|
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 - CJPhoto
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 41
651
« on: October 01, 2006, 04:38 »
Saw on another forum that a diamond exclusive was posting in.
From what he said I gathered the following information:
There must be only 57 Diamond members
He has 2,500 photos online (he said it is his hobby, not his job)
He made just under $25,000 in the last year
he said he averages $1 per DL so he must have sold ~25,000 photos or 10 each per year.
652
« on: September 30, 2006, 03:57 »
Future plans may be a private matter at the moment (  ) but please keep us inform of your marketing as you do it.
653
« on: September 30, 2006, 03:54 »
Latvia is in the EU so I assume they must have a sufficent legal system.
This event points out why we mut be vigilent. Anyone could buy a SS membership for a month and have 750 proven sellers under their name. It is just unfortunate that it was an employee of a site (esp. a new site).
I am pending my decision on Galastock to see how this pans out.
654
« on: September 29, 2006, 11:59 »
Looks like a cut and paste job from LO last post.
Oh well. Hopefully the marketing that has apparently started, and giving credits to new buyers, will kick off the sales.
Still hanging in there though.
655
« on: September 29, 2006, 10:25 »
Galastock - your contact details say you are owned by Fotki SAI. Are you owned/associated with ww.fotki.com. If not, why have you using the same name as a large US company which also runs a photo website (photosharing rather than microstock).
656
« on: September 29, 2006, 07:45 »
In the least, there should be some action taken to ensure he has deleted all images.
657
« on: September 29, 2006, 05:41 »
Has anyone contacted Galastock?
THis maybe an issue with one of their reviewers. From my understanding, most sites download full versions to reviewers computers for them to check. There is then an element of trust with all sites that their reviewers do not keep them on their system.
658
« on: September 29, 2006, 01:50 »
If you check out Galastocks owner it says it is owned by FOTKI. In the US, FOTKI is a large photosharing site. Has anyone checked if it is the same company that owns it.
I assumed it was like the ownership of Stokxpert where it is (part) owned by Corbis but StockXpert is based in Budapest (new country in the EU mcuh like Latvia)
659
« on: September 27, 2006, 14:20 »
For some reason I thought it was average of 10 DL per month.
Once once a flame, always a flame then.
660
« on: September 27, 2006, 14:14 »
You forgot the ISO 10,000!!!
Needs a mini computer for data storage though as it doesn't take compact flash.
661
« on: September 27, 2006, 14:12 »
What does it need to be to be a flame?
662
« on: September 27, 2006, 10:55 »
From memory they were hoping to be able to track sales in the future. If it did this and downloads etc, it would be very useful. WIll wait till then though.
663
« on: September 26, 2006, 12:15 »
Similar topic - I saw somewhere that recommended putting double sided tape inside your lens cap so that it grabs the dust when you have your lens cap on... How would putting tape on a lens cap work??? 
The dust mostly comes when you change lenses and the cap would be on the lens.
Should explain better - this was to keep dust of the front and back of the lens, not the sensor.
664
« on: September 26, 2006, 10:58 »
Changes look positve (didn't need those credits anyway).
They still haven't started advertising which is my main concern as sales have dried up!
665
« on: September 26, 2006, 10:42 »
Good point. They do have a tendacy to make deals behind the scenes. Then, we all find out about it later. Dont so much mind the deals behind the scene but we whould at least here it from them once it becomes public. They shouldn't have to reply to a forum post to explain what has happened.
666
« on: September 26, 2006, 09:22 »
I am quite confused about some agencies REQUIRING upsizing. This seems to contradict good photo editing, since upsizing can degrade an image.
Does anyone understand the reasoning behind this?
nope, dunno. I think it is pretty silly as well.
YOu would think they would upsize it themselves (when/if needed) using the best software (they can afford it) rather than get us to do it. Like shutterstock does.
667
« on: September 26, 2006, 09:19 »
Striker - I think he meant they charge 55 per year (ie you pay up front but get upto 4 cleans.
Similar topic - I saw somewhere that recommended putting double sided tape inside your lens cap so that it grabs the dust when you have your lens cap on (in theory but I think I would have issues getting the lens cap back out of my pocket once I have finished using my camera.
668
« on: September 26, 2006, 08:11 »
I took a look at it. It had some nice potential, but there were some things I didn't like. Mostly the library and how you and to build it. I felt the program should be able to look at your file structure and build its own library. I agree. I have built up my file system to suit my needs. Maybe if I knew I was going to be using this long term I would make adjustments and the additional funcationality would be usefull but as it was only temporary, it did make it quite complicated to do the simple things I wanted done.
669
« on: September 26, 2006, 04:53 »
I have v3 and decided not to use it after thinking about this. I am pretty sure that on the start up screen (they stay up for so long with adobe products) it says that the license expires.
Once the full version comes out, which I beleive is rumoured to cost about $200, the beta version will no longer work. Maybe they will offer it at a discound for beta users (ie, an upgrade license) but I dont beleive they have said anything re pricign yet.
670
« on: September 26, 2006, 02:58 »
I will let someone else post about how wonderful it is that Appeture now has an iStock plugin for uploading (free).
However, the first anybody knew about it was when Apple release the product, then someone posted on the iStock forum and asked what exactly this new iStock plugin does. Haven't they heard about doing prereleases at the same time! (ie. joint prereleases) Especially after being told off by almost everyone for implementing something new without consulatation, they do something again and dont even let the photags know even though it has been released to market by Apple.
They are lucky this is a positive thing though lots of people will be asking where is the PC version?
671
« on: September 25, 2006, 11:58 »
My limit is 20 per day.
672
« on: September 22, 2006, 08:20 »
It is all in the words - I looked for microstock keyword plugin and got 5 pages of nothing.
673
« on: September 22, 2006, 05:18 »
StockManiac found the one I was thinking of.
674
« on: September 22, 2006, 05:02 »
As easy as FTP (ryhmes with 123). then open each photo and select 1 category from a list of about 20. Then delete keywords if you have more than 50 in EXIF. Galastock referal link
675
« on: September 22, 2006, 05:00 »
My guess is Getty told them to do it. G
etty do their keywording in house so probably dont have the time lag that internet has when doing this kind of thing. iStock then had to implement it and quickly (Getty gave them a deadline) and they didn't get time to finish their beta testing.
They really need to get the image manager working (even if you have to go in and confirm the meaning of words).
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 41
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
