|
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 - fljac
51
« on: February 18, 2009, 17:17 »
WoW! Looks great!  Thanks for posting it /Flemming
52
« on: February 18, 2009, 17:02 »
Hi Mat, That's OK, These things do happen... I just don't feel the need to take responsibility or bame for other contributors posts.. With this I'll humbly leave the topic and wait for the time to come, when we see the predicted result of the free images... Let history repeat it self, as they say  have a nice evening best regards Flemming
53
« on: February 18, 2009, 16:18 »
I have nothing against you, and I really feel that yoy're reacting far too strongly here... I think that we decerve some ansvers and if you have misunderstod some underlying tone or mood, I deeply apologize... Please understand that I'm not a native english speeker and this might be refelcted in the way you "read between the lines" ?
So if you feel that I have offended you, I deeply apologize
........
I now know who you are. I didn't put two and two together. Please explain this sentence... And please read the posts again... I have not threttened you, nor have I sad anything bad about you, only questioned the concept of giving away images for free....
My very best regards
Flemming
"Ugh __ Hayward is such a disgusting little corporate creep."
I accept your apology Flemming. I have been down this road many times in the past. I also understand English is not your first language though I can't help but think calling someone a "disgusting little corporate creep" in any language is not considered a compliment. That being said, I've certainly been called worse and do appreciate your passion for the topic.
I don't think free photo's are going to have much of an impact one way or another. While there are undoubtedly some gems hidden in the unsold category, as I mentioned in the FT forum, looking through my files that haven't sold in two years I found quite a few stinkers. The acceptance criteria two years ago was greatly different than it is today. I don't see it as a threat.
Mat
Hi Mat,
So this is the mistake...
The sentence in question is NOT posted by me... I'm not even able to use such "refined" language... Sorry...
If you go to the previous page and look for #55 you'll find that this particular sentence was posted by gostwych or what ever his or her name is...?
Thanks
Flemming
54
« on: February 18, 2009, 15:51 »
I have just been warned to stop persuing the issue about the free image garbage... So if any of you would like to take over, please do so
It's right here...: http://eu.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=181271#p181271
I now know who you are. I didn't put two and two together. While I appreciate the vested interest you have in the site with a grand total of 42 images uploaded, I do think you had gone a bit overboard with your posts and simply asked you to move on. You had received answers several times and felt compelled to continue with the rants. Not the most productive approach.
Have a spectacular day!
Mat
Hi Mat, I strongly protest on this! The number of imagages has nothing to do with the question's about WHY giving away images. And no. You have not answered my most improtant question's.. The 0.50 credit part is answered yes... We don't agree, and that's very fine by me... You're still neglecting to tell us all what's the gain for fotola? - And what's the downside for the overall number of payed downloads? If you can't - or if you're not allowed to answer this, it's fine... Just say so... I have nothing against you, and I really feel that yoy're reacting far too strongly here... I think that we decerve some ansvers and if you have misunderstod some underlying tone or mood, I deeply apologize... Please understand that I'm not a native english speeker and this might be refelcted in the way you "read between the lines" ? So if you feel that I have offended you, I deeply apologize ........ I now know who you are. I didn't put two and two together. Please explain this sentence... And please read the posts again... I have not threttened you, nor have I sad anything bad about you, only questioned the concept of giving away images for free.... My very best regards Flemming
56
« on: February 18, 2009, 15:07 »
I noticed that the images they want us to DONATE unsold images for the amount of 0.5 cent per image to the free section. This allows them to distribute the images via thair partneres s as well... Not "just" offer them for free on fotolia....
Just what is the point in doing that?
All those FREE images will ultimately be an unfair competition to all the images that are generating profil / sales.....
Would'nt be much more beneficial to the industry if the large agencies took a stand and denied to participate in this stupid thing called FREE IMAGES?
I for one, would prefer to DELETE all images that are unsaleable... Rather than giving them away to attract unnessesary attention from mine and your saleable images...
rgds
Flemming
this is my concern, too many images being given away, I would be interested to see how many images this would be 10% of 5 million is 500k free images, why buy it if there is a similar image for free?
Phil
There's currently a very active dialogue about this on FT... http://eu.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=17498&p=3I'm currently trying to get any one of two moderators to explain the overall UPSIDE here... They seems to think that it's a golden offer - these 0.50 credits... They seems to avoid ansvwering the questions about the effect on normal sales and stuff like that .... Please do join in
57
« on: February 18, 2009, 14:26 »
Do you read the form at FT? The moderator MAT, just wrote this...: QUOTE! Fotolia is reducing commissions by 5-10% not 3%.Hi guys, Wow, did I pick the wrong day to sleep in or what? Maybe the right day? As soon as I read the announcement I anticipated a lot of passion in the forum and was right. Now I would suggest you look at if from a point of logic.... For the sake of argument I looked at the commission for a silver ranked photographer either totally non-exclusive or totally exclusive and in both cases, the photographer is making more money. Unfortunately, the photographer with partial exclusivity will take a hit. I understand why that has people worked up. For me, it is motivation to pull my photo's from the other sites I have tried as the exclusive commission here really does make it worth my while. What I found doing some basic math if you are a non-exclusive, silver ranked photographer... current commissions: 37%... 34%... Medium: $3.00 .....$1.11 $4.00.....$1.36 Large: $4.00 ........$1.48 $5.00 ....$1.85 X-Large: $5.00......$1.85 $6.00 ....$2.04 Total Exclusive Photographer.... 54% 51% Medium: $9.00 ..........$4.86 $12.00 ....$6.12 Large: $12.00 .......$6.68 $15.00 ....$7.65 X-Large: $15.00 ........$8.10 $18.00 .....$9.18 It is more money for the photographers. As far as the partial exclusive photographer is concerned, my personal belief has always been that it is in both the agencies and photographers best interest to submit exclusively. With photographers dumping their images everywhere anyone will accept them, the prices are driven down because the sites are competing to sell the exact same images. With exclusivity, the prices can go up and the demand for photographers amongst sites goes up as well. In order to recruit the best photographers, the benefits need to be the best. I don't see that happening overnight anywhere anytime soon but...to me, the benefits of submitting my work exclusively here far outweigh not doing so. END QUOTE ... So guys... You're gonna get rich on this, not poor
58
« on: February 18, 2009, 13:17 »
I remember very well what happened to my sales when 123 started with their free section.
My sales dropped like hell....
My prediction, same will happen on fotolia. If a buyer finds what they need in the free section, why bother looking any further.
My guess is a lot of photogs will start donating their unsold content just for the 0.5 credit.
Patrick H.
This sounds like a prediction that definitely WILL come true.... IMHO, the microstock business is far too cheap as it is.. If only the contributors would and could join up together and deny any participation in all the low priced subscriptions and this FREE image garbage! 
59
« on: February 18, 2009, 11:51 »
I noticed that the images they want us to DONATE unsold images for the amount of 0.5 cent per image to the free section. This allows them to distribute the images via thair partneres s as well... Not "just" offer them for free on fotolia....
Just what is the point in doing that?
All those FREE images will ultimately be an unfair competition to all the images that are generating profil / sales.....
Would'nt be much more beneficial to the industry if the large agencies took a stand and denied to participate in this stupid thing called FREE IMAGES?
I for one, would prefer to DELETE all images that are unsaleable... Rather than giving them away to attract unnessesary attention from mine and your saleable images...
rgds
Flemming
60
« on: February 18, 2009, 08:50 »
61
« on: February 18, 2009, 07:10 »
I have have been active at IS for only 2-3 weeks. Currently, my limited portfolio counts 20 images. Yesterday I had the first download, earning me USD 5,04. The image has been viewed 36 times. I can see that several of my 20 images are added to private lightboxes. Does this private light box allocation mean anything related to upcoming sales? - Who is normally ading images to lightboxes? Is it customers or is it other contributors using it for inspiration or something like that?  Thanks Flemming
62
« on: February 17, 2009, 14:14 »
I'm getting JIU downloads more or less every day... These JUI sales are combines with some StockXpert PPD and StockXpert SUBS.. Downloads from photos.com are very rare.... I only have a small portfolio at StockXpert and I find it quite funny to follow the downloads there, becaurse it's sometimes the "stangest" images that attracts all the attention... Even images that I expected to be rejected, are downloaded there Take a look for yoyr self.... http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/profile/fljac - and by strange images, I mean images that in many cases, not even are viewed on other sites...
63
« on: February 14, 2009, 18:11 »
That's absurd! ... Me, I would proporly run the release form through photoshop and remove the postal box information's... Whatever makes them happy at IS ......  /Flemming
64
« on: February 14, 2009, 17:16 »
I have seen this as well..
For the new commercial Collection, they require that the releases are uploaded... The upload functionality for releases seems to be a new functionality as well... ? Up untill now, Alamy have not seen any releases of mine...
It will be interesting to see what they determine to be valid for the commercial Collection...
/Flemming
65
« on: February 14, 2009, 17:11 »
So far I have only used JPEG, even with my DSLR (pure lazyness). I assume that RAW is better, for what I read, but I would not say "RAW format is the only right way of producing real high quality files".
Regards,
Adelaide
Hi Adeleide, I gues I have to agree to some extend... It's true that it is possible to produce quite high quality images saved directly in JPG. As I see it, this apply's especially in scenario's where the conditions's are perfect from a technical aspect, from a technical aspect.. There is a limitation as to how big a difference between dark areas and highlight, that is possible to record directly, without post processing. When the camera does the post processing, it's based on a peice of software in the camera. This post processing can not be ideal for all situation's... It's just an average and the same settings are used on all images, regardless the situation / content. Naturally, it's more ideal to process individually and do what's right for each image. The RAW file contains much more information's in the highlight and shadow area's than the JPG does... The JPG can only store 8 bit colour debt. The RAW contains at least 12bit colour debt. It's true that you will convert to 8bit, othervise it's not possible to save as JPG. The difference lies in the post processing before storing in JPG. The 12-14bit colour debt gives you a little more intence and powerfull colours allowing you to do lust a little more... When saving in JPG, the white balance is pretty much determined by the electronic - the previous mentioned software in the camera... When using RAW, you can adjust the true white balance a lot better than you can in the RAW. Basically you can shoot in warm light from electrical bulps... and then just adjust it to be perfect.. When shooting in JPG you can not avoid that the camera apply's a long series of adjustments ( as mentioned in the article as well). This thread started with an image containing some specific flaws.. I first spotted the artifacting in the hair. This CAN be caused by lots of things, but possible this: In camera sharpening - in camera contrast, and possible some other things as well... To the best of my knowledge, the RAW file containing apprx. 5 times more data, witch is not post processed and saved in a destructive file format, would not have these flaws... Surely, there are many specific reason's for shooting in JPC ocasionally, but this does not change the fact that even though the JPG CAN be very good.... The RAW file will still give you just that little bit more - especially under the more difficult condition's. When you have chosen to shoot only in JPG, you can't do anything about it... If you shoot in RAW, I believe that you will be able to use quite a few more shots in stead of having to delete them.... And the ones that you're satisfied with, might even be just a little better if shot in RAW... And still... Like in all other aspects... you really should do what you feel works for you.. My only reason for reacting maybe a little strongly, was the fact that "someone" actually was trying to argue that the JPG is equal to, if not even better than the RAW. That the RAW always is a complete waiste of time..... It is an undisputable fact that RAW gives you more quality.. Under lots of condition's the JPG can be very good YES! But the RAW is still the right professional choice for most situation's... With this, i think I rest my case and leave it up to the jury to decide.... Best regards Flemming
66
« on: February 14, 2009, 16:09 »
... Sorry!Beakus84 - I accidental mistook gostwyck for being the one having started this thread... I apologize for that... My well meant advise still stands... and gostwyck underlines the relevance of my previous remark: "Regardless what anyone might tell you, " Have a nice weekend Best regards Flemming
67
« on: February 14, 2009, 15:45 »
HI Ghostwyck, I would just like to expand on the reasons for shooting in RAW, not in JPG. I found this small article on the net, witch explains in clear figurs, Just why the RAW file format really does provide much more quality than the JPG. (needless to say that the file format JPG is a so called "destructive" file format. This is common knowledge) Please check this one out: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtmlI hope that this article helps understanding and clarifieng the benefits of the RAW file. Thanks, Flemming
68
« on: February 14, 2009, 14:38 »
A little addition...
If you're shooting JPG's, stop doing that... Change to RAW (NEF). That way you'll get a completely unedited file from the camera. Edit everything in 16bit and convert to 8bit just before saving in JPG. NO Compression in the save as jpg box...
Regardless what anyone might tell you, RAW format is the only right way of producing real high quality files. They simply contains so much more information's, compared to the JPG. The JPG will typically be "processed" quite a bit by the camera... This does not happen when using RAW - In your case - NEF.
/ Flemming
Really? Thanks for that. I sell 4-5K licenses per month, all shot JPEG. Maybe I'm just lucky or something. How many more do you reckon I'd sell if I shot RAW, taking into account all that extra processing time, which therefore would mean fewer images in my portfolio? Oh, and I get virtually no rejections (except from the anti-independent freak inspectors at IS)
Get it right in-camera and you don't need to fanny about with all that RAW nonsense. Fact.
I'm impressed... Selling 4-5000 licences every month... Just out of curiousity... WHERE do you sell that many images in the "quality" presented here? ... And by the way.. The assumption about that much more processing time for RAW.. that's just not true... It's all about having a smooth and seemless workflow.... So what you're basically saying is that the image format "RAW" has no relevans what so ever...? Interesting! - Do you really believe that yourself? But since you're so pleased with your current quality level and more or less no rejections... then it simply must be Istockphoto.com who's unable to recognize true quality... - Then why even starting this dialog, given the fact that your images are that perfect? Please do keep on shooting in jpg and be happy about your images... Me - I'll keep on shooting in RAW, enjoying the advantages of the RAW format Best regards Flemming
69
« on: February 13, 2009, 21:34 »
A little addition...
If you're shooting JPG's, stop doing that... Change to RAW (NEF). That way you'll get a completely unedited file from the camera. Edit everything in 16bit and convert to 8bit just before saving in JPG. NO Compression in the save as jpg box...
Regardless what anyone might tell you, RAW format is the only right way of producing real high quality files. They simply contains so much more information's, compared to the JPG. The JPG will typically be "processed" quite a bit by the camera... This does not happen when using RAW - In your case - NEF.
/ Flemming
70
« on: February 13, 2009, 15:57 »
Hi,
Not that I'm an expert on IS, but I have lokked at your great image... I reallyu do think that it's great.... Amd now it's toime for the ever so famous however....
Please examine the hair on both models... I think there's two problems... Softening... possible neat image or something like that... And sharpening that has ruined the pixels...
Have you done some sort of blending / layer mask? - Or did you apply neat image on one layer and then erase parts of it, or something like that?
In general it seems as if you have processed in many ways, and accidently pushed it beond the limits...
That's my first impression... A pitty though... The situation and athmosphere is very nice... Please try to provide a sample of it without anyt processing
Best regards
Flemming
71
« on: February 12, 2009, 06:05 »
I would suggest that you try searching IS with search terms relevant for your images - and sort the result by downloads... This will give you a very clear picture of what they want and what the buyers want. This search result should be comparable to your own portfolio - Then you can make your own judgement as to weather or not you can produce simular work....
I use this approach on any site when i'm not sure that a particular kind of images will be accepted.
Hope this approach can help you...
/Flemming
72
« on: February 11, 2009, 15:49 »
Thank you both. whatalife: I tryed to do as suggested, and the seave dissapered imidiately - Thanks! Vonkara: No I have not changed anything anywhere, related to this. The checkbox for "allow subscribtions" has been set on all images - and it still is... So aparently, this seems to work only after checking as suggested by whatalife... Strange.... but still, as long as it works, I'm happy! Thanks again both of you
73
« on: February 11, 2009, 15:19 »
Hi all, I've just started up at Istock, and I'm having a liitle difficulty understanding how the SUBS vs PAY-AS-YOU-GO only, works. When viewing the portfolio, all images are marked with a small leve, stating thet "This file is awailable for pay-as-you-go only" When viewing the upload list, I have all images marked as "Allow subscriptions" Can any one enlighten me about the aparent contridiction in this?  - And maybe even tell me how to actually make the images awailable for SUBS downlods? Thanks, / Flemming 
74
« on: February 08, 2009, 06:05 »
It's up and running again - and running very fast.. Guess it has been down for maintenance - and if so, they have chosen the right time - very early sunday morming - US time.. Not many buyers active sunday morning..
75
« on: February 02, 2009, 07:19 »
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
