|
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 - GeoPappas
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... 51
876
« on: February 02, 2007, 06:30 »
The furnace died. Last week, it started doing something odd: It would come on and the fan would run and run without stopping. There wasn't any heat coming out of the vents, because no gas was burning. We turned the system off and then on, and tadah it came back to life. I'm glad to hear that everything has worked out. I have had a similar situation, but it has only happened a few times in the past two years. We have a dual zone HVAC system: the upstairs and downstairs run on different units. At night (during the winter), the downstairs thermostat is set lower (since the bedrooms are upstairs). In the morning, the downstairs thermostat is set higher. On a few mornings, the thermostat said that the heat should kick on (since the temperature was below the thermostat threshold), but it never went on. As you did, I turned off the thermostat and then turned it back on, and the heat magically turned on. It has seemed to do this only on rainy days, but I haven't been able to totally figure it out since it has only done it a few times in two years. Gremlins...
877
« on: February 01, 2007, 19:10 »
tgt:
Great post.
878
« on: February 01, 2007, 19:09 »
I love the name Partner Image Management Program or PIMP 
879
« on: February 01, 2007, 17:46 »
On the SS home page, just below the performance stats there's a little button marked "details." Click on that. When the stats page comes up, click on the "By Subscription Download" tab. That will show each of the images that have been downloaded and the number of times it was sold. Easy way to see what's sold and how many times.
I didn't say it so eloquently, but that was the link that I displayed above...
880
« on: February 01, 2007, 15:58 »
...the agencies have caught on to the color, black and white, sepia, and blue-tint trick but they haven't caught on to the trick of rotating images to one side for getting a different angle.. This is one area where I think that the agencies (especially iStock) are making a mistake. They assume that many buyers are professional designers, but I believe that most buyers are small businesses, churches, non-profits, etc. trying to buy images for web-sites, brochures, etc. As such, they might not own or know how to use Photoshop to create certain effects. I have found that many of my "edited" images sell really well. It gives the buyer an option of buying the unedited version or another version that is edited. I do of course agree that there shouldn't be 50 different edited versions of the same image, but how does that differ from 50 different versions of the same model(s) taken at different angles (one from the right, one from the left, etc), or with different expressions (one smiling, one sad, one looking left, etc)?
881
« on: February 01, 2007, 14:58 »
Kodak has announced a new range ('professional' and 'standard') of Image Enhancement Plug-ins for Photoshop (and compatible applications). They include one that automatically reduces noise/grain, an airbrush effect, one that corrects, balances and restores color and one that optimizes contrast and exposure. A free trial of the plug-ins is available to download @ http://www.asf.com/Here are the full details: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07020101kodak.asp
882
« on: February 01, 2007, 14:45 »
I bought a 30d in October and I have a 20d...
...I will be buying a 1Ds MKII, selling the 20d and 30d, and then also buying a 1D MKIIn.
Canon must love you... 
883
« on: February 01, 2007, 07:53 »
LO currently has over 165,000...
885
« on: January 31, 2007, 09:24 »
Cool... just sold an exclusive simple vector (over 8mb), level one under the new price system -
I thought the new price system takes effect 02/15?
886
« on: January 30, 2007, 19:15 »
From Dawn's post to that thread:
"They sell two different ways and in one method your commission is the same .50 you make here (but the image they supply is only 600-800 px in size -- smaller than what we sell here) and in the other method you earn 33% of the percentage we charge them -- again, the same basic commission structure we normally use."
And from Tim's post:
"Yes they sell for $69 as you all know and you get $7.59 of that. They are resellers. With their help we are able to get you much higher commissions for the same exact photo you earn .50 or $1 for here, under the same exact terms (this appears to be a very good thing). I can't stress this enough: you can get .50 here or $7.59 via the reseller. Under the SAME exact usage terms."
I'm not too happy about this. First, it wasn't announced. That's the first sign that something is wrong. Second, our full-size images increased in price from $2 (@ BigStock) to $69 (@CG), an increase of $67 and we receive an additional $6.59 (or < 10% royalty). So the other 90% of the profit is being split between the two companies. Not exactly a fair arrangement if you ask me. Third, we were never asked if putting the images on another site was alright. Which means that they feel that they can put the images on any site they please without our permission. Fourth, although they now offer an opt-out option, they really should have made it an opt-in option. Not everyone reads these forums and most artists are probably unaware that their images are being sold on a site that they have never heard of.
887
« on: January 30, 2007, 17:59 »
Hot on BigStock Forum:
CrystalGraphics: an associate?
Opt out is available. They say CrystalGraphics is their only associate, but I think there was a thread before about some other site reselling BigStock images.
Regards,
Adelaide
CrystalGraphics is selling web size images for $8.00 and print size image for $69.00. Is BigStock giving 50% royalties based on those prices or are they still giving members 0.50 or 1.00? If they are doing the latter, I wouldn't think that was very fair (since they are probably receiving a nice cut for themselves).
888
« on: January 30, 2007, 12:06 »
I never knew about that. Thanks for the info. It will making rating new images a LOT easier.
889
« on: January 30, 2007, 12:05 »
Is this Imatch for PC or they also have a Mac version?
I don't believe that they have a Mac version.
890
« on: January 30, 2007, 12:03 »
Please feel free, if you find some spare time, to leave comments on my images. You can find them here: http://www.luckyoliver.com/portfolio/GeoPappas/popularPlease remember to only leave (positive) comments on the images that you like. Otherwise it would defeat the whole purpose.
891
« on: January 30, 2007, 08:33 »
the only fear with imatch categories is after 10 years and thousands or millions of images catagorized, and perhaps imatch quits updating their program or change their process... all my work will be lost
But that is one of the great features of IMatch: the ability to use a script to export the data in almost any format imaginable. If you wanted, you could load the IMatch categories into the IPTC categories field at any time. That is one of the main reasons that I bought IMatch - because it is open. At any point you can transfer your whole database to some other new-fangled software. i think iptc will be here to stay.. Nothing is here to stay indefinitely. Some "standards" just last longer than others.
892
« on: January 30, 2007, 05:30 »
unless i am not understanding something correctly however, The catagories in the metadata don't work quite as well as the catagories used in match. With imatch you can have a main catagory with numerous levels of child catagories, which is very nice.
Yes, you are correct. IPTC categories are not nearly as good as IMatch categories. I am really surprised that they wouldn't have included real categories. Oh well, I guess that I will be sticking to IMatch...
893
« on: January 30, 2007, 02:23 »
It looks like catagories will be supported in 1.0
Where did you read that?
894
« on: January 29, 2007, 20:23 »
Does Lightroom do categories as well as keywords, or just keywords?
I currently use IMatch and am trying to compare the two products.
895
« on: January 29, 2007, 19:54 »
If you have to re-upload all of the images, another problem could be that popular images will lose all of their momentum. That is, if there are any images that have flames or are top-rated in the Best Match, that will all change.
897
« on: January 29, 2007, 11:24 »
So I upload a bunch of photos via ftp to Fotolio and my exif data does not appear?
Please don't tell me I have to re-input it all? Does anyone know if I can retrieve it now they are uploaded ?
EXIF data contains the camera settings (shutter speed, f/stop, ISO, etc). IPTC data contains the info that you enter for the photo (e.g., title, description, keywords, etc). Don't you mean IPTC data? If so, then yes, FT does read IPTC data. I have never had a problem with them reading in data. What program are you using to enter your IPTC data?
898
« on: January 29, 2007, 06:26 »
And it's only $24,995! What a deal...
899
« on: January 28, 2007, 06:58 »
I would think the best system would be, if only the admins and the reviewers can rate images. And that they should not rate images only fives, but 1-5 and 3 is neutral like an image which never has been rated. According to that they should also show up in the best match search.
And every reviewer should do a rating after he reviewed the image.
Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Ratings are totally subjective. You could have ten reviewers look at the same image and give vastly different ratings. Some people love abstracts and some people hate them. Some people love people shots and some people hate them. Having reviewers rating images would also slow down the queue and increase the # of images in the queue. You think the queue is bad now... If an image is passing inspection, then it is being rated in a way. Every image on IS has already passed lots of criteria. So every image up there is supposed to be the best of the best. To have ratings affect sales is a very bad thing... If a stock site is going to implement a ratings system, then it should only be viewable by the artist. This way comments could be made on an image without affecting sales. I would rate a lot more images if it was a private system (where only the artist could see the rating) and it wasn't linked to sales. This way I could give honest critique without feeling that retribution would be coming from an irate artist. Just a thought not a sermon... 
900
« on: January 28, 2007, 06:48 »
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 ... 51
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
