|
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 - Graffoto
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34
751
« on: May 28, 2008, 18:23 »
I use a Mac, but not an Apple monitor.
Up until recently I found them overpriced.
That said, I have played with them in the Apple store and they do look quite good.
The head of Photography here at my company uses a 30" cinema display.
My MacBook Pro also has a very decent screen for a laptop.
For a deal, go to the Apple store online (if you are in the US) and go to the refurbished area. These are items with full warranty and are just as good as new but cheaper.
From today:
Refurbished Apple Cinema Display (20-inch flat panel w/ aluminum enclosure)
20-inch (viewable), 1680 x 1050 optimal resolution, 16.7 million colors, DVI Display Connector, 2 port USB 2.0 Hub, 2 FireWire 400 ports, VESA mount compatible
Learn More
Save 62% off the original price
Original price: $1,299.00
Your price: $499.00
Estimated Ship:
1-3 business days
Free Shipping
752
« on: May 28, 2008, 14:07 »
Correct it is not a wide screen.
From my experience, $800 (US) or so is about the least one can expect to pay for an LCD that is professional graphics grade.
For $780 from B&H there is the LaCie 320 20" LCD Computer Graphics Monitor with CRT Grade Color Gamut.
I use a dual monitor display at home. Dell widescreen on the left side and a Samsung CRT on the right for all my color critical work.
I do not trust lower end LCD screens because their contrast ratios are too high and generally not adjustable. Prints never match the screen even on a calibrated low end LCD.
Now, if you are ONLY doing work for viewing in the web, then just about any LCD is good enough.
Sorry for the longish post... but I went through a lot of sample monitors from such companies as Eizo, read many reviews and spoke with several experts in color management before I realized this simple truth.
753
« on: May 28, 2008, 09:16 »
I am not familiar with the GX series.
I run a NEC 2090UXi at my office and it is very good.
Calibrates well and has a lot of adjustments available.
It runs around US$800
754
« on: May 26, 2008, 10:45 »
Hey Yanik, are you trying to put Scott Kelby out of business? He-he 
755
« on: May 25, 2008, 23:38 »
Mine are hot air ballons, because that's usually what I am full of.
756
« on: May 17, 2008, 21:42 »
IS is the most strict. SS less so.
Much less so recently if the discussions about quality on the boards is true.
I found DT, FT and SX to be embarrassingly easy.
757
« on: May 16, 2008, 18:03 »
I have one question, can't you also just delete your images or ask for deletion and not cancelling of the account? In case exclusivity will not work out you do not need to apply again.
You do not have to delete or cancel your account. You can just go to "you account" settings and "opt-out" for everything, including SS. All of your images will no longer show but you can "opt-in" back later and have all of your images back without much effort...
Duh, wish I had thought of that sooner. But I guess my point was, they don't even read English all that well. As I stated, I only asked them 'How' do I cancel the account. I did NOT ask them to go ahead and close it! 
758
« on: May 16, 2008, 13:01 »
Well-said, Microbius. There is a serious issue at SS with contributor relations (or lack thereof).
I second that.
759
« on: May 16, 2008, 12:57 »
At first I thought it was only the customers and users clicking the rating stars but a couple of times I've had a 5 rating on a newly live image with 0 views. So the inspectors sometimes rate the image?
YUP!
760
« on: May 16, 2008, 12:53 »
They are really quick on the trigger.
I sent an email INQUIRING as to how to cancel my account.
Two days later I get this:
"Hello,
Thank you for contacting Shutterstock Support. Per your request, your account has been disabled. Should you ever wish to initiate the review process again, please contact us and we will reactivate your account.
Until then, we wish you the best of luck in your photographic endeavors".
I was actually intending on keeping it open until my DT obligation was up (August) and then closing it.
Just as well I guess. This allows me to concentrate on the site that I have chosen to go exclusive on.
761
« on: May 13, 2008, 23:52 »
No raise 4 me  Still under the $500 mark.... but if I WAS over the $500 point I would be furious! I was feeding the beast for a while, but I am done. I will wait out the remainder of the time that I am obliged to at DT and then I am pulling the plug everywhere except IS. IS simply has the best business model IMHO, and their subs model is much more fair to the contributors.
762
« on: May 12, 2008, 17:37 »
Sales.... what sales?
763
« on: May 12, 2008, 17:28 »
What exactly did the 'Miz' say?
In any event, my sales as well are almost nonexistant this month, though I have only had time to upload a couple of shots. We all know about feeding the darn beast to get sales.
Could quite possibly be time to cut and run.
I'm thinking about closing my SS account and going exclusive on IS if subs sales start to take off there.
764
« on: May 07, 2008, 09:56 »
IS allows a higher print run than SS.
Here is their wording:
"Reproduction / Print Run Limits
The Standard License Agreement limits the number of times clients may print the Content to 500,000 reproductions. By purchasing this extension, clients can make an unlimited number of reproductions (100 credits). For example, the client may print an unlimited number of posters or make an unlimited number of DVDs containing the Content".
765
« on: May 06, 2008, 15:10 »
True, but it's all relative. I've already agreed to sell the image for 25 cents just by being at Shutterstock. So a $20 sale is pretty nice. Yes, it would be great to get a couple hundred for it, but then I wouldn't be selling at Shutterstock, and so far I've had no sales at Alamy.
My shot from iStock that appeared in the back of last months Los Angeles Magazine sold for 25 cents and then I bought 2 of their magazines for over $10 total. It's relative. I would rather get $20 for a photo that's going to be on a sold product than 25 cents.
Hmmm,
Los Angeles magazine says that it has a paid subscription base of 180,000.
The TOS for a standard license a SS is no more than 250,000 in a print run.
The thing that bugs me here is that the magazine is on racks all over the place.
Those prints are not accounted for in the 180,000 subs info.
If in reality the magazine does have a print run over 250,000, you should have gotten an extended license payment for that and not $0.20.
See, this is the reason that the RM guys laugh at us.
766
« on: May 05, 2008, 00:10 »
I'm willing to bet that they will have to add the new Sony 24 Megapixel monster to this list soon 
767
« on: May 03, 2008, 23:39 »
Ron, Thank you for your insight. Your history in this industry and hence your depth of knowledge are indispensable! Of course you are spot on about a downturn being a good time to start a business. My grandfather understood this well. He begged and borrowed all he could near the end of a historic downturn... it was known around here as the Great Depression. Then he used the money to purchase diamonds and started his own wholesale gem business. Ah, to have such a crystal ball. I would give my eye teeth to be able to time things like that. 
768
« on: May 02, 2008, 16:30 »
It struck me today that the poor US economic conditions could be a good thing for microstock in general.
Historically, in down times here in the US, companies will cut (counterintuitively) back their advertising budgets. That could mean larger corporations who generally go for the bigger budget photo shoots, just might turn to stock or even microstock in order to trim the fat from their costs.
I know that companies such as Dell have already used microstock in some campaigns.
But I never did see them as big players in the advertising game.
Just my thoughts...anyone else?
769
« on: April 27, 2008, 21:50 »
My company's IT department has such as aggressive filtering system that only IS can be viewed.
SS has its images blocked and sites such as DT and SX are just plain forbidden!
If you have a 'need' to see these sites ie, you work in the graphics design department, then IT will unblock the sites on a one by one basis.
Somehow I doubt that my company is alone in this. So, as most larger corporations my guess is MP would be automatically blocked.
770
« on: April 25, 2008, 12:54 »
Helix7, Well thought out and composed. I agree across the board with your sentiments.
I have long thought that the exclusivity parameters at IS vis a' vis, not being able to submit IS 'rejects' to other sites that will gladly take and sell them has been a deal breaker for many would be exclusives.
771
« on: April 24, 2008, 09:27 »
The real question is: did the darn shot ever sell? 
772
« on: April 23, 2008, 13:07 »
IS is always slow for me, so I am not noticing any change OTOH, as Waldo4 pointed out SS has been tanking big time. Not just for me either as there is a thread about it on the SS forums as well. Maybe subs buyers who have subscriptions that have run out are waiting for the IS launch rather than re-upping at SS?
773
« on: April 19, 2008, 21:21 »
I think SS should keep the Top 50, but move it to the buyer's section of the site. It might even be useful to expand the list to Top 100 if they do this.
I like this Idea. And I agree with Allsa. At least make people do a little more digging to find out what to copy. IS also has a most popular page. But there are two columns. One for most downloads (best for someone looking for 'inspiration') and a column for highest rated (best for flicker types). At any rate they limit both columns to only 15 images thus limiting the number of 'inspiring' files for the CC types to attempt to replicate.
774
« on: April 19, 2008, 21:11 »
Woo-Yay! Way to go IS!!! Oops, wrong forum 
775
« on: April 19, 2008, 01:40 »
Oh well, there goes the neighborhood 
Pages: 1 ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
