|
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
7476
« on: September 27, 2008, 06:28 »
Odd. We already have a bulk upload program for the PC.
7477
« on: September 24, 2008, 14:46 »
I agree, and I've spent more than $18000 with B&H.
Its really disappointing that they can't see that loyalty. I will be going elsewhere if I need something for sure.
Anyways, hopefully the marketing people at Adorama can see the potential to steal away a few customers from B&H
What really tweaked me, is that they wouldn't price match Amazon, first of all, and then 1.5 months later, they dropped the price on the Mk3 $200, and wouldn't refund it to me.
7478
« on: September 24, 2008, 08:00 »
I agree, and I've spent more than $18000 with B&H.
7479
« on: September 24, 2008, 06:54 »
I recommend you Pixmac (www.pixmac.com). It is new microstock agency. It provides interesting pictures from $0.5 and good earnings for photographers.
"I recommend you" not spam the forum
Ha!
7480
« on: September 23, 2008, 16:14 »
Maybe it wasn't clear what it was. Most goalposts I've seen look thicker (?) than that, with padding and stuff. That just sort of looks like a metal shape. You should have punted a ball over it.
7481
« on: September 23, 2008, 09:21 »
Nothing, but advertising the fact doesn't help any.
7482
« on: September 23, 2008, 06:51 »
Wow! The helicopter shots look a little odd, but everything else looks fine to my eye.
7483
« on: September 22, 2008, 12:53 »
7484
« on: September 22, 2008, 08:41 »
Perhaps your plateau is due to your advertising your most successful images, which people have since duplicated and are selling en masse?
7485
« on: September 22, 2008, 08:39 »
... and the 1ds MK2 .
7486
« on: September 19, 2008, 15:07 »
Canon promised me the first two that hits Denmark. We might even get a few sponsored before November (due date for delivery). I am planning on buying/getting at least two. I will probably end up buying three.
Yes, I thought you moved onto much greater and more expensive sponsored cameras.
7487
« on: September 17, 2008, 22:48 »
7488
« on: September 17, 2008, 13:06 »
I can't imagine the "moving down" has anything to do with their sales. People don't go in looking for a photo of something, and suddenly decide they want a vector, or the other way around. If they can get the buttons at the top to stick, they search vectors, or photos.
I just can't see someone saying, "I'd like a vector of a cat. Hey, there's a photo of a cat. Let's use that!"
7489
« on: September 16, 2008, 12:33 »
Nice clip. Bad call, imo.
7490
« on: September 16, 2008, 10:59 »
Seems fairly fair  . I like the part about death benefits - nice to see that.
7491
« on: September 16, 2008, 09:11 »
Thanks for the response - I'll modify that a bit later. I've never heard the bit about prohibiting purchases.
7492
« on: September 16, 2008, 08:03 »
So Tom, what does this warranty get the buyer? If they get sued by someone about something, what happens? If you're just going to pass it down to the artist, I guarantee no contributor has the means to go to court to defend themselves, just because Apple got touchy about a mac book in some buyer's ad. Is your agency willing to take all the risk on this?
7493
« on: September 16, 2008, 06:31 »
Ok Tom, apparently you're part of the team here... I don't believe we are doing anything different to increase or reduce a contributor's liability for making false claims about images they are submitting to us.
Your selling points: Our product and website will be distinguished by the higher quality imagery, a very user friendly and functional website and by guaranteeing appropriate image rights. So, if you're not doing anything different, how are you set apart by guaranteeing appropriate image rights anymore than any other site? Also, since you don't have exclusivity, you're just going to carry the same stuff everyone else does, so how does "higher quality imagery" come into play?
7494
« on: September 15, 2008, 22:36 »
He doesn't make them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Besides, he's way down a list of people with successful download histories.
7495
« on: September 15, 2008, 22:35 »
Hmmm, sort of, I guess. Missed that part in the FAQ. I don't think it was there when I got the email a few weeks back.
How many contributors want to accept the risk of holding the buyer blameless? That's what you're saying, right yingyang?
7496
« on: September 15, 2008, 20:06 »
The only difference though is the sub program is like IS's, which is an improvement.
No it isn't. "Our first product offering is a subscription, allowing customers the right to download up to 25 images per day." Sounds like SS.
7497
« on: September 15, 2008, 17:36 »
I can sum up my evaluation in one word.
Subs.
Nuf said?
Exactly. Another micro peddling the same stuff as everyone else, and in a sub program besides!
7498
« on: September 15, 2008, 15:41 »
... and he was talking as a contributor, not an admin.
7499
« on: September 15, 2008, 04:37 »
Whether you are managing your costs, time and IP to best maximize your business income. 1000 SS downloads don't matter if you spent $5000 to get them.
7500
« on: September 14, 2008, 22:12 »
Download numbers aren't all that matters...
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
