|
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 - a.k.a.-tom
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 44
376
« on: May 05, 2008, 15:58 »
I'm still in hobby/fun format. It does pay for new toys. I make a better buck doing freelance for a publishing outfit (also as a hobby). However, as I move toward retirement from my "day job" of 34 years, I wouldn't mind making a little more money from stocks.  =tom
377
« on: May 05, 2008, 15:43 »
Yeah, I've got a few of those..... =tom
378
« on: May 03, 2008, 08:56 »
i'm using BetterPhoto.com, the ProBetterPholio .... does everything, even credit cards.... too much to list, just take a peek at it and click on the compare of their various sites... it's a little dear in price, $300 US for one years, but it pretty much does everything you need business-wise. You can display 3,000 pix, have private areas passworded for your clients to view what you shot for them.... I guess it all depends on how hot and heavy you intend to be promoting and marketing yourself. Of course, if I knew a lot more about html, flash, etc... I would prefer to build my own site from scratch.... but my knowledge is very limited in website construction. Not to mention... who has the time. As it is, my gallery is still infinitely small here and I have nothing set up for client use yet.... lots of work maintaining your own website/gallery. Fortunately for me one of my daughters just completed school in web design and I'm con'ing her to do the work... LOL the Pro is the biggest site they offer.. they do have 2 other levels at lower cost with fewer options. No, I don't work for them.  =tom
379
« on: May 03, 2008, 07:06 »
In my case, the images were watermarked, so it wasn't a purchased item.
same here.... they all have watermarks on them.... I've right-clicked the pix.... the quailty is extremely poor.... it's not like they can sell these things... i think....  =tom
380
« on: May 02, 2008, 15:58 »
Something happened! I checked in to day and discovered I had one credit sale sint the 24TH of APR. My Credit sales went from $2.25 to $39.75? Must have been an Extended License sale.
I still can't figure out how it all runs at 123rf.... last week I had a $44 sale.... have no idea what it was.... RIGHT NOW.... anyone having any trouble getting on 123? When I go to log on, I wind up with a blank screen....
381
« on: May 02, 2008, 15:46 »
I never got an answer back out of LO when I asked.... no surprise why now... mine are still up there and being used... =tom
382
« on: April 28, 2008, 17:20 »
Pretty poor business practice. And to echo others, if it sucked that much, how the heck did it get on the site? It just turned me off to uploading there. BTW, Lior, It's NOT blurry. And from a marketing perspective, it is a very good shot, plenty of room for text or related photos. The black at top and bottom make it easy to turn into a vertical shot for page advert... Judge, hunh? Guess this is a perfect example of blind justice. =tom
383
« on: April 28, 2008, 17:11 »
no drop for me... march just missed being BME and I'm pleased so far with April. =tom
384
« on: April 27, 2008, 18:31 »
MODIFIED. mantonino.... I've been figthing this battle since I got into the biz. I can definitely tell you I am reaaaaaally no prude. I have no problem with nudity. I enjoy especially b&w classic nudes, body landscaping just to name two areas of photography. However... ...back when I first started microstocks, I was showing my daughter " dad's pictures" on the web. First thing that comes up on this one site is "recent uploads".... and what is it filled with? Not classic nude, not body landscape, and not a simple "nipple". ( Heck, I see that in the grocery store line on a regular basis, so's my daughter.) No. This crap was provacative, suggestive, erotic .... next step, soft porn. Needless to say... I was ticked of just a wee bit!! What the hecks this? IMHO that was just downright unprofessional by this site. Everyone's view around this planet varies by culture and moral upbringing. And I don't care how 'liberal' some people think they are, world-wide, it is still not socially acceptable by the masses to the degree that it should be mixed in with everything else. It needs to be behind a filter. And what is the big problem with that? Just one click of the mouse? It is only socially acceptable courtesy. And any site that just mixes it in with the flowers, jet fighters, waterfalls and women on telephones demonstrates the same mentality as some others of my gender who claim they only buy Playboy Magazine for the good articles!! It should be filtered. The idea that this kind of filtering is "American" and "substandard" is ludicrous. I've lived all over this planet and I understand that some peoples do have more liberal views. I also know that all countries have different moral values related to public nudity. So what? Some would have hardcore sex on commercial television, some expect females to have their entire body covered in clothing... so what? And in every country the moral ideals on nudity run from one extreme to the other. The display of nudity on the front page of a microstock agency doesn't make them modern thinking and free of antiquated moral incumberance. Microstock is an international business accessible by people of varying moral beliefs. America doesn't have the corner on the censorship market. And when it comes to busines, IMHO, I believe that nudity or editorial violence should be behind a filter. And the fact is, evidently, so DO most microstock agencies... including, non-american ones! It's just intelligent business sense and a respectful practice, or a world-wide, socially acceptable courtesy towards their clients. On the WWW there is no end to nudity. For those that just can't get enough, there's so much, they can view it 24/7 for the rest of their lives and never run out. It shouldn't be on the 'latest uploads' page of a microstock business. The young man stated that he wasn't a prude, yet he said that ' he saw some stuff he didn't need to be seeing". What's wrong with that? He's right. He DIDN"T need to see it. He was obviously looking for something else. If he wanted to see that, all he should have to do is click his mouse a second time. What's the big deal? I don't know what he saw, I didn't go look. I do know what me and my daughter saw that day and it wasn't 'the artistic display of the beautiful human body". They weren't pictures that " I would be proud to have shot"... I personally have no problem shooting nudes for artistic use. These were crap. They had no artistic value at all. I wouldn't know what legitimate use anyone would have had for these pictures. Anyone that wanted could buy their own digital camera, go home and shoot pix of their girlfriends grabbing themselves in the bedroom and saved the 30 cent download. They had no place in microstock. Talk about "not stock material". I can only imagine that the reviewer WAS one of those clowns that "reads Playboy for the fine articles". Baloney!! And I certainly wouldn't have nudity on the lead page of my personal business website. That's just plain stupid. I wrote that company about what I found and how I felt. I'm sure it wasn't my personal complaint that changed things, no doubt more than I complained. For shortly thereafter, nudity got filtered behind a warning. I guess they weren't so liberal and advant garde afterall. mantonino.. Right on!! If that's the way you feel, you stick to your guns!! There are plenty out here that feel the same way. I'm far from being a prude but I'm with you!! =tom
385
« on: April 27, 2008, 18:19 »
I agree that originality and uniqueness is what makes a great artist. There are many photographers who IMO have the same level of skill as Ansel Adams or Galen Rowell, or artist who can draw and paint as well as Leonardo DaVinci, but that in itself doesn't make them great. These guys were great because they were originals, they were the first to do what they did. Originality is what makes greatness.
I agree with that.... originality or uniqueness will breed greatness. None-the-less.... that ' talent' (or whatever word one wants to use) was there first. Posted by: Pixart
I was not born with a camera in my hand, but I do get a few lucky shots now and then. Funny, but come to think of it - the more I study and practice, the luckier I get.[/b] Maybe not born camera in hand Pixart... but your portfolio does not bespeak ' a lot of luck'. You have the talent, you are developing it, you're good now and you will become greater as you move forward. Michealangelo didn't do David first time into the shop with a hammer and chisel. =tom
386
« on: April 27, 2008, 07:49 »
$5.00 on Alamy.
? - Is that what RF prices are down to at Alamy? I sold one a year ago for $109
vividpixels.... I apologize. You are correct. I am on Alamy... What I meant to say was FP.. Sorry to all for making a confusing statement. Thanks for pointing that out to me... Having the same pix at SS, IS, DT etc and too on Alamy would be contradictory to exactly what I was saying (as well as what joma was saying). Bad idea. FP... FP I meant FP. =to
387
« on: April 26, 2008, 22:09 »
but who's to blame for that? definitely not the sites.
we submit what we want. if we mass submit to everyone, we shoot ourselves in the foot and this is what happens in the end.
To a degree I will agree... but only a small degree. The primary fault didn't lay with the photogs, it was the site. I understand your point completely, however, it doesn't correlate with the fact that I can sell the same pic on SS for 30 cents, 50 cents on StockXpert and $2.50 on IS and $5.00 on Alamy [ !!!!! MODIFIED: CORRECTION, I meant to say FP, NOT Alamy. Sorry ] People are going to pay what they want. Are there hard core 'shoppers' out there that'll jump site to site? Yeah, but most buyers are satisfied shopping in one place. The buyers I know usually shop only at their fav one or two agencies. They don't look all over and they are happy to pay what they usually pay. They are looking for a specific image. On the other had if a guy publishing a book on the Grand Canyon wanted a quick and easy source for a variety of Grand Canyon pictures, dozens or even hundreds, he could have got them all in just my portfolio on NLS (or other photogs there). I don't have a large Grand Canyon portfolio on SS, IS, DT, etc. Why? Because they don't want them. "too many on site" "not stock material" "not a big need for this". NLS was supposed to be a 'nature' site. It was supposed to cater to specific groups, a select target,... scientists, naturalists, environmental agencies, etc. Not account execs at an ad agency. They started out great, faithful to that niche, but soon, everything started showing up there. It quickly digressed into another something for everyone site. Photogs started uploading everything they had there simply because the site allowed it. They could have rejected a picture of a blond eating cheesecake, a guy talking on a phone, a secretary typing on a computer as... "not NLS stock material" "no need for this on NLS", but they didn't and in a matter of weeks it started looking like SS, IS, DT, etc and worse, not at 25, 30 or 2.50, but $6 bucks. They shot themselves in the foot. NLS wound up with photogs that weren't nature/landscape photographers at all. It went from a site that had a lot of potential to serve the needs of exclusive communities that would pay more... to another upstart free-for-all with everything at a price that then became ridiculous. Only they would know their financial condition. But it is pretty much a well known fact that one year is not sufficient time to get a business like that operational, let alone profitable. 12 months is not enough time to become an established provider of niche photography. To your point, that is why most of us have two different portfolios for micro and macro. Agree to your point, if a photog is placing the same pic on micro and macro, yeah, that's not the best decision in MHO also. It doesn't make business sense to have the same pix on both. That is the photog shooting him/herself in the foot. And really not professional in their relationship with the organization that is now unknowingly featuring micro images on their macro site. But, to have the same pix spread across the micro world... makes perfect sense to me. In the case of NLS, they wanted to be a boutique agency. They should have stuck to that. They should have policed what they accepted. They didn't by choice, only known to them. Again, they shot themselves in the foot. ..... I'm tired, hope that made sense. =tom Just to reiterate... I liked NLS. I was disappointed to see the direction the company portfolio took and I'm sorry to see they had to throw in the towel so soon.
388
« on: April 25, 2008, 22:15 »
Yeah, NLS went down a couple weeks ago. I was heading for 500 pix there, 99% of which were 'nature/landscape' shots. I had stuff there I did have on the other 12 sites. I thought it might work, I was one of the first on.... over a year, sold... zip!! It was supposed to be strictly nature. Ended up with airplanes, buildings & architecture, cars, etc.... just like any other micro site.... and all priced at $6. Problem too, most of the pictures on NLS were available elsewhere for 25 and 30 cents. I liked NLS... had hopes for it... but, didn't make it. There were a few MSG members on NLS. =tom
389
« on: April 25, 2008, 19:56 »
I like BigStock.... and really had no trouble with them.... but this month.... will be my WME !! Man, I'm selling zip there this month!! And none of my new stuff seems to be getting any views. Maybe it's just me?? =tom
390
« on: April 24, 2008, 16:56 »
that being said MIZ... on to more important things.You DO sound like a beer man. Are you? Do you prefer domestic or imported beers? Does the bottle color matter? Any of the local micro-beers find your fancy? Lite, dark, malted??? Summer, winter ales... Oktoberfest styles?? Imported? Euro or Asians ... maybe Canadians? Personally, I do just about anything Imported in a clear or green bottle. Domestically, Coors, Sam Adams... and I do a lot of experimentation in the Micro's... Beers, that is. Although I have been known to do a couple Mexicans, Dos Equis isn't bad and I'll even do what most think is sewer water, Corona. The lime kills all the bacteria anyway, so they say. Some of the island stuff is good, I enjoy Red Stripe... no two bottles taste the same... So what is it for you? =tom
391
« on: April 24, 2008, 00:19 »
I think it's a stupid question. Sorry. No camera or photoshop skills will help If you don't see it.
amen
392
« on: April 23, 2008, 17:43 »
figures... today I just sold 3 pix..... I suppose others of you are still experiencing sales??? or maybe some of my friends here are doing 'mercy buys' LOL =tom
393
« on: April 23, 2008, 09:02 »
.............guess i did..... 
394
« on: April 23, 2008, 08:34 »
That's the way I read it too. I don't see anyone just walking away from SS and remaining independent. But I could see a small exodus of contributors to IS as exclusives.
Yeah, I agree, you may see a small exodus on the move. ...on the other hand.... One thing I've learned in the business world in my 60 years on the planet... nobody is irreplaceable. I've seen it happen in too many instances to count. Folks who think they've got the world by the short ones, thinking they can't be replaced, thinking they can call the shots.... only to find themselves on the outside looking in. You (I came back to modify this, when I read it I thought DanP might be thinking the 'you' was him, it's you as in a person in general-this comment agrees with DanP...now back to my comment).... you.. may be the top photog in the site, top in the industry, top in the world..... but there are hundreds(thousands) of young shark photogs two inches off your six with afterbuners on full ready to step in and take your place. And any company worth its salt knows that. A photog that thinks his or her giant portfolio would be a leverage to force a site's hand, is playing in dangerous waters or at the very least wasting their time. I have had to deal with this very thing in my day job for the last 34 years and I'm here to tell you, I (and my company) have never lost. There was/is always somebody else to take the last guy's place. And as good as I am in my job, I am under no false impressions that some clown can and will take my job some day. The power players never affect us..in these times of recession and downward economies... we're still turning record profits (no, I don't work for big oil). Any business that needs to submit to this sort of pressure isn't on stable foundation to begin with. Heck, today, even the UAW and Teamsters can't throw their weight around like they did in the last century. If you think your portfolio being there or not will make a difference to SS or IS or a site of that quality.... you're wrong. There's plenty of people with cameras out there and each day, they shoot better images... Just MHO. =tom p.s. this is not directed at anyone in particular... and does not mean I minimize the fantastic portfolios and abilities of mega-photogs. Just saying, there haven't been many people in history that were able to pull coups off.... successfully.
395
« on: April 22, 2008, 17:40 »
I remember when someone hacked my Fotolia account, Fotolia told me that it was happening quite often and that they would not even do an investigation.
I got ripped on FT way back when I first got into this thing. They were using my credits to buy photos. I never got a satisfactory explanation out of anyone at FT. I did get my credits back after a bit of email wars... but it left a bad taste in my mouth. It was obvious that it was an internal security matter. I got that out of a woman who was answering phones in NYC. Evidently they had some people on staff helping themselves??? I don't know, never got an legit answer. I dumped my folio there except for a couple that sold on a regular basis, in hopes of getting up to the payout level. But now, they don't sell at all. I'll never see that money. I don't reccomend FT to all my photog friends. =tom
396
« on: April 22, 2008, 17:29 »
..surfin out on the web using my name, my name on the sites, my photo's names, I've been able to dig up a few. DOT websites, road maps, a lobbying group in D.C. ... Sometimes you get lucky and find one here and there. =tom I just tried a9.com. My name came up a few times, but only with referrals back to LO, 123 & IS. No specific buyers.
397
« on: April 22, 2008, 16:35 »
so whats the story on this site? New, what? Don't see a lot of images..... =tom
398
« on: April 21, 2008, 17:34 »
LOL a.k.a.-tom
You prove my point exactly.
You are starting to sound like Rinder 
You know, I take THAT as a REAL compliment!!! Although, I don't know that Rinder would like to hear that comparison... ha ha ha ha ha ha.... =tom
399
« on: April 21, 2008, 17:31 »
My first book cover is coming out in the next few days and they purchased it at BigStock last fall. At BigStock, a customer has to pay more to put it on a coffee mug than on a book cover, because apparently the words are the main subject, and the photo means nothing on a book cover. Go figure. I believe that all the other sites it would have been an enhanced/extended sale.
italics in quote are mine.....
First off Pixart, Congrats on the cover!!! That is very cool!! Feels great, doesn't it? You go!!! Second, [read with extreme sarcasm in your voice ] the words are the main subject??? the cover photo means nothing? ? Who's saying this that is obviously not from this planet?? What's the first thing that attracts one to a magazine or a book in the bookstore??? The cover art!! Give me a break!!!!!!! If the stinken cover photo/art isn't important, than why don't all books in Barnes and Nobles just have words on them saying "THIS IS A BOOK ABOUT DOGS" . or maybe "DEPRESSED? READ THIS INSIDE", or "HOW-TO BUILDER'S GUIDE, WOOD CARVINGS (words only)" or better still, "HOPE YOU CAN READ, PICTURES AREN'T IMPORTANT, SO THERE AIN'T ANY IN HERE!" I don't suffer that thinking with my publisher. They pay handsomely for six to a dozen pix in an article, ..they pay more if they want to use one on the cover. I've only been getting published for a little over a year now, but....... I never heard such thinking. If there are others of you who are published in mags and books, what type of deal are you getting? Do I just have a generous publisher/editor/art director??? This just doesn't sound right, Pixart!!  =tom
400
« on: April 21, 2008, 17:02 »
I would entirely agree with your observations. I also believe that there are a few artist's amongst us who have such finely tuned BS .......
Amen to that, gbalex!! I couldn't agree more with that statement!! And I am sure that some of my stuff is in that very category, fact, I know it is. None-the-less, .........it sells. I put it in this frame of light. I'm sure there are many, many top notch, world-class chefs that wouldn't be caught dead eating in a McDonald's.... Yet, if I told you how much my McDonald's stock has grown in the last 30 years... it would become immediately evident that it doesn't matter what world-class chefs think of their menu fare. Yeah a lot of my stuff isn't Ansel Adams excellence or whatever/whoever... but magazine and book publishers are buying it. I'm making money doing it and that is why I'm doing it. For the money. I don't expect anything I ever shot will be hanging in a museum in 100 years and if I drop dead tonight, by this time tomorrow, no one here will even know it or miss me. It's just business. I do have images that I do think are beautiful and of high quailty. None of those are on any microstock. But they do hang in private homes. Some have fetched pleasantly remarkable prices in auction. And I have no doubt that many, many here can say the same or similar .......sooooo........ ... so what. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I know a shot is crap, as a pro in the biz, you know it's crap.... but some guy somewhere saw it and just paid for an EL.... that's why I'm in the micros.... to sell ..whatever will sell, I'm not here looking to be in the Louvre by 2050. And if I ever did make it to a museum anywhere.... It's not likely it'll be something that came out of my micro stuff... unless, of course, the museum curator is the next Andy Warhol... And, gbalex, please don't take this the wrong way. I am actually agreeing with you. peace =tom
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
