|
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 - null
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 63
701
« on: March 05, 2009, 13:09 »
I am a little angry at what they did but kind of understand. That is not Mat's fault either. It is their policy which is wrong. I didn't say you were wrong. Actually you were right, but the Fotolia site forum is probably not the best place to complain about it. Hundred or more years of trade union activism has teached us that an individual robot is powerless against the moguls, and when he sticks his neck out, he gets beheaded.
702
« on: March 05, 2009, 12:41 »
if trads don't want you, or micro stockers fill like bast#rd childs, maybe a union specifically for micro could be the real solution. I made the same remark in another thread. What SAA really says is that they are willing to accept your hefty membership fee, and then they will maybe see... Of course, that's not how it works. Leaf has done a great job contacting SAA and obtaining a long reply, but he wouldn't have gotten it if he hadn't his MSG behind him. I reckon that the MSG has become the leading independent microstock forum in the past 1-2 years, and Leaf did a great job with keeping it up and saving it from disasters like Talkmicro that lost its entire database a while ago. If there should be a MSA (MicroStock Alliance), Leaf would be the right person to nurse it. That is, if he has the time and the courage for it. A working class hero is something to be (John Lennon).
703
« on: March 05, 2009, 12:30 »
Good morning. I wish you were there to back me up when I showed my displeasure on fotolia forum. Apparently people only use it to say "fotolia rocks" Individuals are singled out. That's why there is a need for a specific microstockers alliance or trade union, that can voice concerns as these with more impact.
704
« on: March 05, 2009, 12:21 »
I think it is totally reasonable what they did in your case as you were moderating fotolia forum.. That is kind of understandable.. I am not a moderator on any site, yet still banned from fotolia forum for telling my opinion.. I beg to differ. Being banned from a forum is much less serious than a portfolio being banned from sales. A forum is just trivial, since nobody gets paid to post. A site forum is private and it is part of the site's interface to the market. A ranting post can damage the site easily, as it is picked up by Google. In French they say " Dans la maison du pendu on ne parle pas de la corde" (Never mention rope in the house of a man who has been hanged). That's why I never bother to post at site forums. For rants, we have the Microstockgroup. 
705
« on: March 05, 2009, 12:08 »
Is this an SS issue or a reviewer issue? It's Atilla the Reviewer. He wanders from site to site and creates havock, lusting for rejections. He comes and goes. It's the Microstock version of the Grim Reaper. Actually I made a comment here about SS changing a title of one of my images, and I got a very nice email from a SS lady explaining why. So watch out what you post, SS is watching you Usually the reviewers are * right. Accidents can happen, but then, next time you will have another reviewer which smoothes out the arbitrary element in any reviewing, especially of borderline images. SS is a numbers game, so why bother about an odd rejection? Just upload more. The time it takes to email/protest you can process other shots. My last batch had 6/10 rejects, some for keywords. Usually it's 1-2 rejects. I'll just wait to upload another batch for a week till Atilla returned to his home base, at iStock. 
706
« on: March 05, 2009, 11:55 »
Spending 4 years drawing non-stop improves your ability no end. And more important, keeps them away from uploading
707
« on: March 05, 2009, 11:51 »
Oh, it's because thumbnail is small. When you see it full size, it's of course very obvious they are dog and a cat. For a thumbnail, it's large. Buyers always buy thumbnails. In a way, this is good since it forces you to make a good and very clear general composition, details being abstracted. A commercial image needs to pop up and able to be analyzed in a split second by our vision system. This one looks like a black blob on a dirty white background. It could work with a lot of fill-in light on a darker background. Apart from that, I don't really see how a rather "vulgar" depiction of sex by stray animals could sell a product or a service. It might have some ethological value, if it wasn't a very common scene on streets.
708
« on: March 04, 2009, 23:12 »
(I was banned from FT's forum when they brought in subs) OMG, I just love subs! Especially the 6 footers with everything on it! Fotolia can be very funny. I always have to grin checking the upload conditions. I am the author of the file and own all artistic elements in the image.I recently did a shoot of a terribly nice large old castle. A very artistic one indeed, and not patched together of foam and plywood like the ones in Disneyland. But I had to check that I owned it.  Is this perjury? My file is the type of file Fotolia customers need. This is the most hilarious one. How for hell's sake can you know what the customers of Fotolia need? You can just upload it and see if it sells or not. But no, Fotolia wants you to be sure and to commit that your shot is what customers really desperately need. This would be a trial grandioso, Fotolia dragging an uploader in court and charging him with the premeditated crime of uploading a file that the customers don't need. How would they prove it? Fetch an average customer and park him in front of the bench, letting him testify onder oath that he certainly doesn't need a file like that? 
709
« on: March 04, 2009, 22:03 »
BME in February (up 203% from Feb last year) and a very good start in March. No complaints from me  I used to have most sales from the same 5 photos, almost never recent ones ( < 1 year). That changed recently. They were probably stirring up their search engine a bit. As a consequence, BigStock is slowly catching up now with iStock.
710
« on: March 04, 2009, 21:18 »
In the midst of all these paeans to DT I'd like to offer a contrasting opinion. Hm, what's your authority on this? In the other rant about iStock you refused to show the photo they rejected, but you kept complaining about it. A complaint now again. Where is your portfolio? If all those sites are so wrong, I would start to think that it's not about the sites, but about me.
711
« on: March 04, 2009, 18:16 »
Taking down the site can provide time to clean out the forum and sitemail for posts from the bad guys, keeping other contributors safe from clicking. A very wise move of IS, IT-wise spoken.
712
« on: March 04, 2009, 17:51 »
latest report. first 10 images submitted , culled from a port that were approved by all the sites submitted. results : 1 approved. Too many sites, too little time.
713
« on: March 04, 2009, 17:39 »
"Annual Dues: $175. Registration Fee: $45."No way. That's it. SAA has done some good work, I should say that. Like what? Spamming my mailbox for instance. The moment they can do something against the subscription trend on sites, I'm willing to take a subscription. At the price of one subscription download on SS of course.
714
« on: March 04, 2009, 15:09 »
LOL It was the D400 announcement, but I thought nobody would be interested  Nooooo! You're in my attention filter. I'm looking every hour for your Nikon Rumors to come true! Please! Is it there yet?
715
« on: March 04, 2009, 15:00 »
To be deleted Why?
716
« on: March 04, 2009, 14:56 »
Troll Alert! Don't feed the trolls. 
717
« on: March 03, 2009, 15:18 »
I don't post on FT forum In general, I avoid site forums. They are private and they are a way of marketing. Many contributors just use to shout there " hail <enter site here>" in the hope that their ports get pimped by the Masters of the Search Engine. It works better if you do it in the thread of the Alpha Male of the site. Chimpanzees show deference to the alpha of the community by ritualised gestures such as bowing, allowing the alpha to walk first in a procession, or standing aside when the alpha challenges. Canines (wolves & dogs, jackals, foxes, etc) show deference to the alpha pair in their pack, by allowing them to be the first to eat and, usually, the only pair to mate. The status of the alpha is sometimes achieved by means of superior physical prowess; however, in certain highly social species such as the bonobo and humans, a contender can use more indirect methods, such as political alliances, to oust the ruling alpha and take their place. Canines use eye contact to establish and maintain alpha position. Gorillas use intimidation. The subspecies Homo Homo Microstockiensis uses flattering posts, cybergrooming of the alphas, submission gestures, and tribal shouts like " XYZ rocks, XYZ is the best..." at the XYZ forum.
718
« on: March 03, 2009, 13:10 »
I was lucky enough to have Nikon Singapore lend me this monster for a few days. Can anyone guess what it is!? The Hubble Space Telescope?
719
« on: March 03, 2009, 12:53 »
Hmmm...push the ignore button or respond? lol! Some models came with a unicorn-type horn on them to fight theives off with. It's my fault sorry. I thought you meant the mythical Nikon D400. I'm a Canon illiterate ;-)
720
« on: March 03, 2009, 12:39 »
FlemishDream,
To compare us with Mostphotos and Yaymicro is not really fair.
For the record Paul, this remark was about CutCaster, not about Zymmetrical. Some nested quotes got mixed up. But while we're at it, Cutcaster can be compared with Zymmetrical on many points, with the difference that Zymmetrical is a year ahead. Both can't be compared with YAY which has subscriptions for 0.5 euro. After the failure of FeaturePics, I hope both sites will thrive (Zym and CC).
721
« on: March 02, 2009, 18:08 »
FeaturePics is dead. It has deceased. It is a late site. It is no more. It went to meet its Maker. It has ceased to be. I can still see many people putting time=energy=money in its forum (I lost my password for the forum). Now, post mortem, it's trying subscription. Well, whatever...
722
« on: March 02, 2009, 17:51 »
My original camera was only a 400D That one is expected by the summer, if not later. It's a mythical cam.
723
« on: March 01, 2009, 21:51 »
Can't you use Adobe Camera raw?
It has CA removal tools.
Works quite well and it only takes a few seconds.
You have to shoot raw, though. Yes I'm always doing raw. I'll check. I reverted to my old CS2 and the raw developer is quite rudimentary.
724
« on: March 01, 2009, 11:27 »
Call me a cowboy.... but I bit running a de-saturation tool over the fringed pavement area would probably clear that up for you! ;-) That's what I do to, a 50% soft brush at the side where there is the least harm: the tree stems and not the foliage. Thanks to LisaFX and Anyka for having a look. It's all a matter of workflow and time involved. Lightroom might be an option apparently, but to invest time and money in Lightroom just for that is perhaps counterproductive. On the Ken Rockwell site I read that the D90 does it in cam, like the D300, but I'm not sure about the reliability of Rockwell.
725
« on: February 28, 2009, 15:17 »
I bought a release cable today to hopefully do some time lapse photography.... Yes I saw that many videos on Pond5 are lapses. You don't actually have to have a videocam to make videoclips. There are many great time lapses on Youtube too.
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 63
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
