|
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 - JPSDK
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 74
901
« on: April 24, 2013, 13:43 »
Never give away images for free. Especially not images that are for sale somewhere else.
Delete them.
902
« on: April 24, 2013, 13:36 »
Can we see some pictures or are you just going to debate how bad the huns are?
903
« on: April 24, 2013, 13:35 »
They do that to prevent hackers to recieve information too easily and fx set up a site which miimics shutterstock.
other agencies have that problem, for example istock.
Shutterstock has, until now, been very safe.
it is however, very annoying to the contributor, to have to login several times a day.
But it is more annoying to have your content hacked and spread via symbiotic or fake sites.
904
« on: April 24, 2013, 13:25 »
I think it is economics. Liquidity.
Most of their decisions since the enfamous redeemed credit thing, had to do with that they needed a sustainable business model and could not afford to pay out all those huge (!) (15%, 20% orespecially the 40% of royalty).
So now when they let tons of new pictures in, they buy themselves a few extra months of time with lesser percentages.
Its clearly a warning signal.
it compares to when the grocery shop has a sale, to get cash to pay the next delivery.
So they are short of money, and they try to ease the expenses.
Point is, they have not shrunk the business at the same pace as the customers are leaving.
I m happy that I only have a picture of a cockroach there.
905
« on: April 17, 2013, 08:46 »
Ja, it is easy enough to get them up there, since they are already keyworded and processed.
But you guys forget one thing.
POLLUTION.
When you upload to every agency, and spread your images around (in the competition) you pollute the fishing pond with your images, and they can be found in all kinds of derivated searches and at all kinds of places.
If you do so, you loose the grip, and let the asset (the pictures) become an asset for whatever agency and not for you.
Like... they would all be happy to spread your copyright for free. Doing their fancy trades. Be happy you are in the pile and get 10%.
And the more you pollute, they more they can do it.
We have seen many examples.
Therefore I only upload to a few agencies, and they must make sure to perform, else I withdraw my port.
906
« on: April 14, 2013, 18:29 »
I have been out of there, for a couple of months, and it has been a great releaf.
Only rarely I take a look at something istockish, like this thread.
Nice to be without all the frustrations and anger. And nice to see them loose 1/3 of their income every month.
907
« on: April 14, 2013, 18:14 »
its very good.
the tonemapping is good and the chosen style is relevant.
One thing you could consider is how wide the spills of shadows are (left side arm and t-shirt), they look a bit unnatural.
The original light on her face was very flat, means that it is hard to emphasize contrast, so you have a bit of a conflict there.
908
« on: April 01, 2013, 08:36 »
Compared to Feb, down at:
SS
FT
DT
909
« on: March 25, 2013, 17:00 »
i just made 6.36 dollars via istock, despite all my images are deactivated.
6.36 is a funny and not important number.
However it is 15% of something.
And istock is making much more out of my deleted images.
How can that be?
910
« on: March 25, 2013, 16:16 »
"The emperors new clothes" comes to mind.
911
« on: March 25, 2013, 16:11 »
Still, it is not about your camera and lenses.
It is about your eye and imagination.
A brilliant mind with a d 200 can produce pictures that can outsell any of those fancy upcomlings with ever so many lenses and megapixels.
912
« on: March 25, 2013, 14:36 »
Very strange collection. Shallow dof, cross processed, snapshottish compositions.
I do not like it, but that doesnt matter as long as the customers do, and I suppose those folks know what they are doing.
Certainly not the same collection as on the other agencies, although I can see where they got the inspiration from.
I would not know what and how to shoot to make pictures like that.
913
« on: March 25, 2013, 12:26 »
The d 200 is a good camera, and pictures done at iso 100 are still very competitive.
I bought a d 200 in 2006, upgraded in 2012 to another d 200, since I didnt find the improvement of file quality worth the money.
But then the d 600 came out and I bought one of those.
Yes, it is better. Better dynamic range performance, especially the light tones and much larger files.
Then the full frame/ lens problem. It proved that many of my lenses worked on full frame, that was a relief.
Of course I also found out that my computer suddently became slower at image processing and storage shrinked.
So advice to you would be...
consider if its worth the money, can it earn back?
and if you think about lenses, make sure not to buy dx lenses. The dx days are over.
914
« on: March 25, 2013, 11:56 »
sales are the same as they always were. Quite low.
And now they have taken of my commision, so Im only waiting for a few dollars to reach payout.
Then Ill delete my port.
915
« on: March 25, 2013, 05:51 »
Im happy to be out of there. I only left a picture of a cockroach.
And it costs me a couple of hundred dollars every month.
But I would rather die than let istock get away with those 85 % for pissing on me.
916
« on: March 25, 2013, 02:53 »
Ja ja, Lisas husband, we are talking about the same. i just got sidetraced and talked about grounding, since there seemed to be some confusion there.
I couldnt fit the dog and the pee into the circuit.
917
« on: March 24, 2013, 15:29 »
The ground wire is there as a circuit braker. To make it more safe.
The current goes to the ground instead of through you.
That is reasonable enough, but best is that it can be meassured, and such everything can shut off if there is only a small current venturing out of the circuit.
means, if YOU are part of the circuit, it will shut itself down before you die of it.
918
« on: March 20, 2013, 03:08 »
Ja. The dragon picture is amazing.
919
« on: March 20, 2013, 01:39 »
Dont worry too much. I joined them a couple of months ago with a good portion of my well selling pictures.
and...
I have not had a single sale.
So, Ill probably be out of there again soon.
920
« on: March 19, 2013, 15:52 »
921
« on: March 19, 2013, 14:40 »
To make centralized place to persue copyright infringements is an illusion and cannot be done. So just forget about it.
For the following reasons:
1.. False claims, or claims not valid.
2.. Copyright laws not the same in all countries
3.. Rule of law not efficient in all countries.
You will need a horde of lawyers to look into every 10 dollar case.
Not at all viable.
922
« on: March 19, 2013, 14:26 »
Photograph something else, and use your d 80.
923
« on: March 19, 2013, 13:50 »
I dont even know what it is.
924
« on: March 19, 2013, 13:29 »
the aircraft pictures are full of noise and trademarks.
They will never be accepted.
925
« on: March 19, 2013, 12:45 »
A very good guide. It is something I would like to send to photographers that consider venturing into microstock.
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
