|
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 - PeterChigmaroff
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 72
801
« on: February 05, 2011, 13:18 »
My guess is those who find they don't use their Spyder etc, units anymore is that they use their computers a lot and have calibrated in the past and have developed an eye for colour management. Not unlike a piano player will develop an ear for tuning. Unfortunately as someone starting off, you are under several disadvantages, not having an income to offset all the widgets not being the least. I'd borrow a Spyder or get a cheap one if I were you.
802
« on: February 05, 2011, 12:19 »
A private forum on a private website, they can do whatever they want, and so could you if you owned a forum.
This is where I humbly disagree. For the site to be ultimately successful then they would need to pay attention to all the nuances of the site. I agree that technically they can however in reality the can't.
803
« on: February 04, 2011, 10:35 »
[
They own the website and the forum, they can allow or disallow anything they want. There is no human right or freedom of speech issue here. It's Their Site!
The End
Hi Race, How's it going? It;s not that simplistic. Bad feelings just don't go away. It's true it's all there's to do as they wish but a whole lot of bad Karma has been made, which I'm sure no one as greedy as they are believe in.
804
« on: February 04, 2011, 10:22 »
I'm not in a position to make a statement of protest by ending my relationship with them.
I think most people either can't afford to protest like you or are willing to put up with it or are happy with the way things are. It's all the same when you look at the outcome.
805
« on: February 03, 2011, 14:03 »
do you think that gives you the right to post anything you want on their bulletin board?
Does someone really need to explain this to you?
fred
From what I can see the OP wasn't being abusive, he inadvertently questioned the authority of the "boss" by stating his belief in free speech. You can construe this as "anything you want", hiding behind this is my sandbox mentality if you like, but the fact is the only reason the sandbox exists is because everyone there contributes their hard work and creativity to the cause. You see it's almost like, gosh, being in a democracy, where you contribute and feel that you should be heard or a least able to vent some some of your concerns. The company isn't just THE COMPANY it's a tiny bit of everyone who contributes.
806
« on: February 03, 2011, 12:39 »
ME TOO,
807
« on: February 02, 2011, 20:16 »
The 24-105
808
« on: February 01, 2011, 11:20 »
. I have always thought the problem with "bad" images isn't their existence, but showing them too high in the search.
Alamy tried to address this with a hugely complicated layering of keyword fields. Trouble is I think they have too many images that are used to too infrequently to build a proper analysis of the data. Plus I don't bother making full use of this system because it is just too time consuming IMO to be worth it.
809
« on: February 01, 2011, 10:40 »
The real world includes people who may need to zoom into a small segment of an image in a video, or crop a tiny piece of a larger image, where flaws would be noticed. You're right, of course, that if you're targeting 4x6s, you have much more leeway technically than a stock provider, which is why so many "pros" can't handle it.
Does the real world honestly expect all of that for a few pennies per sale? "pros" i.e. those who were around before the inception of microstock or even RF have seen countless images used that were anything BUT technically perfect. They are still being used. Micrstock photogs have been hammered with the idea that a tiny bit of purple fringe or the slightest amount of artifacts will make an image useless. I don't think so. Those who have been around micro since the beginning probably see images that are anything but perfect selling well even now. I think what drives "pros" crazy is this notion that a few artifacts ruin an image. It's the rule you have to abide with if you want to contribute to microstock but that hardly makes it right.
810
« on: January 30, 2011, 14:08 »
Probably should read "best viable option" as there are always other options. No titan has ever survived for that long. Something changes, a chink in the armour and they fall like the lead balloon they have become. And usually based on the huge level of arrogance and non-caring, stick it your b**t attitude they develop; everyone is all too happy to see them fall and are just as happy to leave and go wherever it is that is replacing them. The fat lady has never finished singing.
811
« on: January 29, 2011, 12:45 »
I would not take Flickr comments as any sort of useful critique.
So true, Flickr is an oversized photo club where people judge the "beauty" of images, which has little to do with the salability of images for stock. Not that you can't have a beautiful stock image, on the contrary, it's just not the only criterium.
812
« on: January 28, 2011, 17:07 »
813
« on: January 28, 2011, 16:17 »
Micro RM is a oxymoron.
Exactly.
No it isn't !! Micro refers to size (or price), while RM is a licence type !?
Micro is more than size or price, it is a license, or at least they try for there to be a license except that the images are often used in areas where they weren't licensed to. You can't have an RF/RM image anymore than you can have a micro RM image, it just doesn't make sense under the current marketing philosophy.
814
« on: January 28, 2011, 14:58 »
RM = Rights Managed = The ability to monitor each and every sales of a image.
That's only true if an image has only ever been available exclusively at one agency, with a guarantee from the photographer that it has never been used previously.
Some RM agencies do regard image exclusivity for this reason, others don't.
I understand your point and it is a little like trying define style. A perfect textbook definition is difficult. However without the essence of a Rights Managed image being somehow "managed" just makes it another RF image. Something needs to be managed, even if it's just price versus usage.
815
« on: January 28, 2011, 12:08 »
RM = Rights Managed = The ability to monitor each and every sales of a image. A buyer may not need full rights but he may want to know where or how many times an image is being used so that he can judge whether to use it himself. Or he may decide to pay for some level of exclusivity. All this cost money to administer and all this adds to the value of an image -whether or not the image is of higher or lower or exactly the same quality of anything currently in RF or micro.
816
« on: January 28, 2011, 10:56 »
Micro RM is a oxymoron.
817
« on: January 27, 2011, 11:04 »
. I've been doing my own taxes for over 25 years.
Making a mistake 25 times in a row doesn't correct an issue. If you are on the road to making money at stock then you need to add some legitimacy to the enterprise WRT to the CRA. There are lots of deductions you can take. I never travel anywhere without taking a few pictures and getting tons of receipts.
818
« on: January 26, 2011, 13:44 »
Rather than complain about what you can or cannot do in Quicktax I suggest just toss it if it doesn't do what you need it to do. Drop a short, terse note to Quicktax that despite their "compliance" the software does not perform. Then move onto something that does. Life is too short to deal with such irritants. My other suggestion is to get a decent CA to deal with your account. I cut my grass, my own hair, I change the oil in my car, I cook, I clean my house, I shoot/process/keyword/upload all my images myself, I do almost everything except my own taxes.
819
« on: January 25, 2011, 10:53 »
Really, even on micro a buyout should command much more than a $1000 but someone will always argue that you can just reshoot or would you really make that much over the life of the image and other such nonsense and convince the seller to take the money and go. But in the end it's your call.
820
« on: January 22, 2011, 10:13 »
Are there relatively easy ways to set up ones own site for this? I've often considered setting up a site for independent sales but could never find software that made this idea attractive.
821
« on: January 21, 2011, 12:48 »
if you really must ban things, please let it be the "I love you iStock" iStock Rocks" etc. and other such comments.
822
« on: January 17, 2011, 17:18 »
Isn't it inevitable that Alamy will eventually settle at similar market prices to micro?
They certainly have a low end license and prices are going down but they are still a long way off from micro prices.
With the massive over-supply of images set to continue for a good few years to come (probably forever) then license sales in the hundreds of $'s must become an increasing rare phenomena. Only images that are exceptionally good or exceptionally niche will retain those price levels but any sales will be increasingly few and far between.
I'd have to agree.
823
« on: January 16, 2011, 14:03 »
No, it is wrong, and against what exclusivity is supposed to mean. I
I say go for it. Certainly iS and others find ways to construe and change their agreements to their advantage any way they can.
I say if you can't agree with exclusivity go independent.
I say good for all the morally upstanding people out there.
824
« on: January 16, 2011, 12:36 »
No, it is wrong, and against what exclusivity is supposed to mean. I
I say go for it. Certainly iS and others find ways to construe and change their agreements to their advantage any way they can.
825
« on: January 11, 2011, 09:56 »
They are quite "real". A nice mom and pop shop. Traditional stock, hence the price makeup.
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 72
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
