|
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 - Perry
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 57
901
« on: September 29, 2010, 13:54 »
LuckyOliver, Snapvillage, Polylooks etc. etc. What will be the next site that will go under? (Let's limit the options to the sites in the right side of the page -> )
Which is the site you wouldn't put your bets on?
902
« on: September 29, 2010, 13:51 »
Ouch just when the sales via Zoonar started to roll in  (I remember Zoonar said something about new microstock partner sites, they propably knew the fate of the Polylooks site already)
903
« on: September 29, 2010, 07:30 »
Are you a professional or an amateur? Honestly, I think you will find that some hobbyist/"amateur" photographers will have just as much knowledge as professionals. That has always been the case with photography.
Maybe so, but the term "amateur" includes such a variety of individuals that I sometimes just get bored when browsing trough Canon-Nikon debates or crappy snapshots (and the compliments following the crappy snapshots) And there is one thing where amateurs are much worse than the pros: that is MAKING MONEY of photography. I sometimes read some stuff at fredmiranda too.
904
« on: September 27, 2010, 17:03 »
Wrong. Try it yourself or you can check this dof calculator:
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
You are right, I have no idea why I wrote the things I wrote, my brain must be short-circuited in some way.... I shoud sleep more and drink less coffee... (I was propably thinking about how the perspective doesn't change depending on the focal length, even if the field-of-view does)
905
« on: September 27, 2010, 15:42 »
If you use a longer focal length, then the DOF reduces with the same distance to the object.
Wrong. DOF does NOT change if you change focal length and focus in the same distance. Only changing the shooting distance, focus distance or aperture changes DOF.
906
« on: September 27, 2010, 08:24 »
I don't believe you can say that medium format always beats 35mm any longer. That was true for film because the "sensor quality" (the film) was identical for the two formats so having a negative almost four times the size (on 6x6) was effectively increasing the resolution of the camera. With digital, all sorts of things come into play, such as pixel size and quality, and your resolution comes from the pixel count not the sensor size.
I have to disagree with you (at least a little) I think especially in current situation medium format beats 35mm, because best (20+ megapixels) 35mm cameras are already outresolving many lenses. At least my 5D mk II is "better" than any cheap zoom at any setting, or any lens with biggest aperture. There is not going to be a miraculous breaktrough in lens quality -> the only way to get more detail is to get a bigger sensor. A medium format camera would suit my photographic needs perfectly, I would definitely get myself one if it weren't for the... er... money issue...
908
« on: September 23, 2010, 10:14 »
This would be an interesting camera if they wouldn't have chosen APS-C instead of Full Frame.
909
« on: September 21, 2010, 13:45 »
Why don't you guys just sit back and relax? Or alternatively go shoot some new stock?
910
« on: September 19, 2010, 16:07 »
I just had an opposite experience where they rejected 8 from a batch of 9 (I thought they were good stuff and got angry for the rejection). But when I went to shutterstock site they were all approved. I'm guessing someone clicked some wrong buttons or my batch got flagged because the rejections didn't follow my 90+% approval rate and someone took another look... (?)
911
« on: September 19, 2010, 08:51 »
But people do want specific images of antiques, to use in publications.
Therefore an interesting shot, a generic shot, may be of value to people.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the psychology of stock?
In microstock world you should think about wide audiences. Images of specific antiquities would be much better sold as RM, for exemple at Alamy. One RM sale may earn you enough money, while 2 or 3 microstock sales propably won't. And I can't see these images to be downloaded much more times than that. You have also problems with levels. And your cropping too; in the first image you have included lots of copy space on the right, yet you have cropped very tightly in the other directions, especially in the top.
912
« on: September 18, 2010, 05:22 »
I was thinking about uploading a few exclusive images to FT, but I was unsure about some things:
-Can the exclusivity of the images be removed any time? Or do I need to delete the image first and then upload it again as a non-exclusive image?
-Are exclusive images being sold on Fotolias partner sites and networks?
-How strict are they with the ecxlusivity: do they accept images from the same shoot to be both exclusive and non-exclusive?
-Is there any other sites that sell well and have options for exclusive images (not exclusive contributor) ? I know DT has, any experiences there?
Any experiences how your exclusive image sales have been on FT?
913
« on: September 16, 2010, 03:31 »
That's an interesting thread, because it's a FAQ and still they don't answer to many of the questions, for example: 2. Why are you not grandfathering anyone in?
The new system is a fresh start and a level playing field. With that as the objective, it wouldnt make sense to grandfather anyone in. So if you make a stupid objective, and follow that, nothing really needs to be explained?
914
« on: September 15, 2010, 06:46 »
I just noticed that I have had my first sale at SF (<- Stockfresh?). At $1.50 it isn't much, but it's definitely a sign of life!
915
« on: September 15, 2010, 06:44 »
20% for referrals... that's crazy! ("some" sites doesn't give that even to contributors! 
916
« on: September 15, 2010, 06:42 »
I would also like to see monthly earnings, and it would be very nice to be able to see current account balance too. (Now I have to put all my payments in an Excel spreadsheet to be able to figure out what my current account balance is. Not nice.
Nevertheless I think Veer is doing great for a "new" site. In the last two months I have made more at Veer than at DT!
917
« on: September 14, 2010, 14:24 »
I do this for the money, not a feel goof factor.
919
« on: September 14, 2010, 11:11 »
but sending buyers away from a site is just plain stupid. talk about shooting off your entire leg.
If we are going to talk about legs, this is more like "shooting off your entire leg, and growing a new stronger leg as a replacement"
920
« on: September 14, 2010, 09:22 »
For us living in Europe at least Scanstockphoto, Stockphotomedia and Photocase does pay with direct deposit. I think you have to live in a country that uses euro currency (?)
921
« on: September 13, 2010, 02:51 »
I find 120cd/m2 to be too bright for printing
That depends on how bright your lighting in your room is. I brightened my lighting a bit when I changed from CRT to flat screen.
922
« on: September 12, 2010, 12:01 »
What is the minimum that iStock needs to do, or not do, in order to make everyone content?
I think iStock has made real damage to itself, it needs years of time to redeem itself. But I would be happy to see following: * All non-exclusives get 20%, just like earlier * The new idea of giving exclusives royalties according to recent performance isn't such a bad idea (the implementation is really bad. They could: 1) set the rates so that they would penaliza only a handful of contributors, not the majority. 2) guarantee that a certain percentage of exclusive contributors would ALWAYS fall in each category, for example: 5% of exclusives would get 45% 15% of exclusives would get 40% 20% of exclusives would get 35% 25% of exclusives would get 30% 35% of exclusives would get 25% (there could be a level for each 1%) THIS WOULD BE A PREDICTABLE, FAIR, TRANSPARENT AND SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM *They would also need to fire some people.
923
« on: September 12, 2010, 11:45 »
I'm freezing my uploads to IS, I don't yet know if it's temporary or permanent. I can not remove my portfolio because I have invested a huge amount of time uploading and keywording and my IS income is also very important.
But I'm trying to speak up everywhere against IS/Getty to get the customers to at least think about what is fair and what is not fair (And hopefully they start purchasing their images elsewhere)
924
« on: September 11, 2010, 08:55 »
9 more added.
Where are the nine more? I thought they were going into this thread.
You are correct. They are added on the first page, in the fourth message.
925
« on: September 11, 2010, 08:24 »
Just a quote from the IS forums, in relation to these ones...........
" Don't bother with that forum anymore.I found the same loonies over there that are on here"
You consider yourself a loony? I consider you ignored from now on. Go on and enjoy your 15% royalties.
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
