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 - cascoly
4026
« on: May 26, 2010, 17:34 »
Oh my... I didn't even imagine that so many of you guys thought I am a skinhead. You should tell me long ago about this. Maybe that way I would avoid some of small unpleasant situations that I had to deal with, lol.
@suwanneeredhead: Thanks Stacey! Good to see you! I'm so flattered. It's always a great pleasure seeing you.
like several others, that WAS my initial reaction, but all i had to do was read your posts to realize the truth so i let it go - a private msg would probably have been helpful; unfortunately, in the US it's not a matter of political correctness anymore, but the complete dumbing down of discourse -- to the point that merely calling someone 'liberal' eg is supposed to prove your case. with the tea party, militia & aryans, provocative signs and names are common and recently, and can be accompanied by death threats or bricks steve
4027
« on: May 26, 2010, 13:03 »
i tried it with much the same results as you received -- ss actually said they didnt want collages.  a few agencies did accept them, but sales have been slight. the only montage i've done with any significant sales was a religious theme showing articles from several faiths s
4028
« on: May 25, 2010, 17:25 »
sales popped a bit, but 123 has been dead so long it may just be gas
s
4029
« on: May 25, 2010, 17:24 »
I almost always write 50 keywords for every image. For 10-20 words you need less time, but if you want to find 50 relevant keywords, you have to spend more time keywording. I even use Yuri's website for keywording, and I can't do it faster.
i've not seen your keywording, but i think there are few images that need 50 keywords - when i've seen the lists some people use, they're closer to spam than relevance. steve
4030
« on: May 24, 2010, 19:54 »
PS. cascoly: " you seem to think that a positive population growth is in itself bad - Malthus was disproved many years ago"
Please read; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe under Neo-Malthusian theory. Malthus' basic principles have not been disproved.
i thought i might get away with that generalization, but i guess not - i was just trying to emphasize that the malthusian collapse of cilvilization is no longer a real threat - obviously nothing can increase forever without some severe consequences - but in the case of pop, we have seen in country after country, that growth rate declines as the people achieve a higher std of living - the real question right now is what std is going to be set for the world when economies like the US can no longer get away with using 4 times the resources we actually have. s
4031
« on: May 24, 2010, 19:46 »
Trying to impose birth control is in my opinion morally unacceptable. A lot more so than trying to artificially create life. We're looking ahead, into the future, not back to the Dark Ages.
Really? Morally unacceptable? I think if you visit Mumbai you could well change your mind. Seeing four million people living in squalor right in the middle of what is considered to be a 'modern' city certainly changed my world view.
India's 'standard of living' may be getting closer to the west for SOME Indians. but not the vast majority. The cast system may be partly to blame, but at the huge population of that country there is no way they will ever have a decent standard of life for the masses.
It is of little use trying to convince anyone that has never been there though. I urge all people that live in the relative luxury of western civilization to visit the more squalid areas of India (not the resort areas where you are cut off from reality), and see if your notions of population growth and sustainability are not changed forever.
actually, i spent 6 weeks, mostly off tourist tracks in India last fall - orissa and southern india, then small villages in the rajasthan hills. i've been to mumbai, and yes it's crowded [we took the 2nd class computer trains during rush hour], http://cascoly.com/trav/india/Trains.asp?lt=1 but the problems of mega-cities are different from those of the vast majority of indians who still live in the villages. the std of living has increased for everyone, not at acceptable or equitable rates, certainly, but the lifespan in india ismuch higher than it was just 50 yrs ago. and on a different tack, life in the villages may not be all that bad - most people have enough to eat, have jobs, but are not working 80 hr wks and stressed out; they live as extended families in real communities. most of us prob'ly couldnt adapt to it, but it is an alternative that said, i'd still agree that FORCED pop control is unacceptable - esp'ly, as stated before , because we know there are BETTER ways. again, educating girls has proved to be the best way to reduce population growth. steve
4032
« on: May 24, 2010, 19:33 »
the much bigger problem is climate change, for which the developed world is most responsible - maybe we should restrict THEIR growth. after all, each american uses many times the resources of the developing populations.
steve
Of course we should "restrict THEIR growth". We should be restricting the growth or at least encouraging each country to slow it down.
The problem with climate change and pollution is directly correlated with the population growth. Just about every economical, agricultural and political problem is a result of the massive increase in population. And let's forcast to the next generation or so when the world has a population of 50 billion.
INVERSELY correlated actually - the us & europe have relatively slow pop growth, as does china at this point, yet they are responsible for MOST of the contributions to climate change; if pop growth went to 0 tomorrow, we'd still be facing major environmental problems as societies become more developed, pop growth decreases [for a variety of reasons] i'm just trying to put pop growth in perspective - we are not facing a malthsian die-off; the worst estimates for pop increase in next 100 yrs is to about 15 billion, and we can produce food for that number - as you said tho, the problems become political and economic steve
4033
« on: May 24, 2010, 19:24 »
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you. You can keyword your images poorly and spend 2-3 minutes per image. But for a good keywording of one image you should spent at least 5 minutes (if not 10). That means maximum 12 images per hour. 12x0.4=$4.8 per hour. Now find me someone who will do it for less. If you think this is a stealing, then sit and try to keyword 1000 images yourself 
In my opinion, the only problem if you send images to Dreamstime for keywording, is that not all images will be accepted. So, you will again have some images to keyword manually.
i dont think i've ever spent 5' on one image & generate 10-20 kw / image - if you have a good vocabulary,it's just not that hard - plus, i rarely keyword less than3-5 images at a time and even rarer are the times i have to start keywording from scratch - i uslly have a siimila;ly keyworded image that i can cut n paste i average about 50 images an hour - that's writing captions, keywording, adding iptc info, but i wouldnt do it for someone else for less than $50/hr s
4034
« on: May 24, 2010, 01:21 »
However you look at it population growth is in positive figures in almost every country including those in the developed world. The only current notable exception is Germany, and that's probably just a blip as historically several other countries have had similar momentary falls below zero. So the truth is that even if every country in the world had a population as well educated as in Western democracies (and this will never, never happen) population would still be growing at an unacceptable rate, that will only be ultimately limited by the level of available resources or enforced legislation. However hard we try to think up nice feel good ways of dealing with this there's no getting away from the facts.
why is it unacceptble? by what reasoning? you seem to think that a positive population growth is in itself bad - Malthus was disproved many years ago - the carrying capacity of the earth is well beyond what we see now, and there is more than enough potential food for the anticipated increases in pop. on what are you basing your claim? the much bigger problem is climate change, for which the developed world is most responsible - maybe we should restrict THEIR growth. after all, each american uses many times the resources of the developing populations. steve
4035
« on: May 23, 2010, 16:15 »
4036
« on: May 23, 2010, 13:50 »
I think its unsolved because most people have worked out that the time saving from using Isyndica rather than trying to faff around with all of the channels themselves is well worth the subscription prices they charge.
rather - those who continue to USE isyndica have found that to be true, but that's a tautology. it's not a cure for everyone steve
4037
« on: May 23, 2010, 13:38 »
Well however you look at it a stable population is one where births=deaths. Clearly at the moment births>deaths as the population is increasing. The last thing you want to do is reduce the right of the equation even further. If anything, not enough people are dying of starvation. Sorry that is what a stable population looks like under the current conditions until someone has the moral courage to face up to the facts. The nicest thing to do is to try and reduce the number of births by placing limits on the number of children people can have. Failing this, at least dont make it worse by trying to increase resource production!
as others have said, the populations AND standards of living in india and china have increased over the last 50 years, thanks in large part to the green revolution which now allows these countries to feed their people - neither has had a major famine in the last qarter century - the worst famines that have occurred are usually due to politics - from stalin's purges to china's great leap and cultural revolutions. afica is the only continent where the green revolution hasnt been as spectacularly productive and again politics not agriculture is the main cause for hunger. see wiliam shawcross quality of mercy for a detailed discussion of the politics of disaster relief by far the MOST important thing to do to lower pop growth is to educate women - in cuntry after country as women are given education, they improve their living standards and the birth rate drops steve
4038
« on: May 22, 2010, 21:17 »
the Green revolution was made possible 40 years ago by bio-engineered crops and while the GR has problems, it has had tremndous effects in reducing hunger At the same time it increased the use of pesticides and other chemical stuff that damages watersheds and ultimately ourselves.
'chemical stuff' is also called organic farming - the same nutrients are required whether their source is a chem lab or bird guano -- large scale farming requires large scale nutrition, there is nt enough 'natural' fertilizer to feed the world - it's the scale of the farming. miliions of people are saved from hunger by these methods while a western elite focuses on local production of boutique crops and locavore suburban markets world hunger is an econimic and political problem, not scientitifc s
4039
« on: May 22, 2010, 12:30 »
In 50 years they may cured AIDS and cancer but what will they do about people dying from hunger and thirst and killing each other for a handful of rice? We cannot sustain ourselves at the rate we're growing.
actually bioengineering of the plant kingdom is probably the major emphasis right now -- the Green revolution was made possible 40 years ago by bio-engineered crops and while the GR has problems, it has had tremndous effects in reducing hunger similar results are being achieved today with corn that fixes its own nitrogen, and the pest resistant strains - reducing need for chemical fertilizer and pesticides. steve
4040
« on: May 22, 2010, 12:23 »
Some years ago I went to see a lecture by Stephen Hawking and he talked about a time when human characteristics would be genetically enhanced and/or muted. Creating a species with a bit more understanding and a lot more intelligence. Of course the military would want it the other way around. That would set the stage for major advances.
who needs humans? by then the military will already be using the next generation of cylon centurians anyway... s
4041
« on: May 22, 2010, 12:16 »
i looked at it, but it doesnt really do much for me at the moment -- i just set uploads at the end of the day; my bottleneck is clicking thru indiv images on dt, big, to add the worthless categories or on ft to tfr keywords that yhey could EASILY read themselves since they capture all the info. you still need to do that with isyn
i played with video a bit last year, but with 100 clips, only pond has shown any results - not a sale at ss, revo; but i decide to try again, isyn will definitely be my choice
s
4042
« on: May 22, 2010, 12:09 »
it would vary by what the 'shoot' is -- for closeup, study, obviously a low range lens works best, but for ourdoor, sports, work, the 70-200+ will be more useful [though counting that lens as ONE really begs the question] and you can still get a wdie angle effect with that lens, by doing panoramas with the camera held vertically that said, it's hard for me to choose anything other than the 20x i have on my sony hx1 -- wide angle to tight closeup, it's great for portraits andpeople shots in markets, etc, since you can stand off and shoot unobtrusively s
4043
« on: May 19, 2010, 11:52 »
esp'ly funny consider the title!
but i can imagine at least one innocent but sloppy way this could happen - they probably used a comp for early versions while the book was in production, then no one noticed when it wasnt replaced in final version. i doubt amazon spends much time, if any, looking at publishers' images
s
4044
« on: May 18, 2010, 19:13 »
If anyone wants more feedback, here is my stats: would be helpful if we could take a look at your portfolio.... s
4045
« on: May 18, 2010, 12:26 »
i think alamy may be the best market for your archival editorial work. one plus about 123 is that they are not restricting their editorials to just news events, but to also include street scenes, which is a bit more creative.
actually all the places that take editorial DO accept non-news images, you just have to play the game -- eg, SS has VERY strict rules on what the caption looks like; most want at least a dateline, and that the caption reads like a news event, even if it isnt -- eg, in my tribal villager images, my normal caption would be "Bonda tribal woman", but for editorial they want "Bonda tribal woman poses for a portrait" and then these are accepted by SS, DT and BigStock 123 has been very fast in reviewing editorial - usually a day or 2, comapred with weeks for the regualr stuff s
4046
« on: May 16, 2010, 13:24 »
ever stopped to think that it might be poor quality. In any event, having files reviewed over a weekend at SS, you for sure get their weekend staff and boy! theyre not too creative or rather "dont know"
many people have reported the same pattern: SS, DT accept images AND they sell - FT & 123 reject those images for oor quality and don't sell as many of the ones they do accept which agency are you going to believe? the one that rejets en masse and sells little, or the one who accepts and actually produces results? individuals will have different anecdotes, so it's worth a try, but the weakest conclusion is that the rejectors know better s
4047
« on: May 14, 2010, 17:47 »
april was my worst month in the last 6, but may's looking to be 2 or 3rd BME. overall, sales this year are +50% higher than last year
IS is my 6 or 7th in terms of revenue so an up or down month there doesnt affect me much
s
4048
« on: May 13, 2010, 17:35 »
there are a number of photogtaphy 'contests' that run similar scams - not only do you have to pay an entry fee, but they get full rights to use your pix wherever they want. some compound the insult by then publishing a book of the winners and runners-up [of course just about everyone gets in] and charging another large fee.
steve
4049
« on: May 12, 2010, 20:45 »
if you're paying 50% taxes you need a better accountant - the avg american pays 15-20% in TOTAL taxes -- and as a business, much of expenses become deductible, further lowering taxes. $200 per day is $52K per year, which is well above the median US income; not suitable for everyone but certainly livable
My deductions amounted to about 8% of my gross, and my taxes were effectively 31% of that. There's no "better accountant" - this year, we did all we could.
50% of Americans pay ZERO taxes. Apparently, I'm helping to cover for them.
if your effective tax is 31% you're obviously earning more than $50K which is what the OP asked about my response was to your earlier statement, not your personal finances -- you said Heck no. After taxes, that would be $100 a day, plus all the expenses of insurance, equipment, etc. That's not nearly enough cushion in case of unexpected drops or anything else. You need to figure out what you need to live on, add in all the costs associated, and then double it. (and that still wasn't enough for me to quit my job yet)
and taxes on $50K would not be 50% steve
4050
« on: May 12, 2010, 20:37 »
While I agree with the "money isn't everything" ideal, it also makes a difference if you're raising a family.
$50K is not sufficient for raising a large family, at least in the US. You might be able to 'get by' but you probably won't be saving for college or retirement.
you're changing the goal posts - nobody claimed you could support a large family on $50K, but that's irrelevant - if you DECIDE to have a LARGE family, you've made certain lifedstyle decisions and choices. s
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|