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 - bunhill
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... 62
726
« on: February 25, 2014, 15:29 »
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.
727
« on: February 25, 2014, 10:12 »
I wonder how much Kelvin knows, but isn't letting on, or isn't being allowed to share.
Kelvin always seems straightforward. So I doubt he would step into a conversation if he had something to withhold. My guess is that closing photos.com is mostly to do with brand consolidation. Though the well reported EU trademark ruling perhaps did not help either. Thinkstock has always been the stronger brand. I cannot understand why people want this to be anything more than a mistake. I agree with those saying that the accounting should be better. Perhaps consolidating the brands will pave the way for better accounting and reporting.
728
« on: February 25, 2014, 09:16 »
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 ?
729
« on: February 25, 2014, 09:08 »
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.
730
« on: February 25, 2014, 08:37 »
.. 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.com5 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.
731
« on: February 25, 2014, 05:36 »
Describe a thing accurately and succinctly. Anything else is spam and clutter. A good useful caption is going to be 2 or at the most 3 well written short sentences. Sometimes there may be a need for some additional description in a separate field - e.g. if the context or provenance of the image needs explanation.
Potential buyers do not expect an essay and will be put off if the copy seems incongruous or strangely written.
732
« on: February 23, 2014, 07:43 »
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.
733
« on: February 22, 2014, 15:32 »
If it was 4/3 maybe some people could get their old cameras and nice expensive doorstops, out of the closet. I could see one of the nice long film 600mm as a bargain and useful with this. Some of those old SLR lenses cost thousands and they are pretty much useless collectibles.
Why not just mount that old 600mm lens on a 4/3 camera using a lens adapter ? Or better still on a NEX or any of the other APS-C cameras which have much better dynamic range. Then you also get the advantage of focus peaking etc. There are lens adapters for just about every common fitting which ever existed. However few of the old telephotos and zooms were particularly good by modern standards. It's the shorter lenses which people mostly find have characteristics which they still enjoy today. In which case a full frame digital Canon, Nikon or Leica is likely to be the best thing to mount it on.
734
« on: February 22, 2014, 08:55 »
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.
735
« on: February 20, 2014, 07:55 »
Couldn't someone start by changing the email address ? Even potentially if that requires an email handshake via the original address. Some of those credentials are already going to be out there.
I am absolutely not doubting your own sincerity. But these are questions people need to ask anytime someone asks them for their login details. How people access their accounts is something everyone needs to be very cautious about. Especially given the Android malware problem.
That's why I am suggesting that these sorts of apps would be best approved by the agencies.
736
« on: February 20, 2014, 06:49 »
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.
737
« on: February 20, 2014, 06:09 »
I have 2 questions:
1. How can potential users know that they can trust the app and any future updates with their login details ?
2. If the app is free, what is the business model ?
739
« on: February 19, 2014, 08:48 »
I'm on Android, so irrelevant to me. But FI, can you embed your copyright before you upload? (I can't actually remember if Alamy is one of the sites that strips that info out anyway. - is there a list of which agencies do and don't strip your copyright info somewhere?)
The Stockimo app allows you to select and upload a picture from the iPhone Camera Roll (which is a conceptual abstraction where pictures are stored and from where they can be shared). You add a caption and tags. I do not know whether the tags and caption are added to the embedded IPTC data. My guess would be that they are instead uploaded alongside but not within the image. I could be wrong. There is nothing to stop you using another app to embed IPTC data into your Camera Roll pictures - including copyright etc. I do not know whether Alamy strips metadata. Certainly in Manage Images it is still there.
740
« on: February 19, 2014, 07:50 »
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 users 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).
741
« on: February 19, 2014, 04:52 »
For uploading iPhone shots directly from iPhone to Alamy. http://www.stockimo.com
742
« on: February 18, 2014, 16:35 »
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 ?
743
« on: February 18, 2014, 16:02 »
Really nice. I am surprised Stocksy didn't want you.
744
« on: February 18, 2014, 14:49 »
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.
745
« on: February 18, 2014, 12:22 »
@Jo Ann Snover
Getty should go after infringement fairly rigorously - even in such a way as it generates publicity. Also - I believe that companies have a fiduciary responsibility to defend copyrights and trademarks.
I have previously read forums and sites possibly including some of those you have linked to above and have found that the posters are often not only complaining about Getty - but about having to pay in general. And often congratulating each other on their determination to get away with not paying. FWIW they are not only whining about Getty either.
For example I read a long thread a while back which someone on my Twitter feed had linked to - in which people were arguing that they should not have to pay because they could get an image of the same thing for free at Flickr or almost for free at another site. I have also noticed that the people on those forums are often happy to to get lawyers to write letters for them. I wonder how the lawyers would react if their bills were not paid.
No respectable company accidentally steals content. I wonder how these same businesses would feel if we all started stealing from them - perhaps on the basis that we could get almost the same thing for much less somewhere else. Or we had no idea that we were supposed to pay.
746
« on: February 17, 2014, 13:38 »
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.
747
« on: February 16, 2014, 12:18 »
I'd bet in the old days you used an incident light meter and it had a crank on the side for winding it up. That's old. Using an incident light meter is more or less like using a light meter with a built in grey card. Or maybe that's what you're saying. My dad taught me to meter off the grass, normally. I contemplated having my study painted 18% grey. I like it. We didn't use color balance with film because the film had it built in. You got what you bought, and same for ISO. But you would often still have to gel the lights if they were different temperatures.
748
« on: February 16, 2014, 04:12 »
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 calculatorThere 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.
749
« on: February 15, 2014, 04:25 »
Depending on what you are trying to focus, a lens or camera with tilt movements is the normal traditional way of taking close up images with total focus. The tilt (or swing) either of the lens or the back allows you to play with the plane of focus. There is a useful thread here at photo.net. ETA: actually that thread is rather irritatingly argumentative. Maybe someone else has a better link re tilt (swing).
750
« on: February 12, 2014, 14:39 »
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.
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... 62
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|