|
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 - Boylet
51
« on: August 23, 2006, 22:39 »
Question: Is there any significant difference when using Windows XP's built-in FTP client as against Interarchy (ftp) or FTP expert I'm also a webdesigner, working on websites, and that's why i purchased ftp expert. I don't use any of the software features (except uploading...  ) to upload my stock images.
I never used the windows XP's ftp client, but maybe it doesn't allow uploading to many servers at the same time. Ftp expert or any other ftp client does that.
phildate: Thanks for the reply. yupgp: Actually XP does allow simultaneous uploading to several ftp sites. Although its a bit messy on the desktop in the sense that each connection to an ftp server has a window, so if you're uploading to 10 servers at a time, 10 windows are open.
52
« on: August 23, 2006, 22:07 »
I'm using:
- Photoshop CS2
- Infraview + a handy thesaurus
- XP FTP
Question: Is there any significant difference when using Windows XP's built-in FTP client as against Interarchy (ftp) or FTP expert
53
« on: August 23, 2006, 20:59 »
Wow, this is truly awesome. What a clever scam. Think of the kind of mind it takes to come up with something like this, and then the lack of conscience it takes to implement it. This is the same kind of person that sells Xbox 360 Boxes on ebay -- and people pay $350 and find out that they literally bought only the cardboard box. Wow.
Yeah.... who'll be stupid (pardon for the word) enough to download via the 99cents when he could have unlimited download for a month for only $12.99. Good find on the the fine print though...
54
« on: August 23, 2006, 20:47 »
Maybe if possible, they should post a running balance on how much 10c credit are still floating around. Otherwise, photographers will not know how many sales are valid 10cents sales since the site could always say that its from a 10cents credit. At least with such, they would have an idea/estimate as to when all the 10cents credit would actually be consumed.
55
« on: August 23, 2006, 10:22 »
They claim to have over 35,000 photos, but I'm not sure that I believe them.
I searched for the following:
dog: 4 results
flag: 8 results
flower: 51 results
Yeah, I get your point. Especially with the flower, it should have a bigger ratio since it's one of the most common type of stock photo in every site.
56
« on: August 23, 2006, 09:49 »
Saw this thread ... georgewesleyryan never replied on kacper and leaf's comment Hmmm... Anybody posted their photos yet on this site? 
57
« on: August 23, 2006, 08:58 »
Geesh... and to think I was happy my photos got accepted .... silly me...
58
« on: August 23, 2006, 05:46 »
Hi to all!!! How's this site performing for you in terms of sales. Any improvements???
59
« on: August 22, 2006, 21:03 »
How about sales ... anybody doing well at FP?
60
« on: August 22, 2006, 03:01 »
Yeah ... It's a good thing I dont spend much time uploading on that site... way too picky for me. I'm having a hard time comprehending what their definition of "stock photos". Well, I submitted, they rejected, not my loss.
61
« on: August 22, 2006, 02:51 »
So .... do we vote for "censorship" or "smut"  (Just kidding ) Hi amanda1863, welcome to Microstock Group. Just like what Leaf said, maybe this is the first time that someone has passionately expressed her sentiments about IStock. If you feel that people here are misinformed about Istock, why not stay a while so you could share first hand opinion being an exclusive of IStock. I think this will be beneficial for everyone since we could all hear the two sides of the story. Maybe in the end you'll see that not everybody here is vindictive of IStock as you initially thought. Regards.
62
« on: August 21, 2006, 08:52 »
In response to Boylet:
Not a fan of 'fake' traffic. There are a few steps that need to be taken to make the site work, so I would hope that they do it that way. I know you're just trying to justify what they are doing, so this is not an attack on your argument. I just think they are better off letting us cash them in.
No offense taken here ... I'm just looking for a sane explanation to an otherwise impractical approach. Sure hope Bryan could shed some light on the matter otherwise I'll run out of reasons ...
63
« on: August 21, 2006, 07:32 »
Anybody here posting their photos @ crestock??? If so, they just emailed that they'll be announcing their new marketing strategy on August 30. I wonder why the wait?
64
« on: August 21, 2006, 03:53 »
One possible reason for adapting the "token" concept is probably to differentiate the site from others. Not much on the purpose of use but instead to supplement with the "retro" feel/look when using the site. Then again, putting marketing functionalities aside, this just puts an additional overhead to the photographers in tracking their sales.
Another reason I can think of is that they used token instead of $$$ and currently gives away some for free, is to encourage photographers to download other photographers' picture. They probably anticipated that photographers would ultimately want to cash-in the free tokens immediately and thus would have less impact on the traffic of the site and would only benefit the photographer owning the token. By limiting the use of the free token to buy other's photo would induces traffic and would give the semblance to the photographer whose photo was downloaded that the site isn't dead.
65
« on: August 21, 2006, 03:36 »
The photographer ID submission page is encrypted with a 128 bit SSL. You may click on the Secured Lock icon (bottom right) to see the security certificate.
Make sure the ID is submitted through https://submit.123rf.com/submit_id.php
Just got this reply from 123RF. I think they already addressed the security issues related to uploading the IDs
66
« on: August 18, 2006, 08:30 »
Be patient... SS is now accepting videoclips. Who knows, maybe some microstock agency will be creative and starts accepting home-made MTV.. I can't wait to see how the top sellers on stock photos fare when submitting their own song...
67
« on: August 18, 2006, 08:24 »
Hmmm ... let's see.... if I download someone's photo and he download mine, do we both get paid
68
« on: August 15, 2006, 21:14 »
Don't want to sound intrusive ... but because of the fiasco between TemplateMonster and Corbis , just like what leaf said, I would sure like to know how Fotolia is "monitoring" the sales of the templates??
69
« on: August 15, 2006, 20:37 »
Just an idea ... it could help put model-wanna-be's at ease if later you could put a link to a 3rd party stock site (better to your own portfolio) to give them an idea where their pictures would end up / be posted. The more mthe merrier. I noticed that it is in the "About Me" section, but it would not hurt if a you add a section somewhere like "some sites where your picture would be posted" Also, a sample of the model release contract which you want them to sign would give them the advance knowledge that you are serious and honest in your intentions and that there are no "hidden" agenda. They could even print the contract on their own and get second opinions from friends before they sign it and before they even meet with you on the scheduled shoot.
Regards..
70
« on: August 14, 2006, 10:08 »
Speaking of continuing.... is it just me or the site is currently down???
71
« on: August 12, 2006, 22:40 »
If its for rebranding purposes, I hope they just configure the server to post at least some form of notice so designers/photographers/guests would know. Not everybody reads everything on their welocome screen so there might be viewers/prospects who would not know that there is something going on the background.
72
« on: August 12, 2006, 10:53 »
Yeah ... I also liked the site. They have the politest way of saying your picture is not approved. They even spend some time detailing why they decided so.. Sure hope that the new approvers would continue the tradition... 
73
« on: August 12, 2006, 10:40 »
I'm with kacper... I'm pretty sure they're "choosing" who will the lucky photographer whose photo will be marked 1Mth. They probably wouldn't like a low-impact photo to represent the milestone.
74
« on: August 12, 2006, 06:28 »
Any body here posting their photos at TotallyPhotos??? Is it just me or the site is currently (hopefully "currently" and not "permanently" is the right word) down???
75
« on: August 10, 2006, 01:50 »
For those monitoring or even considering posting their photos at the site ... it's currently offline "USPHOTOSTOCK.COM temporarily unavailable. We are doing everything possible to resolve this problem in a timely manner. We will update you as soon as we can. It should not take more than 3-5 days.
Thank you for understanding.
USPHOTOSTOCK team"
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
