|
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 - epixx
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 47
476
« on: March 17, 2008, 20:46 »
Do I have to look at each image to do this?
477
« on: March 17, 2008, 20:37 »
but I would think if a specific image is found that can be put to a specific use right away the $10 is likely such a trivial part of the overall budget that it simply wouldn't be worth the time to check other sites.
That's exactly it.
478
« on: March 17, 2008, 13:50 »
Here's something for us naives:
- At the moment, 2.2 million Iraqis live in refugee camps within Iraq, while another 2 million live as refugees in Jordan and Syria. They get little or no economic support from USA or others. (These numbers are approaching 20% of the total population of Iraq.)
- Hundreds of civilians are killed every month, by extremists, Iraqi military and police, by the Americans and by mercenaries working for the Americans.
- As a result of the increased influence by Muslim extremists in the country, many of them loyal to Iran and their religious system, a sinking number of women are working or taking higher education. Women have lost most of the rights that they had under Saddam Hussein. (Wow Mr. Bush, how did you manage to do that? Wasn't this what you were supposed to fight against?)
- 70% of the population do not have access to clean drinking water.
- 43% of the population have to live on less than $1 per day. This is one of the oil-richest countries in the world.
And it's getting worse day by day.
Somebody further up this thread called the Americans naive. I'm sorry to say, that's way off the target. Stupidity, yes, greed, yes, but Mr. Bush and his comrades are not naive. They went into this with open eyes, they lied knowingly to the American people and to the United Nations, and they did not care how many lives, Iraqi or American, would be lost as a result of their actions.
Those who defend those actions on the other hand, can undoubtedly label themselves naive, if they so wish. Good luck to you all.
479
« on: March 17, 2008, 13:06 »
For me, the profit at all the agencies that offer subscriptions have been developing negatively compared to those who don't, for the last six months. I opted out of subs at StockXpert the day it went online, and I can't see what I have to lose from missing the odd .30 sales.
480
« on: March 17, 2008, 13:04 »
I am really surprised to hear anyone wanting out of DT because of subscription sales. They make up such a tiny portion of the overall earnings on the site, at least from my experience. My per sale average there has been consistently over $1/DL since November and goes up a bit each month.
My per DL average climbed well above $1 last autumn, and stayed there until January. In February and March, after the subs sales started to increase and dug into my vector sales, I'm down to $0.90 per DL.
481
« on: March 17, 2008, 00:46 »
So do you think many people are giving up DT because of their subs model? The recent poll did not clarify the matter much for me.
Like in StockXpert, DT subs sales are not very significant to me, but in StockXpert I was able to notice that L/XL/XXL credit sales seem to have disappeared.
Regards,
Adelaide
Nothing happens overnight, but what I see is that, when I look at my income, DT and StockXpert are sinking and FT, IS and BS are rising. SS is increasing too, but not nearly as much as the three mentioned. Will I bail out? If it's not economically viable to stay, yes, but that may take time.
482
« on: March 17, 2008, 00:36 »
I got a photo of Stalin drinking vodka with George W., discussing the old days when there were real enemies around, and when nobody complained if you bombed a city or two......
Joking, joking, I got the same portfolio.
It probably has something to do with the way Google works: the clever guys float to the top.
483
« on: March 17, 2008, 00:30 »
Strange thing: my sales at Canstock are increasing while subs are going down. I've had almost as much sales there so far this year as on LO since I started November 2006. That doesn't account for much, but money is money, and if this continues, I'm looking at another payout soon. maybe I should start uploading again 
484
« on: March 16, 2008, 18:52 »
Sorry for my rant (well... not very sorry, but a little bit), but sometimes, a little perspective is useful. Nothing personal. Friends can discuss politics too sometimes, even if they disagree. 
485
« on: March 16, 2008, 12:28 »
I still believe that SV can become a success, but they need to take care of some major issues. One thing that is extremely irritating, is the way they treat images from a 6MP camera: they are sold as medium sized, 1600 x 1200 pixel photos. That obviously reduces the potential of the photos considerably, particularly when the same photos can be bought at full resolution elsewhere. I took it up with support, but they said they had no plans changing their routines. That's the way of a real amateur 
486
« on: March 16, 2008, 12:14 »
Very one sided, especially since the reason that our nation (US) has been in an armed conflict since the 1900's it's because it gets attacked first.
WWI innocent people, WWII Japan, Viet Nam against communism, First Gulf war Iraq invaded first a defenseless country, Twin Towers went down first( no images or metion of that) Afghan terrorist breeding ground and Taliban, Sadam lunatic. Once again very biased and please Hittler killed millions lest not compare Bush to that devil. Don't like it.
I think you need to refresh your memory: Vietnam has never attacked USA, and probably never will. During that war, USA killed and poisoned (chemical warfare: that's USA) tens of thousands of civilians in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. People in those countries are still stepping on land-mines and undetonated bombs from your heroic war against communism. The result of that war: Vietnam and Laos became communist regimes anyway (and still are), while Cambodia ended up as one of the most brutal regimes the world has ever seen, killing millions of its own people, only to be saved by the "evil" Vietnamese communists a few years later. Iraq, as bad as it was under Hussein, has been thrown into havoc by an American occupation that has lasted for five years. People are being killed and molested every day, in much larger numbers than Mr. Hussein could ever dream of. In addition, thousands of Iraqis (mostly Sunni Muslims) have been forced to leave their country to live in refugee camps in neighboring countries, refugee camps where young Iraqi women, some of them children, are forced into prostitution because that is the only way they can earn money to buy food for their families. No money from the rich uncle in Washington to help those kids. Oh, and by the way: Saddam Hussein never attacked USA either (he did attack Iran though, with American support, and Kuwait without), and he didn't support terrorism. He simply didn't want to share with anybody. I could go on, but the list is too long for a web-page this size. Getting rid of lunatics may sound like a good idea, but it's an even better idea to take a long look at what the consequences will be for those civilians that are going to be "saved" as a result of the action. And as for Mr. Bush, he doesn't need to walk far to find a crazy politician. I'm sure there must be a mirror somewhere in the White House.
487
« on: March 16, 2008, 03:18 »
DT seem to be very sensitive about anyone discussing the subscription-sales issue on their forum. Seems to be a very raw and exposed nerve with them. Whyever so? ?? Why should it be such a sensitive topic that they would need to close so many threads about it?? I guess if you want to discuss anything about DT's subs you just have to search their forums as they tell you to, where it has been discussed so many times. And there you are supposed to find your answers. (I haven't found any answers there but I'm still searching....)
Well, I can't complain too much about DT's early sales, as at first they were pretty good. Lately, though, they're really sinking lower and lower for me every month. I've decided that unless they give us an opt-out for subs, I'm dropping them as soon as my lock-in period is over. I sure hope a lot of other contributors do as well. And once again, many kudos to StockXpert for making their sub program optional. I think by now they've heard the undeniable voice of their contributors.
Isn't it obvious why the won't have any discussions about subs? It generates a big profit for DT, and a very low profit for the photographer. My subscriptions sales at DT are going up, particularly for vectors, which usually generate a $4.00+ commission, and my profits there seem to go down. Not so strange really, when subs pay a fraction of the price of regular downloads.
488
« on: March 15, 2008, 12:12 »
Mila Jovovich:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000170/
Good luck with that Hatman - you are quite the optimist
According to the photos in that link, somebody has already ummm..... sorry Hatman, to late already
489
« on: March 15, 2008, 09:49 »
The two reasons why I upgraded form CS2 to CS3:
- Much easier b&w conversion
- I use a Mac, and PS2 flows as fast as dried concrete on an Intel Mac
Apart from that: not many important improvements for my everyday work.
How much easier can the B&W conversion get? In CS2 either use straight Lum and convert to grayscale or emphasize parts by using the channel mixer. Either way it is simple. I am curious as to how much easier it can get?
The convert to b&w function in CS3 has separate sliders for 6 different colours plus 8 standard filters and the possibility to create your own custom filters. All of it with preview. It's a completely different world.
490
« on: March 15, 2008, 09:41 »
I'll be very interested to see what these 'site improvements' are.
But if I had to place a bet between Slappertown becoming a success, or me having a night of rampant sex with Milla Jovovitch....
...I'd place the bet on Milla.
Who is Milla Jovovitch? Your wife? 
491
« on: March 15, 2008, 09:31 »
It's nice if the price of the D3 goes down, but I don't think it has anything to do with the 5D, since they are two completely different creatures. The 5D is a slow camera with a nice sensor, while the D3 is a hyper-fast camera for sports and action. The Canon competitor is the 1DIII. If I should guess, there are probably three reasons for the reduction. One is that the D300 for most practical uses is 90% of what the D3 is, and for well under 50% of the price. So they need to get the D3 closer in price, due to internal competition. The second reason is that most of those who "must have" the D3, have already bought one. To convince hobbyists etc. to buy one, a lower price is always a good argument. The third, and maybe the most important reason, is that the next pro Nikon (and I agree that it will probably be launched before the Olympics), will probably have to cost no more than $6,000, since it's very likely that the Sony with the same 24MP sensor will be priced in that area. In 6 months, I doubt that it's possible to sell a DSLR body for $8,000 anymore, and that includes the Canon 1DsIII. From being the only player at the top end of the market, Canon is looking at a situation where there are two very strong competitors available to their customers. Good news for those of us who buy cameras
492
« on: March 14, 2008, 22:07 »
For editorial, I usually choose Rights Managed. The reason is one or both of the following:
- the image is unique in one or more ways
- the image contains people or property without releases.
In both cases, I want maximum control over the image. Also, some publications, particularly bigger ones, will only buy photos that are RM.
493
« on: March 13, 2008, 12:57 »
Well, sales are sporadic too, so in a way, it makes sense 
494
« on: March 12, 2008, 23:27 »
Until recently, I received an email every time (like once per month) I had a sale at Crestock. However, when I checked my account there today (to see if it could be true that I had zero sales so far in March, just like in February), I actually had a couple of sales at the beginning of the month, but no emails.
Anybody with similar exprience?
495
« on: March 12, 2008, 00:41 »
I opted out of subs at StockXpert from the start. There wasn't much change in the beginning, but the last couple of months, the number of sales has fallen dramatically.
496
« on: March 12, 2008, 00:28 »
Shutterstock accept editorial photos, as does Scanstock and Featurepics. Most macros do as well. I don't think Snapvillain does though.
497
« on: March 09, 2008, 23:54 »
I don't understand why the agencies use photographers as reviewers at all. They will always be biased, even if they are not contributors. Designers would be more qualified as reviewers, since they generally know more about the usage of images, but strictly speaking: with proper training, most people would be able to do the job.
498
« on: March 09, 2008, 23:37 »
The two reasons why I upgraded form CS2 to CS3:
- Much easier b&w conversion
- I use a Mac, and PS2 flows as fast as dried concrete on an Intel Mac
Apart from that: not many important improvements for my everyday work.
499
« on: March 09, 2008, 23:06 »
Everything in this world is designed or constructed by someone. In principle, unless you made it yourself, you need a release, or at least that seems to be the opinion of some reviewers and agencies.
Thankfully, some of the micros, and most of the macros, have a more realistic attitude towards this.
500
« on: March 03, 2008, 13:07 »
Thank you Ploink, found it
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 47
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
