|
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 - Sean Locke Photography
6976
« on: April 22, 2009, 19:57 »
He's trying to play "dumb consumer" who wants to buy an image for personal use.
Given what Elena from FP said a while ago, I don't think it is so surprising that there are "dumb consumers". I do agree that there possibly are many buyers who don't want to bother about all those details in a license term.
Regards,
Adelaide
Well, they're out of luck. To buy something somewhere on the internet, you need to register. To get permission to use something, you need to agree to something. It can't be that hard.
6977
« on: April 22, 2009, 16:29 »
Cora, he's not asking questions. He's trying to play "dumb consumer" who wants to buy an image for personal use.
6978
« on: April 22, 2009, 13:58 »
6979
« on: April 22, 2009, 12:14 »
I'm not sure sending out the membership to spread the word in this way is really a sensible idea. If you want to grow your membership, you should buy an ad in the sidebar advertising it.
6980
« on: April 22, 2009, 09:19 »
2004, the year I got let go from Disney.
6981
« on: April 22, 2009, 09:18 »
For a small fee, I'll condense the useful posts into a daily email, with humorous photography tips sprinkled throughout. Only $29.95 a year. If you act now, I'll throw in my patented "Zen Reflector", a foil covered triangle hat you can use as a light bouncer as well.
6982
« on: April 21, 2009, 23:21 »
The stock agencies do nothing _but_ market them to consumers. I'm not sure where your concern lies except that Joe Sixpack can't figure out how to open an account and license an image.
What kind of solution do you see for your perceived problem, need I ask?
6983
« on: April 21, 2009, 20:07 »
1 - Figure out what a "stock image" is and am I even eligible to buy it. Isn't stock images just for use by businesses?
2 - Search through the enormous number of images on a computer many of which are loosely keyworded so I find everything but what I am looking for.
3 - Find one I might want to buy but there is a watermark on it. Will this be on the image I buy? Time to get lost in the help pages.
4 - OK I am ready to buy but wait, there are many different sizes measured in pixels? I also need to open an account, and pay with tokens or purchase an expensive subscription plan?
5 - Read through the pages of legal fine print just to figure out what I am getting and what I can do with it.
These are all silly. Yes, of course, the everyday buyer would assume the image you license would have a big "ISTOCKPHOTO" across it.
6984
« on: April 21, 2009, 20:05 »
It does sound a bit odd there are no actual details in the offer. Hey, I'll upload your stuff for some unknown fee, somehow, and Yuri says it's cool.
6985
« on: April 21, 2009, 18:53 »
I feel a pitch from another 'new member' coming along very soon, and wouldn't it be a surprise is that pitch was for a new site targeting private buyers!
Crazy talk!
6986
« on: April 21, 2009, 18:45 »
What?
6987
« on: April 21, 2009, 18:44 »
I can't imagine the segment of "personal buyers" is very large. What percentage really buys images just to look at them on their monitor?
Regardless, iStock, or any of the other sites are easy enough and cheap enough to buy from if you just want to sit at your desk and look at an image.
6988
« on: April 21, 2009, 15:53 »
You would expect that the composite of two keyword searches would be different than an individual keyword search on either of the terms... I mean, I would.
6989
« on: April 21, 2009, 15:52 »
So, you're so enthusiastic about a site which you have no interest in, aside from your own uploads, that you actively seek out forums to discuss it in. They should be happy to have a user like you. Good luck with your work there!
6990
« on: April 21, 2009, 14:18 »
You're quite ... enthusiatic... I think I've seen you post enthusiastically on digital grin as well.
6991
« on: April 21, 2009, 10:17 »
The thread was posted 18th April on SS and I'm almost 100% certain that Sean is wrong and that it appeared the same day on IS as I saw it for the first time on IS that same day and it only had one reply when I saw it.
No, it is/was a copy paste from his iStock blog. You can still see it here: http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=629407Nothing wrong with repurposing it on his site though.
6992
« on: April 21, 2009, 06:12 »
Yuri posted the same post at Istock and it looks llike it has been deleted.
Are you sure it was him and not one of his fans? I cannot imagine that he start spamming forums?
Yes, it was dated sometime in October.
6993
« on: April 21, 2009, 06:11 »
Yes, the RSS feeds are full of ATOM garbage that you need to parse out. I have them on my site... www.digitalplanetdesign.com
6994
« on: April 20, 2009, 22:29 »
Fun stuff. I think the bright areas inside the eaves is an HDR giveaway, but the others are cool. What software are you using? How many exposures?
6995
« on: April 20, 2009, 11:29 »
Thanks for stopping by Ellen. Nice meeting you at UGCX for that minute or two...
6996
« on: April 20, 2009, 09:57 »
What omission? I think most people probably hold that "pro" is its own word anymore, and not just an abbreviation of "professional". Like I said, some will accept it.
6998
« on: April 20, 2009, 07:11 »
Ok, then I guess we're done then. Good luck!
6999
« on: April 20, 2009, 06:27 »
I think when we talk abut colors there is no need for full size images (heavily purple sea and sky, light blue sea against yellow and green sky, and dark orange and pinkish sky and sea)
As mentioned, we weren't talking about colors, we were talking about "overfiltered", right?
7000
« on: April 20, 2009, 05:53 »
Critique requires a full size image to look at.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
