Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 25, 2014, 10:55

Quote from: bunhill on February 25, 2014, 09:08

I think the thing to be constructively asking for is a better system of reporting from now on. That makes much more sense than people venting. A constructive conversation is better than an angry stand off.

Yeah, asking for better reporting and constructive conversations have worked so well in the past there.

Leeches can't speak, they need only to be smashed, microstockers need a labor union...

A workers' union comprising people across the whole planet will work when there is one world govt. Plans for a one world govt are on hold.

Photos are not in short supply and are mostly already free even in most typical semi-/commercial uses. Sean implies that better reporting and constructive conversation has not worked. I tend towards thinking that better reporting is almost certainly part of an inevitable road map - but likely depends upon other stuff being in place first. It makes sense from everyone's perspective - because it will be the most efficient and cost effective solution. (And I am guessing).

In terms of communications: Communications are better now (in a less is more way) than in the days when iStock communicated with itself via huge long angry and rather pointlessly repetitive forum threads (and ikon changing) from the same few people. Then the management would step in and implement a quick and often lousy fix backed up with a vague promise. But the issues would be left the fester. That style of management was transitional - it almost certainly works at a boutique, art or influential reportage agency with a few hundred or fewer contributors and everyone knows each other. It is surely the wrong solution at a site with thousands of contributors.

I doubt there is any particular business case for touchy-feely communications or promising anything. With many thousands of contributors it is impossible to please everyone and it may be better to keep things very formal.

I agree that the processes need to improve. But I think that will happen inevitably as part of the inevitable economics.

Quote from: jjneff on February 25, 2014, 08:48

We know photos.com is owned by Getty

In which case the suggestion (which I was responding to) that this is to do with photos.com (i.e. Getty) not paying iStock (i.e. Getty) is clearly wild. And a distraction.

There is no reason to believe that this is anything other than a mistake which has been complicated to untangle. Presumably because thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of micropayments represents an enormous accounting nightmare.

I think the thing to be constructively asking for is a better system of reporting from now on. That makes much more sense than people venting. A constructive conversation is better than an angry stand off.

Could whoever voted this down explain which bit they disagree with specifically ?

.. etc etc
As the photos.com is now shutting down i can only sespect that they did not pay Istock what they owed when they were suposed to do so. So Istock ended up paying us the money out of their pocket to meet the deadlines and the demands from the contributors while they did not receive the money from photos.com for the sales.
..
etc etc

photos.com is owned by Getty Images. http://www.whois.com/whois/photos.com

5 seconds max to look that up.

I can understand that people are disappointed that they have not earned as much as they thought they had and now have to pay back the over payment. But it's annoying how the internet turns everything into a conspiracy.

Sticking hardware in your face and needling ones body with Tats, is not non-conformist. It's wearing a uniform and being one of the many, trying to be different. But in the end, just being the same? (odd isn't it?)

But nobody would ever sensibly argue that ink and piercings are about trying to be different. Being clearly tribal and therefore absolutely about conforming to a group identity. Like hairstyles or wearing a tie.

Trend spotting is not about following trends - it is about identifying trends which are already emerging - often amongst self identifying groups. It's about trying to see how those trends are likely to evolve and propagate.  Stock photography and advertising is all about trends surely. Culture is a neutral term - neither pejorative nor positive.

William Gibson's wonderful novel Pattern Recognition is partly about trend spotting.

very unprofessional to keyword and to caption some of these images with the words "regime" and "dictatorship"

I do not know enough about the background to these events to have any sort of opinion about the politics.

But I agree that an editorial caption should be strictly accurate and impartial. I am surprised that captions including words like "regime" and "dictatorship" have got past the bureau chief or equivalent. Unless Shutterstock is taking sides.

Given that login details give someone access to the account, surely the ideal solution would be for SS and other agencies to officially vet any apps which require login details ( - also any updates and the advertising services which are incorporated). i.e. - to give their stamp of approval.

Report: Android malware and spyware apps spike in the Google Play Store (infoworld)

Many apps use ad networks legitimately, but some ad networks are used essentially as money-laundering mechanisms for data obtained through deceptive practices within apps, as well as through spyware apps. Developers may not be aware that their apps use such "gray market" ad networks or have components obtained from other developers that are actually spyware. Legitimate ad networks can also be conduits for such "gray market" apps. Manousos said its count of suspect apps that used ad networks included only apps that antivirus vendors or other investigations separately identified as problematic, so the count does not include all apps that use ad networks.

But while the number of malicious Android apps is rising, the percentage of them removed by Google is on the decline, researchers said. In 2011 Google removed 60 percent of malicious apps, but in 2013 the company removed less than a quarter of them, the report said. That's probably due to the rapid increase in malicious software. Manousos told InfoWorld that he theorizes that Google takes down apps only after it has received enought complaints or alerts from security researchers, creating a delay in its takedowns to the 2013 surge. Unlike Apple, Google does not vet apps rigorously before they are made available in its app store, he noted.

FileZilla warns of large malware campaign

Spoofed versions of the open source FTP program circulating on third-party websites are designed to steal log-in credentials

From a developer perspective, Android is something of an hodgepodge for the moment. I have relatively recently come back to doing some programming / development. I took a good look at both Android and iOS.

At the moment, most developers find that iOS is much better platform to build for. Partly because it is much more mature - being built on Mac OS X which was built on NeXT. Also - the iOS model is extremely well specified. Much of what you need to do when building an iOS media app is already there - you only have to hook into functionality which is already provided and well documented.

iOS is standardized. So, for example, if you are building an app which needs access a user�s picture library - well you know where that picture library is and how to address it in code. The rules already exist. And you know all of the possible hardware that the app might be running on. No surprises - no matter what particular camera app they have used.

Building an Android app, by comparison, means taking into account an almost infinite range of possibilities. iOS also has a much more mature integrated development environment. Developing for Android is potentially a much more expensive prospect. But because the money for developers is in iOS development (especially the in-house bespoke stuff which does not get distributed via the store), iOS development is much more established. It is much easier to get good iOS stuff developed.

(Also - there have been relatively few iPhone models and therefore relatively few iPhone cameras - taking the camera to mean the actual hardware + inbuilt processing � before whatever any app does). The iPhone cameras are well regarded. There are probably hundreds of variations on the Android side which likely represents a potential QC inspection bottleneck).

Quote from: bunhill on February 18, 2014, 16:02

Really nice. I am surprised Stocksy didn't want you.

No, I think the people images are overly posed and lit.  It looks like an ad for a portrait studio (which is good based on the OPs statement )  I'd say about 5-10% looks like Stocksy material.

I'm not well versed enough in the other places to hazard a guess.

I found a lot of humour. Some of them made me smile. Eg G6A8670 where the boy looks like he is struggling not to grin. That's natural.

I did not think that the woman in the hat on the rock was especially strong - but other than that I think that almost every series has some very strong shots.

Where you see over-posed ... I think I see deliberately posed. Though some of them seem very natural to me.

Anyhow - isn't posed the new not posed ?

I have no clue what trademarks have to do with the issue in this topic.

Ugh. Trademarks have nothing to do with it specifically. Quite obviously. But the general principle is that companies have a fiduciary responsibility to defend copyrights and trademarks.

Companies can be sued for failing to rigorously defend intellectual property where possible.

I am sure there will be a few genuine cases which can be explained (just the same as with debt collection, unpaid bills etc in general). But when you read those forums it does seem to mostly be people who are trying to get out of having commercially used content which they had not bothered to license. Mostly shocked that they should have to pay so much when they can "buy" an image for $1 at some micro.

Quote from: bunhill on February 16, 2014, 04:12

Quote from: pixel8 on February 16, 2014, 01:20

So conclusion is therefore that unless you are using a tilt shift lens, all other lens types will have the same depth of field?

It's physics.

DOF calculator

There are 4 factors: sensor size, f/stop, focal length and subject distance. The closer you are the less DOF and the less that reducing the aperture will make any difference.

So I should back off the subject some, which would mean I would not fill the frame but would have to crop and would also lose some size for those extra large sales. I guess I worry that the stock sites will be less happy with the photo if its smaller in size for resale.

What about adding some tube extensions - lens extensions?

Extension tubes will effectively increase your f/stop (calculated as f:aperture). The effect of this would be to increase depth of field. However extension tubes also reduce the focusing distance. The effective of which is to decrease depth of field.

Long story short is that extension tubes increase magnification. Increasing magnification reduces depth of field.

So conclusion is therefore that unless you are using a tilt shift lens, all other lens types will have the same depth of field?

It's physics.

DOF calculator

There are 4 factors: sensor size, f/stop, focal length and subject distance. The closer you are the less DOF and the less that reducing the aperture will make any difference.

This shows how mentally disturbed you are.
... You're a psychiatric case with a sociopath personality

@StockPhotosArt - your post totally undermines anything useful you might have to say.