|
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 ... 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 37 ... 62
776
« on: January 27, 2014, 05:35 »
No I mean France. Paris has always been expensive (as most capital cities tend to be).
Paris is still very affordable if you stay away from the tourist areas and do your shopping at the markets. The inexpensive places are invariably the best places anyhow. You can get a good sit down meal for well under 10 and food is still cheap at the markets. Navigo weekly metro pass costs about 20 per week to recharge. Some gentrification has certainly put up the rents - but then Paris rents were very cheap compared with other cities until the 2000s. You can still rent a good studio apartment for under 900 per month. The nice thing about Paris is that normal people still live and work there. Public housing means that there is a good mix too. Property in Paris is still very much less expensive than in London. Whether to rent or to buy. Compare the Marais with Notting Hill. Or compare say Shoreditch with Belleville. Similar-ish comparisons in terms of the neighbourhoods. But perhaps comparing anything with London is crazy now. The rest of France is still cheap. Especially rural France. Supermarket prices have certainly increased in the years since the was introduced and diesel is no longer cheap. Property is still cheap. Fire wood costs about the same !
777
« on: January 26, 2014, 07:14 »
My Nikon speedlights are crazy expensive, and pretty easy to drop, so I'd be curious to try out some cheaper versions
I have an Nikon SB-900. I also had two Yongnuo units from eBay which I was using off camera with wireless triggers. IIRC they were recommended at Strobist. Both died within a year. Rubbish IMO. I do not mind using cheap flashes off camera - but I would be very nervous of attaching them directly to my camera. Unreliable flash voltages or some other electrical issue was (I think) responsible for killing (pop) my Sekonic meter which was attached directly to a studio strobe with a sync lead. That makes me nervous. From now on I would rather stick to Nikon if there is any chance of attaching it to a camera. Used from eBay is a good option. Still using my Nikon manual primes. Especially the 24mm.
778
« on: January 25, 2014, 14:04 »
The only possible downside of buying the 50 mm AF-D version of the f/1.8 is the issue of its compatibility with cameras which you might own in the future. For example - if your D50 ever fails you might want to replace it with, say, a D3100, D3200 or similar lower end Nikon. The AF-S NIKKOR
50mm f/1.8G will work with all Nikon DSLRs. It might be worth spending the extra money.
779
« on: January 25, 2014, 11:55 »
I am a sucker for shallow depth of field with a nice bokeh.
Me too. Apparently your D50 has an internal focus motor and is therefore compatible with AF-D lenses. So the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D should suit you very well. You should be able to get one new for $100 - $150. It's affordable but also a classic (as is the Canon equivalent).
780
« on: January 25, 2014, 06:20 »
Sure, what does that have to do with buying a good tack sharp lens?
'K-all. It was a response to JPSDK's "sharpness is an illusion". Without knowing what camera the poster is using the question is difficult to answer. I have the following 50 mm lenses for Nikon fit. 1. Nikon AF-D 50mm f/1.4. This is a great lens with 7 aperture blades. But the AF-D f/1.8 is almost as good and less expensive. AF-D lenses will not autofocus on cameras which do not have an internal focus motor. 2. Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8 G. This will autofocus on all Nikon DSLRs. The 7 rounded aperture blades make for nice out of focus areas IMO. I like the colors which this lens produces - presumably down to the improved coatings. I like this lens. 3. Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI-S. Almost a pancake. Manual focus lens from the 80s. I like the colors it produces. I shot an annual company report using this just a couple of years ago. It has paid for itself about 3000x over. 4. Arsat H - 50mm f/2. Never tried it. 6 blades - Soviet. Completely manual. Almost as small as the pancake - but weights much more. I bought this because it exists in Nikon fit. I wonder whether it is radioactive. 2 and 3 are my favourites.
781
« on: January 25, 2014, 04:09 »
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept.
782
« on: January 24, 2014, 13:05 »
All this info is private and can only be subpoenaed with "probable cause" and just cause you were in an accident that does not give anyone "probable cause" so they can not get your records they are protected.
A competent lawyer will subpoena the phone records if there is any possibility that a driver was distracted.
783
« on: January 23, 2014, 16:03 »
This applies to the texting laws as well.
If you are in an accident, one of the first things that a bright lawyer will do is subpoena your phone records. I do not see any reason why, sooner or later, the state would not do the same. Given that the cell tower data, your metadata etc provides a permanent record.
784
« on: January 23, 2014, 10:25 »
@sue - it's the "You Are an Exclusive Contributor" page which fails for me. I went to that thread you were talking about and posted a screenshot there + the bugs thread. You are obviously seeing something different.
Like I said, I assumed that everyone was seeing the same bug.
785
« on: January 23, 2014, 09:03 »
Trouble is, it's impossible to check how universal the problem is unless you actually want to start/stop exclusivity.
no you just click on the exclusivity link in your profile. It does not commit you to a change. Where you would also go to read the contract etc
786
« on: January 23, 2014, 08:56 »
I assumed Bunhill was citing you, Kim, but maybe not.
not ! Page is broken for me. I assumed it was broken for everyone.
787
« on: January 23, 2014, 06:53 »
I think a ton of people will be dropping the crown in the coming months.
Maybe that's what iS wants / expects ? I think that lots of people will also just go off and do something else for the moment whist remaining exclusive (if the option still exists) and wait and see what happens. It depends what other things they have on. Either way it seems obvious that things are building up to something. ETA - what I mean is that I do not think it likely that these are unintended consequences. Exclusivity join / leave page is currently broken btw.
788
« on: January 22, 2014, 15:08 »
I am a book author and I can tell you that during negotiations for my contract the royalties were so low to me, the author, that I decided to publish the book myself. In my case it was 10% of the price of the book minus the production cost of the book. So in my case it would have been (18.95-4.06)x.1, or $1.49 per book royalty.
Would that have been for Kindle sales ? ETA: your unit production cost seems very high.
789
« on: January 22, 2014, 13:58 »
And so, which is the business of Amazon? They also pay 70% to kindle direct writers (provided they sell their books between 2.99 and 11), and they don't ask for exclusivity, they just ask you to don't sell cheaper elsewhere.
Yep. A different model from the Apple app store. Yes there are some independents and it is possible to collect 70% - but many semi-independent e-book only authors apparently still prefer not to e-publish independently. In many cases that 70% is not going straight to the writer. Neither of us here has ever bought an independently published Kindle book. And we buy lots of Kindle books. We have 3 Kindles between us. I buy 2 or 3 books every month. In some cases I also buy a paper copy. How much of that 70% is going to the publisher and how much is going to the writer I do not know.
790
« on: January 22, 2014, 13:27 »
The real problem isn't low prices, it's the disgustingly low royalty rates. Even Apple manages to pay 70% to app creators.
Exactly. Apple pays 70% to the creators of iTunes music and the publishers of iBooks too. Not only that but the content creator get to set their own prices. Now that would make microstock interesting.
(I think it's the agents who get 70% from iTunes in most cases and not the artists. But I may be wrong.) Stock royalties are too low IMO. But the Apple app store comparison is not a good one. Yes independent app developers get 70%. And Apple does well out of the App Store but ... ... the App Store is not the business. Apple is in the business of selling hardware. The App Store is one of the main reasons why people buy Apple hardware. The App Store exists to sell iPhones and iPads. Just like iTunes used to exist, primarily, to help sell iPods. The huge success of iOS today is partly because of the apps. Apple needs for people to continue to choose to primarily develop for iOS. In some cases the makers of brands other than Apple actually pay developers to produce software for their platforms. That is how important apps have become.
791
« on: January 22, 2014, 11:50 »
This will certainly lose some customers, and won't actually gain any ... the stated reason of making things easier for customers is insane
I don't see this losing them customers. As above, iStock is already basically cheaper than SS. And at these low prices, small is small enough for most needs IMO. And I genuinely and sincerely do believe that it makes things simpler and neater. Unnecessary choice adds complexity. Complexity ultimately costs money - e.g. support calls etc. I agree that many exclusives are definitely not in a happy place at the moment .... but I believe it is possible that if exclusive prices were decreased that might actually decrease exclusive income further. Many assume that closing the gap between exclusive and non exclusive pricing would definitely increase exclusive sales. That seems like it should be true. But how close to parity would the pricing have to be ? Suppose it only slightly increased exclusive volume whilst significantly reducing RPD. If I am honest I can see that keeping exclusives happy is a much harder thing than we probably think. I hope they manage it.
792
« on: January 22, 2014, 03:33 »
What I believe needs to happen is for the lower priced sites to begin increasing their prices (and commissions). I know that's asking a lot, but by Istock lowering their prices brings nothing extra to the table. It won't attract more buyers. What will attract more buyers is superior service and fair pricing, not gutter pricing.
iStock is less expensive than Shutterstock for a single indie image download - which is the simplest entry point. Minimum spend at Shutterstock is $49. iStock images are even less expensive if the buyer goes for credits. And the minimum credit pack is only $19.99. That gets the buyer 5 indie images plenty big enough for web, ebook, pdf etc. There are many things which are hugely frustrating about iStock. But from a buyer perspective they would definitely currently look like a good deal. (Annual Thinkstock subscription is less expensive too). Potential DT buyers seem to have to create an account to find out how much things cost. How do DT prices compare ?
793
« on: January 21, 2014, 16:11 »
As for the happy haven of the macros, I personally believe their market share will be significantly eroded in the next few years as the micros continue to supply massive quantities of work which is as good as (if not superior) at lower price points.
I believe that the market for almost-free microstock images is going to be quickly destroyed by the market for completely free images (and by the public and legal adoption of essentially libertarian attitudes to rights). Long story short, there will be commissioned, expensive, editorial archive and free. Mostly free. Free images will be supplied either from friends and neighbors on your network - or by images packaged on an all-you-can-eat basis (the inevitable outcome of subscription) as part of you being a member of this or that service. And how are people ever going to pay even for microstock again when the social media platforms deliver pictures to use for free? When an agency makes a deal with a social media platform it promotes to the public the idea that images are free. The stock factories may have no future IMO. Perhaps for the same reasons that agencies no longer invest money shooting in-house content (it is not cost effective). But now even the agencies risk being disintermediated by the technology - and by the culture. Look at how much things have changed even within a decade. Time will come when the people the agencies are making these deals with today will get their images directly from their users in return for the service.
794
« on: January 21, 2014, 12:03 »
It simply does not pay for a decent image consumer to run the risk of not doing things legally, considering the price of the images. Well you would think. But it is extraordinary the degree of umbrage people express about having received a demand for money. Granted sometimes they just did not understand. Or the guy who did their web page was responsible but is long gone. But a typical argument when presented with a bill is to argue that they could download something very similar (in their opinion) from some microstock site for pennies (and yet they did not). Many people would rather pay for a lawyer to write letters for them.
796
« on: January 21, 2014, 10:03 »
I agree that "we" are to blame for where we are and how much we get for our images
Nobody is to blame IMO. There are more and more pictures therefore of course they are getting cheaper. Soon many people will be wearing their camera and continually uploading. Probably companies will start giving away free devices in exchange for the right to harvest your image stream, the same as they harvest our metadata today. And it would not surprise me at all if signing a release were not one day part of the T&C. So with facial recognition and / or tagging the pictures of you which your friend took will potentially be ready to use. Right now many bloggers, small website owners etc easily buy images since it's barely a couple of bucks a pop.
Also remember that there are fewer and fewer active bloggers and small website owners. Many bloggers and small websites have moved to the social media and micro blogging. And many of those who are still blogging will today be using free content - something their friend or one of the employees or a customer took with an iPhone and shared on FB. Also - many fewer people are sitting at home doing a blog. Many fewer people even use a traditional computer or laptop.
797
« on: January 19, 2014, 08:58 »
I think my next workstation will be an iMac though
The only downside might be - if the screen goes off over time. An old monitor panel is difficult to replace DIY. I recently sold on my 2006 Mac Pro. I had worn out several monitors over the life of the machine and am pleased that I did not have built in monitor panels. Mac Minis and Macbook Airs are the current sweet spots for most users IMO. (OT - For various reasons I have started getting back into some coding again recently. The Apple Xcode development environment for iOS and OS X is awesome. iOS / OS X is extremely mature and well designed. I thoroughly recommend anyone with even a passing interest to download Xcode from the App Store and spend a few hours having a look at it and reading some of the documentation and history).
798
« on: January 18, 2014, 12:28 »
... unrelated threads ... etc
If the thread ends up being about conspiracy theories then previous conspiracy theories here do sort of come into scope. That was my thinking anyhow. Feel free to keep belaboring it if that is going to provide you some measure of comfort or self-validation.
Thanks. That does not seem at all snitty.
799
« on: January 17, 2014, 19:12 »
You were anonymous and had posted some things that made me wonder if you and Tickstock were tag teaming the discussion.
Honestly: I felt that it was a completely unreasonable and bitter suggestion - especially since I was being perfectly polite and sincere. And it was a suggestion which seemed to reflect a sort of inherent suspiciousness of other points of view. Therefore I found it quite unpleasant. I very nearly quit but that would have felt too much like being forced out. And I hate it when people flounce out of forums. My sense here, sometimes, is that people who go against the group-think get, sort of, bullied into shutting up. Often it seems as if people are not happy to tolerate a range of different opinions without somehow feeling the need to raise the emotional temperature. PS - there are lots of people who have not posted so far this year.
800
« on: January 17, 2014, 14:53 »
Whatever his story is, with all the hiding and being anonymous, many people found his behaviour strange ... istock has enough exclusives posting here and in the wider community that are not anonymous and easily mix with people
Some of the brightest and most honest posters here were anonymous. It was a great pity they quit when it was suggested that anonymous posters were no longer welcome. The 'wider community' is a bit of a myth IMO. Most people in the world of photography and stock are not part of these cliques. The old iStock community was probably great in its day if you were on the inside - but the whole weird way of speaking was quite peculiar ... addressing everyone as Member for example. And there was much too much favouritism IMO. It's kind of better and probably much more honest them not pretending to be our friend. ETA: I think Alamy has the right balance - courteous, friendly and quick to respond to emails - but the forum is not especially a part of how they typically communicate.
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 37 ... 62
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
