|
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 - FD
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... 82
826
« on: August 04, 2010, 19:20 »
FWIW it is DMCA (think it stands for Digital Media Copyright Act), rather than DCMA, which may be why you were having trouble finding it  I'm not a dsyleixc!  (only with acronyms - like TFPCDC). 
827
« on: August 04, 2010, 19:14 »
At least I hope they will email us when they finish evaluation :-) "Don't call us. We'll call you." 
828
« on: August 04, 2010, 19:08 »
I don't think so, if you remember my image being stolen and somebody else has that image in his portfolio, so You , FD_regular, Click-Click, Jsnover and some other people from this forum reported it and helped me to take it down. As well I sent a letter to Flicker and they suspended his account. If somebody puts a clear link here to the photo of the offender on Flickr and a link to the photo on any agency site, I always put a comment on the Flickr photo with the latter link. It's just 30 sec, but I think you can't let your pal down, even if it's just a droplet in the sea.
829
« on: August 04, 2010, 19:02 »
A bit off topic maybe, but where can I find that DCMA (?) form?
830
« on: August 04, 2010, 18:57 »
July was my BME. Says who? Worthless info since you have no port links. Sorry. I had a BMW and a Ferrari at CrapMyStock but I won't show my links of course. Grrrr. (you may block me now).
lol I was looking for the same the other day but no links!
I think he got mad, Luis
831
« on: August 04, 2010, 12:53 »
I hard about a software or image format that expires once a license is not valid anymore. The moment they invent some embedded license/usage code, two hours later it's cracked and you will have "image cleaners" around. Look what happened to the WMA format and long ago, to the Region Codes in DVD's. The only ones that suffer are the legal buyers.
832
« on: August 04, 2010, 09:34 »
Soon, if stock agencies not careful, many of our work will be free on cd for sales on ebay or download free torrent like porn movie and movie problem.
That's the case already. But what will they do with it? Music and movies you can enjoy in private, but using an image on the web is a public thing. If people are spreading their images over many agencies, how anybody can prove that it wasn't bought somewhere? The sites won't help you, if you're not exclusive. How could they?
833
« on: August 04, 2010, 09:27 »
I just hate feeling like a small fish. The new term is "regular" now.
834
« on: August 03, 2010, 20:41 »
July was my BME. Says who? Worthless info since you have no port links. Sorry. I had a BMW and a Ferrari at CrapMyStock but I won't show my links of course. Grrrr. (you may block me now).
835
« on: August 03, 2010, 20:18 »
==== You can create sets of similars (several shots included within the same image). That will help the file sell better and generate higher royalties via our level-based system. I did that once, just for DT. The collage was rejected with the reason "please upload images separately". 
836
« on: August 03, 2010, 20:09 »
Sorry, blame Picscout
Is Picscout like Tineye?
Nah, much better. It's fun. I started a thread on DT about it (my nick is Fleyeing), with all possible info. I'm afraid I exposed them a bit early, as Demonike suggested. http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_23395Just donwnload the Picscout plugin for FireFox on the http://picscout.com homepage and then go to any of your ports at another site than DT. You'll see what I mean.
837
« on: August 02, 2010, 19:14 »
Ah, another KTOOLS install.
838
« on: August 02, 2010, 19:10 »
I know and this image as most of stock images, is annoying me. It's a brilliant image! I just don't want to hear how much you've got for it. Long ago and far away, they would have paid 1000$ for this kind of stuff. Don't tell me you gave it away for just 900$!
839
« on: August 02, 2010, 12:44 »
Brilliant! It reminds me of the quote of G.B.Shaw (I think) that said that youth is a much too precious asset to waste on young people.
840
« on: August 02, 2010, 08:53 »
Ooh, I've never won Bingo before  Thanks FD
Given what Epantha says here (interesting), and Gostwyck's reference above, it sounds as though the industry could use a second term for an isolation with a shadow, so that designers with a different view can find exactly what they're looking for in an isolation. 1. The "bingo" was accompanied with a heart. 2. Epantha and Gostwyck are both right in a way. When I used cutouts (not any more), I just removed the shadow at the bottom. I agree with Epantha that some shadows or transition pix are to be preferred over a bad cutout. The worst are newbies that cut the object out over a non-white non-overexposed background: you will always see it in the feather. 3. PhotoShelter uses the word "silo". 4. A correct isolation needs the object to be totally in focus. You can't isolate blurred parts well. 5. I can very well live (as a user) with the type of shots that Gostwyck describes, since the buyer can see the shadow clearly. What really pisd me off were shots that at full size contained blobs of 253,254,251 all over . You can't see those on the thumbs. 6. Except for iStock, I have the impression that reviewers don't check the proper cutout any more. I have an article online how to check properly for the isolation here: how to isolate? - scroll down till 2nd paragraph "how to verify a perfect isolation". This passed QC with the keywords "isolated" and "white background" (look @ top right) ( sigh!). (removed image with a clear agency watermark out of business considerations  )
841
« on: August 02, 2010, 07:14 »
| Period_______ | SS___ | DT___ | IS___ | FT___ | Total___ | Total-DT___ | | Jul 10-09 | +36 | -35 | +56 | +28 | +12 | +39 | | LaQ 10-09 | +28 | -41 | +25 | +37 | +02 | +29 | | % share Jul10 | 45 | 21 | 20 | 14 | 100 | - | | % share Jul09 | 37 | 36 | 14 | 13 | 100 | - | | Portsize (N) | 1051 | 1136 | 566 | 587 | - | - |
Earnings ($) as % difference over "period". Period: July 2010-2009, Last Quarter (LaQ) (July+June+May) 2010-2009. Sites with < 25$/mo not considered. Formula %: (($@10-$@09) / $@09) * 100 Personal conclusion: DT is losing grip big time, the other 3 of the FabFour are doing OK if you keep uploading steadily. IS is flattered by 25% port increase over the past year + high AR (cam upgrade >5DII). Now I'm waiting for Lisa...
842
« on: August 02, 2010, 06:38 »
I must say that I pondered over this question when I first started out in microstock, and couldn't get a definitive answer, so I decided to refer to a no-shadow image as an 'isolation', and a pic with a shadow as 'white background'.
I've always assumed that when designers look for an isolation, it's because they want to use the object in a larger project, perhaps a composite of various objects on some background... BINGO !
843
« on: August 01, 2010, 22:47 »
Sistine Chapel is a property that currently exercises its rights to impose photographic restrictions. End of story. They can impose rules as to photography but they do it not out of IP considerations but out of concerns for the artwork that surely will fade away after a million flashes of tiny on-cam flashes by mindless snapshooters. DT takes a lot of things that they shouldn't and what they take shouldn't be used as a guideline. The ultimate responsibility of the usage of a photo is with the buyer.
844
« on: August 01, 2010, 21:58 »
As a buyer, I can only yell Hurrayh!
845
« on: August 01, 2010, 18:54 »
I did not have time to submit a lot of photo (3rd baby is due this week) but my revenues on IS were more than 3 times what they were in june for about the same number of sales. A very valuable piece of information that deserves a heart. Good luck with the new little photographer ( don't be as sick as me to smuggle a Nikon with strobes into the delivery room).
846
« on: July 29, 2010, 14:37 »
I can't believe I'm posting this here, but here I go. Great!
848
« on: July 29, 2010, 14:23 »
"A little duck" . . . . can't fool me, I see a white cat with black around the eyes! It's not just a duck, it's a doctor Duck, please!  iStock didn't like the feathering of... the feathers.
849
« on: July 29, 2010, 14:10 »
I am totally with you on this point. I resisted DeepMeta for 5 years, and finally broke down this year and started using it, but it is really ridiculous to have to have third party software installed just to upload. I too hope they make that a little bit easier in the new version. Two reasons (but I don't have vectors or sound, just photos): 1 - when the upload fails (very regularly), deepmeta will keep retrying in the background without you having to go thru all the keywords and stuff again. Sometimes, it takes 4 retrys. 2 - when you have a large batch, you can all prepare them in deepmeta, and let them in the queue; whenever there is a free slot, you can just upload with one click. What iStock should really do is maintain a release library. Think of all the lost bandwidth when you have to upload the release every time...
850
« on: July 29, 2010, 13:59 »
eheheh nice! where do you place the cam? at the top? I dont see room anywhere else! What cam? At the front where the light tent is open, but you can't see it well since the image is overexposed there. Actually, I should put a reflector in front of it with a hole for the lens, so I would get better frontal light.
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... 82
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
