|
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 - Xanox
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23
476
« on: May 17, 2013, 02:45 »
buyers buy cr-ap art as an investment, they dont care less if it's real art or if it was lifted from a dump.
they buy a LIK for 1 million and in a few years they could sell it for 1.3 millions or even 2 millions.
in the worst scenario they sell it for the same price, it's a way to diversify their investments ... gold, silver, stock options, hedge funds, paintings, photos, villas, land ...
it's the same reason they buy a Ferrari or a Porsche.
these cars are going to be worth MORE in the future especially if they're limited edition.
477
« on: May 17, 2013, 02:38 »
I'm guessing they're not mentioning the price slider because most Exclusives haven't realised that the most commonly used setting - the cheapest - will now exclude most Exclusive content since that's going into the 'Signature' collection by default, apart from junk that doesn't sell.
I'm sure the fact that this new system will result in a huge reduction in RC's earned and thus royalty rates achieved by Exclusives is just a happy coincidence.
for each one of the exclusive images i can easily find dozens of similar at cheaper price or even in the dollar bin. there's no point for exclusivity in micros, we're not talking about obscure subjects like in RM, any possible subject in micros has been done to death. if they really want to simplify i want to see the same fees for all, say 30%, no exclusivity, and just 2 collections : Cheap as Chips and Premium.
478
« on: May 17, 2013, 02:33 »
and this is what they call simplification ?
to me it still looks confusing, and they should finally accept that buyers dont give a sh-it if a photo is exclusive or not, we're talking about cheap RF microstock not some expensive boutique stock agency ! it's Istock, not Magnum or VII.
and yes, their sales must be going down the drain if suddenly they're making a lot of changes, first removing the uploads cap and now mixing up the collections.
too little too late.
479
« on: May 12, 2013, 22:59 »
well that's an exaggeration. I use an online subscription accounting program, no ads or annoying updates. that's cos the accounting world has no clue how the internet works. by comparison, $19.95 for a program like Photoshop Vs accounting software that is rubbish and annoying to use @ $29.95/month.... makes Adobe look v reasonable.
yeah but it's the norm for accounting and financial software to be very expensive, many softwares used for online trading range from 50 to 3-400$ per month. one of the best (NinjaTrader) is free but then you must pay for the addons and all. i mean, these softwares are used by traders to make money, it would not make sense to give them away for free or for a small price, they're also quite complex with scriptings and automations. maybe Adobe is using the same logic : if you're a pro and you make money with the CS Suite you must pay back something, period. and if you cant, you're just not a pro, and you better stick with MSPaint or whatever.
480
« on: May 12, 2013, 02:16 »
It would be nice if we could subscribe to the products we wanted .. pay a little if you only wanted 2 or 3 of the programs and more if you wanted them all.
or you could strike a deal with your local print shop, say 1$ per hour to use PS or 3-4$ per day ?
481
« on: May 12, 2013, 02:14 »
Desktops are already dying out. The only real advantage is the power they have and soon even smaller devices will have more than enough processing power for us photographers / designers.
For most of the market, laptops have already replaced desktops!
One thing is for sure, that people who wan't to be productive need a large display, but that doesn't mean that you need a large desktop!
I believe that in the end we'll just have a small device with enough power, that we can easily plug into a larger working space, television etc.
the upcoming next gen of Intel CPUs starts at 3.5ghz with 4 and 8 cores and it's been already overclocked to 7Ghz, this is the range of cpu power you can expect to be the entry level in 2-3 yrs from now. tablets with ARM cpus are going nowhere in terms of raw power for digital photography, the gap between desktops and mobile cr-ap will become bigger, not smaller, especially when editing big photos shot in 24 or 36MP. and indeed to make a proper photo editing you need a proper monitor and this is the kiss of death for tablets.
482
« on: May 12, 2013, 02:05 »
will it also end up like Apple, every time I go into iTunes I have to waste so much time with unwanted updates and whatnot. We can only guess, and I suppose we are all assuming the worst.
of course it will. it's a public company, they must show growth and profits every quarter to shareholders. they will be pressured to monetize their subscribers with every possibe upsell, discounts, and promotions, they will flood them with newsletters and last minute deals, and eventually even advertising banners and popups inside PS ! it's the same sh-it seen already in every other SaaS (software as a service) operation. with the same logic they will launch dumbed down versions of PS for tablets or for HTML5 just to be used as a showcase to lure new subscribers, after all there was already a Javascript mini-PS years ago.
483
« on: May 11, 2013, 13:40 »
Smart devices aren't a fad, and they aren't going away. I don't think they'll replace the desktop for most professionals, but they are here to stay.
tablets are not smart, they're dumbed down laptops without a keyboard, no more no less. desktops will never die, it's impossible, anything professional is done on desktops and always will. people will soon get tired by the limitations of smartphones and tablets especially considering they cost almost as much as a cheap laptop. the MS Surface ugly keyboard is the worst of both worlds but at least they're trying. and what about oddities like the Asus Transformer ? really, they already tried it all in the last few years but there's no way out and the latest trend is for tablet to have a smaller screen, say 9" inches so it makes even less sense than now to see tablets as a pocket replacement for laptops.
484
« on: May 11, 2013, 13:28 »
yeah but what Gates had in mind was a device running MS Office with handwriting recognition, sort of Palm Pilot on steroids, minimal touch screen functions, only meant for business.
and in fact he failed to approve the prototype because without keyboard there was no way to write emails etc .. ironically not much later Apple launched the iPad and made billions.
but i rest my case, i see no reason to run complex stuff like LR on a tablet, it's ridicolous, with the new Surface you can run the whole CS6 suite but so what ? yes connect a USB keyboard and a mouse and you've a full fledged laptop but what's the point ?
i've even seen FL Studio (a music DAW) running on iPhone and Ableton Live on a iPad, it's crazy who's going to even find the play button on such a small screen ?
yeah there's pretty much any possible app on sale for smartphones and tablet but it doesnt mean your productivity will increase, only your frustration will.
485
« on: May 11, 2013, 13:14 »
CONSIDERING sounds good. $19 sounds okay. Then, what happens when it jumps to $50? You have no software and really very little choice. You've been sucked in.  
"customer lock-in". apple is the finest example of that.
486
« on: May 11, 2013, 11:29 »
tablet : personally i'm completely against tablets and smartphones too, i agree they're useful for a few mundane tasks but where do they fit into professional photo editing ? how can you do pixel perfect correction using touch screens ? it's a fad but unfortunately there's plenty of tablets fanatics and lunatics, they bought a tablets and now they're hellbent into finding a problem that can be solved using their tablets ... yes .. a solution waiting for a problem .. and i'm not alone thinking this way, Bill Gates, the Acer's CEO, and many others never bet a dime on tablets, nobody really can explain the booming success of the iPad, people will really buy anything as long as there's an apple logo on it .. appletards !!
487
« on: May 11, 2013, 11:24 »
fully agree that once your images have already a decent exposure and color and framing you dont really need much from a software like LR.
i mean at least if we talk about travel images i never felt the need for overphotoshopping.
i keep hearing people talking about spots, no idea but maybe they should better clean their lenses, or maybe switch to Nikon ?
488
« on: May 11, 2013, 11:17 »
in my opinion these indian services are too expensive for just a quick calibration of exposure and a semi automated keywording.
i dont know about their production costs but to give you an idea a junior IT guy will earn a salary of around 3-400$ per month in Thailand, 150-200$ in Cambodia, 2-300$ in Vietnam, 5-600$ in China, 2-300$ in Indonesia and Philippines.
how can they justify their prices ? 1$ per image for retouch + keywording ? no thanks.
of course i'm not talking about manul removal of spots, that would take some time, i'm talking about basic stuff and especially the keywording, i wasnt impressed by their keywording at all.
489
« on: May 10, 2013, 07:23 »
If there was a real functioning market, the answer to all of this would be a cheaper alternative on linux or andriod (no, gimp isn't an alternative) maybe even micro payment stuff like many other apps, to squeeze . out of adobe. They deserve it, ppl only think photoshop is great because there's nothing around to compete with it, if you take a step back it's actually a pretty poorly written software... getting slower and slower while processing power keeps doubling, and hey, no preview in cs6? what?? what a joke...
the whole computer graphics market is monopolized by the usual 4-5 major software houses, they started 30 yrs ago and they invested billions in R&D and now each one of their products uses dozens of their patents. these CGI algorithms are very very complex, you need expensive software engineers specialized in CGI just to make a moderately complex PS plugin, it's going to be impossible and not business worthy to even dream about a "PS clone" especially because of Adobe's patents. cr-ap like GIMP and Corel Photopaint have been around for more than 10 yrs and they've their niche market but that's their place and that's where they're going to stay. only a clone of LR is possible as it's basically a stripped down version of PS with integrated library and Raw stuff, i've seen a few LR alternative in action and they're not too bad : - Darktable - Raw Therapee - Corel AfterShot Pro PhotoDirector also looks like a better product than Acdsee Pro for generic photo management and poorman's DAM, i'm going to try it out now. http://www.cyberlink.com/products/photodirector-ultra/features_en_US.html
490
« on: May 10, 2013, 04:25 »
for stock photography, CS6 will be good even 10 yrs from now.
cant' see any reason to upgrade anytime soon, also considering LR is my workhorse and PS is used seldom.
as for LR, i don't think i need anything else than LR4 actually, what they should improve is the library and a few other things but so far so good.
i can easily stick to this setup for the next 3-4 yrs.
491
« on: May 09, 2013, 07:57 »
i use AcdSee since 1997 or 98 when it was just an image viewer.
now it's maybe on par with Bridge but there are many useful batch functions.
i've never used the Pro 6 for RAW development or even for color correction, the interface is just cumbersome and i see no reason having already Lightroom and PS.
however, if you've nothing else i guess it can get the job done, more or less all the functions of LR are there.
492
« on: May 09, 2013, 04:05 »
Adobe is playing with fire, a LOT of people will stick with CS6 forever, millions of others will stick to cracked versions.
They're only alienating their legitimate customers.
I'm thinking they think their legitimate customers are the ones that buy the whole suite on a regular basis. It stinks for the little guy that just wants to buy Photoshop every 5 or 10 years, but how much should Adobe really cater to that segment of their market.
I would imagine that they didn't take this step lightly and that they looked at the numbers of subscriptions purchased in the last year or so. Let's not forget that this is a business. A savvy one that has cornered its market. They are in this to make money and keep their customers coming back.
of course they know what they're doing but MAYBE they're underestimating the domino effect it will create in the long term. if we look at MS Office 365 it's not looking like a booming success no matter how microsoft is in denial. i mean the issue here is that we're talking of switching from how software has been meant to be in the last 30 yrs to a whole new "rental" business concept. and i don't know anybody who likes the idea of renting a software. actually it would make more sense for hardware.
493
« on: May 09, 2013, 04:01 »
Scott Bourne thinks 90% of those complaining are using pirated copies:
http://photofocus.com/2013/05/08/10-reasons-the-haters-are-mad-about-adobe-creative-cloud/
I've upgraded PS from CS3 to CS4 to CS5 to CS6, so clearly I'm one who should be very happy about this change. But I'm not; not at all. I do not like renting software. I plan to stay with CS6 unless they come up with some PS enhancement that I simply cannot work without (I rather doubt that will happen).
i think 90% of cracked copies is a realistic number  however, they will KEEP using pirated copies including the new CC Suite, do they really think it's such a hard thing to crack a callback activation ? it will be cracked in 48 hrs and thanks for all the fish. every Adobe product has been cracked and same for all the best plugins, and in plus they've been cracked brilliantly as they all work 100%. the only top-tier software that hasnt been cracked so far is Cubase 6 and 7.
494
« on: May 08, 2013, 20:16 »
Adobe is playing with fire, a LOT of people will stick with CS6 forever, millions of others will stick to cracked versions.
They're only alienating their legitimate customers.
Quark managed to destroy itself as well years ago when it was market leader, and so did Macromedia, Aldus, and many others.
They know very well Photoshop is already a finished product, bloated, and suffering from feature creep.
There will be no revolutionary features added anytime soon, the healing brush was the only one in almost a decade and it could have been done easily by 3rd party addons.
For photographers it makes even less sense to switch to the cloud considering how good is Lightroom for most of our needs.
Let's face it, technologically speaking there's not much more to innovate in digital photography, the big difference is that nowadays hardware is cheap, cpus are faster, hard disks are bigger and we've also SSDs, big monitors cost a pittance.
The switch to the cloud model will be just about pushing small upgrades, maybe they'll integrate some 3rd party addons into PS but it's no big deal, i mean certainly no big deal for us, for designers it's another story they'll be locked forever into the CS Suite and i can't see any decent alternative around, this stuff is jus too complex to even dream about making a competitive product .. i hear people mentioning PixelMator, Corel, Gimp, GimpShop .. can't think a single professional would switch to that cr-ap.
Acdsee Pro 6 is a decent and better alternative to Bridge, but not even in the same league as Lightroom, Photo Mechanic great for news photographers, but for anything else hmmm ?
495
« on: May 07, 2013, 14:10 »
well, may this story serve as a lesson to all the RF fans.
as for RM, it's not becoming a "small niche" as many here think, sales are relatively stable, it's the sale price that is lower compared to years ago, also because they do many Bulk deals, the ones who got fockd by micros were those shooting the sort of images that are now best seller in the micro RF agencies but for anything a bit more obscure RM is still the only option.
what's worrying is that even millionaire hollywood studios are using micro images and probably also micro videos and micro audio !
496
« on: May 05, 2013, 12:56 »
moreover, most of these micro RF images arent even registered at the USPTO so your chances of billing the infringer for a lot of money are zero.
there was a girl in the Alamy forum chasing dozens of infringers using her lawyers, she registered all her photos to USPTO, she also tried ImageRights, as far as she said the average she recoup was around 2-300$ per image.
by the way, ImageRights doesnt even move a finger if the potential payback is less than 350$ per photo.
so, just FYI that's the situation.
497
« on: May 05, 2013, 12:50 »
@ShadySue : for decades buyers had no problem buying images as RM and clearly stating which usage they were bought for, if for news, textbooks, covers, inside page, advertising, whatever.
If the new wave of cheap as-s buyers can't even find the time to select a box "Extended Licence" the agencies should do some more effort to make it prominent in the checkout process but of course they don't give a sh-it as they see microstock just as an automated no frills high-volume business, in other words "sell and forget".
So that once an RF image is sold we the photographers have no way to know even in which continent it has been sold and for what industry it will be used, it could be for a depliant of a minimarket of for a poster of the next hollywood blockbuster, we don't know and even if we do it's up to you to sue the infringer and waste thousands of dollars in lawyers to recoup what exactly .. the judge could pretty much say the pictures' market price is 10$ so you'll be refunded 100 or 200$ and thanks for all the chips.
no agency apart Getty or Corbis will send the dogs to chase the infringers.
498
« on: May 05, 2013, 08:47 »
truth hurts ?
a hollywood movie poster for a film with Bruce Willis and he earned no more than 5$ net, that's the very end of the story.
as usual, RF is the worst possible licence for photographers and the best one for agencies and buyers.
499
« on: May 05, 2013, 07:47 »
sorry guys but the OP sold that image as RF and now he get paid peanuts as he deserves.
if it was RM he could have got at least a few hundreds bucks, now he' done with maybe 2-3$.
500
« on: April 30, 2013, 11:19 »
to me they all look good enough, actually most of them are ripoff or are "inspired" from other famous logos.
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
