are killers and totally unpredictable. A large Swedish RF agency places pics with both Getty, Alamy and Corbis. They sell quite well actually, only the original Swedish agency has been in deep financial troubles, so no photographer have been paid for ages, in spite of their material selling well.
This is all a bunch of garbage really, ofcourse someone is making money exept the ones created the images.
Somebody I know threatened to take them to court, sure enough he was paid within 2 weeks.
Care to tell the name of this agency? I have my guesses but I would like to know for sure...
387
« on: May 16, 2012, 06:12 »
If it ain't broken, don't fix it. If it's a little bit broken and nobody else notices, don't fix it either 
The image has a "frame" it kind of fades into white along the edges. I only have a faint idea what I have done in Photoshop It's not totally horrible but might look strange if it's printed on a page without cropping, "Why does the edges of this image look blurry???". But hey, they are downloading it, so I think I'll just forget about it I didn't even notice this, but iStock inspectors sure did! "Remove the frame around the image!" - I was like "What the h*ll are they talking about", but they were right 
388
« on: May 16, 2012, 04:59 »
I just noticed one of my new images have a slight retouching error. The image is still selling very well, and I would not like to delete it and risk my improved version doesn't get accepted or downloaded. Do you know if the support is nice enough to replace my file with a new one?
389
« on: May 15, 2012, 13:44 »
Woo-yay.
390
« on: May 15, 2012, 13:13 »
How do I participate in the IPO? I'm located in Europe. I could spare a few thousand dollars for some SS Stocks...
391
« on: May 14, 2012, 17:22 »
Increasing the bottom line through cost-cutting is what a desperate company does toward the end of its game. It's certainly not the strategy for a company that is about to do an IPO.
But what happens AFTER the IPO?
392
« on: May 14, 2012, 12:08 »
I don't like this a bit. Soon SS is taken over by a group of suits, people who sees stock only as a commodity. Then they are going to maximize their profits. This has "iStock disaster" written all over it.
393
« on: May 13, 2012, 16:29 »
Graphic Leftovers tried the "one price" system, but they don't use it anymore.
394
« on: May 13, 2012, 16:29 »
Nothing would stop buyers from buying the large, cheaper size and shrinking it down.
Oh, I didn't mean the big sizes would be cheaper than the little ones! They just should be cheaper than they are (and the small sizes more expensive than they are currently)
395
« on: May 13, 2012, 15:24 »
You all know that print media has been in decline in the last years, and it will be declining also in future.
I see the average size of images sold is getting smaller and smaller. more xsmall and small sizes, less large and xlarge.
I think microstock sites should revise their pricing. Small sizes up and big sizes down. What do you think?
396
« on: May 11, 2012, 09:01 »
I don't think the sound was real. Am I the only one suspecting this?
397
« on: May 11, 2012, 03:32 »
Contact PayPal support?
398
« on: May 10, 2012, 16:25 »
here's the hands on preview from DPreview with sample photos.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/05/10/Leica-M-Monochrom-hands-on-preview
It's a totally crazy camera, but the full-sized samples look amazing!
No they don't, look at the horse's nose, the detail is completely blown out, skies that might have some detail are lost and most of the images look flat with poorly controlled contrast. It's probably not the camera's fault, but how many people remember how to shoot B&W these days?
Hehee... I changed my amazing -> nice. I wouldn't look at the horse too closely, they have just over exposed the image (heck, they have used an exposure compensation of +1.33 on a dark-ish scene). Look at the detail in the images, no bayer-interpolation-crap here...
400
« on: May 10, 2012, 16:11 »
Too many.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
