|
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 - Bateleur
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... 35
551
« on: July 04, 2007, 03:48 »
Thanks everyone ... it's still mystery.
I FTP to several other sites no problems.
I've even gone to the extent of cutting and pasting the web address. And I've tried my username with and without capitals ... typing it and the password in with one finger and spelling them out as I go, like an idiot. Still no joy. I'm going to try changing my details on the site and see if it works after that.
Grrrrrrrr!
552
« on: July 03, 2007, 04:26 »
I've just joined Stockxpert and I've been trying to FTP my files (using FileZilla). Trouble is ... I do everything they tell you to do (connect to ftp://stockxpert.com, normal setting, use username and password for access) but I just get the message 'Unable to Connect' I e-mailed them a couple of days ago, but haven't had a reply yet. Anyone on here got any advice? Thanks
553
« on: July 03, 2007, 01:36 »
My beautiful Korean girlfriend gives me 'free' advice when I'm photoshopping.
In return I let her have sex with me now and again.........!
Sounds way better than my reflector 
554
« on: July 03, 2007, 01:35 »
I worked for this guy once who had a.... wait a minute, it was so unremarkable I can't even remember what it was... a red square or a green circle or something on canvas in a big frame... and he paid about 2 million for it. Perhaps this paper bag is hanging with pride above his mantle somewhere.
I have a similar experience. My boss paid $400K for a big red canvas. What is special about it? Apparently he thinks it is worth 400K because it is "perfectly panted" i.e. no streaks or spots anywhere on the canvas. Me, I thought about getting in the "red canvas" racket.
Yeah ... but don't build your hopes too high. You'll only get 25c for your red canvases if you sell 'em on iStack ... or 30c on ShutterStuck. 
555
« on: July 02, 2007, 12:33 »
Cameras cost a bomb, really good lenses cost an atom bomb, and even accessories ain't cheap.
But has anyone got any photographic accessories that they've made for nothing (or next to nothing) that they find really useful?
Care to share your inventive genius?
Here, for starters, is one of mine - a simple reflector. I cut an A4-sized chunk of particularly stiff cardboard from the side of a box and, using contact adhesive, covered it with crinkled aluminium baking foil. It makes a great little reflector that can be hand-held to direct diffuse light just where I want it in macro shots and portraits. And it's small enough to slip into the laptop pocket of my carrying bag.
Any more ideas out there?
556
« on: June 30, 2007, 02:55 »
Here are my figures ...
IS 51.0%
SS 31.0%
DT 9.0%
BS 8.5%
CR 0.5%
But I have significantly fewer (about half as many) at DT and BS at the moment, and I've pretty much given up on Crestock. They are so amazingly picky, yet sell almost nothing of the ones that are accepted, I've given up submitting. I'll just let the existing ones ride and, maybe, in about 10 years, get a payout.
With regard to exclusivity, here's a quote from an article, from Photopreneur, that's given in another thread on this forum ...
Excepting special circumstances, youre never going to make more money being exclusive than contributing to multiple agencies, Lee explained. Therefore, exclusivity is only for people who use microstock for exposure or those who are time poor.
557
« on: June 29, 2007, 14:22 »
[
Once you see the results you too will be a convert....I promise you.
I am! I am! It's a brilliant method. So much more control. But ... I don't want to throw a spanner in the works ... I have a question. In the interests of improving my technique I was trying to find out exactly what Lab Colour was and, of course, one of the places I went to was Wikipedia. There someone wrote: In the 1990s, when computer hardware and software was mostly limited to storing and manipulating 8 bit/channel bitmaps, converting an RGB image to Lab and back was a lossy operation. With 16 bit/channel support now common, this is no longer such a problem.So ... my question ... should we be using this technique in 16 bit to avoid information loss? And the author wrote '... no longer such a problem ...". Does that mean there's still a little loss, even in 16 bit? Anyone know the answers?
558
« on: June 27, 2007, 09:02 »
Cheers2
Me too
559
« on: June 27, 2007, 08:59 »
Brilliant man! You're a genius 
560
« on: June 27, 2007, 00:44 »
Hang in there mate.
Rejections ... even incomprehensible ones ... come with the package. And every human activity has a hair-tearing side.
As for copyright issues with the picture, I'd hazard a guess that it's the heart-shaped thingies on the girl's sandals that are upsetting IS. They probably think they're some sort of logo.
561
« on: June 21, 2007, 11:42 »
Maybe I'm being neurotic here. If I am, don't hesitate to tell me, I can take it but I've just received a message from someone who bought an image of mine. The image is the back view of a wheelchair athlete (so unidentifiable) zooming along a path, and the questioner asks ... I have just purchased your great picture of a wheelchair racer that I believe I know. Can you tell me if this was taken at last years (xxx) championships in (yyy) ? Thank youGiven the awful warnings of the microstocks about model releases, and the fact that I have no model release for the person this image, should I confirm/deny the facts? What would you do? (P.S. I've removed the identifying words from my questioner's message)
562
« on: June 20, 2007, 10:14 »
Way....hay! Congratulations, Nico, for winning the Canon in the Crestock competition. I knew you'd do it with that brilliant image of the greyhound. It was streets ahead of anything else submitted. Enjoy your new camera ... lucky dog
563
« on: June 11, 2007, 07:55 »
That's brilliant!
I knew the technique already but was going about it in a more long-winded way.
You've given me a load of short cuts to speed it up.
Thanks!
564
« on: June 08, 2007, 00:39 »
As mentioned in another thread, advice from hidesy says that if you have images available at XL and/or XXL size that sends an important message to potential buyers that you are a serious player and are prepared to invest in the best equipment. That might generate downloads of smaller sizes that wouldn't otherwise happen.
You reckon? Buyers are usually busy people, looking for a specific image to fit their needs. I very much doubt that, when looking at an image, they say to themselves "Oh, that photographer's got XL and XXL sizes ... so he/she has bought good equipment ... so he/she must be a serious player ... so I'll buy his/her image." They see what they want, at the right size, and buy it. They don't give a tinker's cuss about the equipment that was used to produce it.
565
« on: June 05, 2007, 09:17 »
i am surprised at some of the photos in the top 10. I think someone has gathered their friends to vote on their images!
Yeah. There is obviously some major cheating going on. Just look at the top-scoring images (by public votes) in Round 1. Out of the top 5, one breaks the rules (with a border) and two others are ... let's be honest ... totally c**p images. 3 out of the top 5 non-starters. Very disappointing. And, what's more, they are highlighted on the Contest results page. There are way, way better pictures that have been submitted but got nowhere. Personally, I feel this contest should never have been thrown open to public voting. It's far too easy to cheat on the internet.
566
« on: June 04, 2007, 11:24 »
I voted for you SY ... and one vote each for Sharply Done, Leaf, Freezingpictures and Eco too. All great pictures, each one different in it's own way. It's interesting what a variety of interpretations of the theme there are (the ones from this forum are all very different) ... and yet, at the same time, how many are the same. There are several very similar pictures of a spinning ferris wheel for example. Good luck everyone!
568
« on: June 03, 2007, 13:48 »
Just a reminder - time is running out for those that still want to enter. Here is my last minute entry:
https://www.crestock.com/blog/photography/contest2007/entry.aspx?id=3995
That is a b****y brilliant photograph, man. How did you do it? I saw it just a few hours ago and I didn't realise it was from someone on here. The moment I saw it said to myself 'That's gonna be the winner." There is so much power in it. I still have to post mine for the final round, but I don't think it stands much chance now 
569
« on: June 03, 2007, 13:44 »
"Wow, for a non-pro you sure use high-end equipment..."
My friend, when I retired, I found all this retirement money all over the place, under my mattress, in the bank, in a jar on my dresser.
There was sooooo much money when I retired I was sweeping it off the floors, and vacuuming it out of the furniture.
Then just when I thought I had everything under control, the state of New York started sending me MORE money and wiring it into my bank.
Wow! Roll on retirement! Seriously, your tutorial are great. I've found them very helpful. Thanks for sharing the knowledge you have gained. And it's inspirational, if you've retired and have only taken up photography 2 years ago, that you're developing all these new skills. So many people just go into gentle decline when they retire. I hope I can be as active and knowledgeable as you when the time comes. (Actually, it sounds as if you've found a new job ... working for yourself.) Good on yer, mate.
570
« on: May 24, 2007, 03:20 »
Two great entries! Chapeau! (as they say round here). I haven't entered Round 3 yet ... with only one vote for Round 2 so far (and a very negative comment from a viewer) I've still got my fingers crossed in a big way ... but here is an article from one of the judges that some people may find useful, even if you're not going in for this competition: http://www.photocritic.org/2007/how-to-win-a-photography-contest/Good luck everyone
571
« on: May 18, 2007, 14:49 »
I've entered for the second round. The subject is ' Feeling Sexy'. Anyone interested can see my entry here ... http://www.crestock.com/blog/photography/contest2007/entry.aspx?id=2628I'd love to receive comments (good and bad) if anyone has them. And good luck to anyone else entered. Maybe post the link to your entries on here too so we can all see them.
572
« on: May 17, 2007, 12:26 »
Anyone living in the UK and in a competitive mood? Here's another photo competition you can enter for free, with several categories ... http://www.currysourlives.co.uk/Good luck!
573
« on: May 17, 2007, 03:29 »
... I have somewhat of an excellent set of baseball photos I took in September of last year, and after doing a search on Alamy, there's no editorial stuff of pro baseball players (Blue Jays and Devil Rays) playing. As well, my travels to Banff will hopefully (surely?) produce some photographs that will be more appropriate for Alamy than SS and IS.
The second reason, is that I'm sick and tired of the bad reasons for rejection ...
A couple of points about Alamy ... 1) They are mainly focussed on the UK/European markets, which is why there are so few baseball images with them. Baseball is almost completely unknown in the UK/Europe, and there is virtually zero interest in the game. So, I would imagine sales potential for those images is somewhat limited. 2) It sounds from what you write as if you consider Alamy an easy option for submissions. Be aware that they do reject, and savagely. You can only submit by CD/DVD at the moment (which is a real pain to begin with) and if 3 or more images on your submission disk are below standard they reject the whole lot ... boom! I know. I've had it happen to me. It's pretty sickening to wait a month or more (which is how long it takes them at present) and then have the whole lot thrown out with minimal explanation.
574
« on: May 17, 2007, 03:19 »
You better change your email address to something like
hilcher (at) gmail dot com
if not you'll drown in spam very soon! Not from forum members but from nasty little programmes that crawl the web and harvest them. SY
And maybe you should rub out the quoted e-mail address in your post SY Because even if litifeta changes the address in the original post, it'll still be there on yours for those horrid things to harvest. (Why doesn't someone write a program that crawls the net and fries spammers computers?  Or, better still, fries the spammers themselves.)
575
« on: May 15, 2007, 03:44 »
I'm not sure if this competition is doing Crestock a whole lot of good in the long run. Here are some of the negative things which may start to count against them with public relations ... 1) I submitted a photo for the second round on Saturday. It's vanished. No indication if it's been accepted or rejected. It's like it's been swallowed by a black hole. And I'm not the only one this has happened to. Complaints about this are beginning to appear on their forum. 2) They changed the rules in the middle of the last round and wiped out about 3/4 of the entries after voting had started. I can't complain as my photo got through but I know there was a whole load of people seriously p****d off. 3) There is clearly rampant cheating in the public voting. Just look at some of the images that are getting massive votes and swathes of rave comments! Beurk! Moral of this story ... think carefully through a public relations drive before launching it in the big wide world.
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 ... 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
