|
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 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 ... 72
926
« on: August 27, 2010, 12:07 »
Hi Peter - are you opted into the partner program on iStock? if so, then you are on Thinkstock and photos.com....you have to select opt out from the drop down in your contributor preferences on iStock. Thinkstock and photos.com are subs sites now owned by Getty. you should read the iStock forums dude ;-)
Thanks, I should read them but... not time. But it's images that were on StockXpert not in iS that are on THinkstock
927
« on: August 27, 2010, 11:47 »
Does anyone know if they will stop selling my images if I close my account after I get my payment ? Or are they going to keep selling them but without having a place to post my commissions?
This iStock/StockXpert thing still confuses me.
Delete all your images then ask them to close your account. I did that and have nothing on thinkstock.
Hey Sharpshot, Delete the images where?
928
« on: August 27, 2010, 11:27 »
Sorry for the obvious dumb questions but I need some clarification. Is Thinkstock a iStock company? iStock bought StockExperts? I'm sure I closed my account and StockXpert and asked all files to be deleted and wanted nothing to do with Thinkstock, but today received a few dollars from HAAP can couldn't figure out why. Started digging and see lots of my shots on Thinkstock.
929
« on: August 25, 2010, 13:13 »
I don't see where is the problem if someone knows your bank account number... 
He can only make deposit on that number,nothing more...
It's just that banks, being the pinnacles of the service charge model, charge for this service. I get dinged $15 for a direct deposit. That is $180 per year to receive money from Alamy.
930
« on: August 23, 2010, 16:41 »
I love a good road trip. I've done a few myself. Have fun.
931
« on: August 22, 2010, 11:20 »
Except also the same guy goes on the explain how the NU are used internally in large corporations for presentations etc. The whole analogy is nonsense.
And as a side note you should really get the photogs permission to repost text. It is after all copyrighted.
932
« on: August 21, 2010, 12:07 »
Just got a heap of Novel Use sales - each going for 49c of which I get 24c (because, apparently, Alamy can't work out what half of 49c is).
If I knew this was for a school project I wouldn't mind but the lack of details is worrying.
When they launched this, there was talk of $10 sales, that seems to have gone out of the window. What next, 25c sales?
I was less than pleased to see this as well. Initially I saw I lot of the $5 and $1 variety and then 89cents and now 49cents. I will be opting out now.
933
« on: August 21, 2010, 11:25 »
I joined them through the acquisition of The Stock Market but have not been really active there last couple of years. If you have images that work within a macro agency environment and don't have a place for them already then I'd investigate further.
934
« on: August 20, 2010, 15:46 »
He doubts that others who follow the same career path will necessarily enjoy the same opportunities in the future.
This goes with the timing is everything statement SJ made earlier regarding microstock. May not be everything but is a key component.
935
« on: August 17, 2010, 12:03 »
In the case of iS an artifact is a singular pixel with a density or color range that does not naturally match adjacent pixels.
936
« on: August 13, 2010, 10:17 »
Photomatix is what I bought. I don't know what else there is and how it would compare. I'm sure if you are really keen you'd find other software does some things better than others.
937
« on: August 12, 2010, 16:46 »
No, gostwyck is totally right. The only people who call it a pyramid scheme are those who are unsuccessful due to their own failings and it is just sour grapes. There are plenty of new contributors who have come in only to become successful.
You are correct, however I will be curious to see if it happens this year on istock due to the issue with new files not selling. I'd like to know if anyone has joined since February and had a lot of success.
As for the market oversaturation claim, sure it gets more saturated all the time, but I don't think we've reached the point yet where certain categories are 'filled up'. My best seller right now is a butterfly. There were already thousands of butterfly shots on istock when I uploaded that one, but darn if there wasn't room for one more. You just never know what's going to catch.
This notion that if you don't make it and decry the system must mean it's all sour grapes isn't realistic. The system favours those people that have been in the system longer. Either by paying more per image or allowing more uploads per week. Those out front will of course say we all had to go through this but it was considerably easier a few years ago. At some point it becomes nearly impossible to catch up and as the requirement to shoot with a smaller and smaller budget comes into play it is much harder to produce images at a competitive level.
938
« on: August 11, 2010, 17:35 »
So here we get to the real reasons (often free). It's not a problem, a) searching an endless stream of relevant and irrelevant material b) contacting individuals c) talking price and asking permission d) paying individual(maybe). Is this really that easy? The idea of attracting impulse buyers seems a poor business plan.
Seriously. Seems like a huge time waste to me. Isn't these image consumer's time worth anything? 
Lisa, yes in most cases that is true. Anyone seriously making a living using pictures day to day wouldn't go this route. I understand that when you can't find a certain shot that this may be necessary but no one, I think, would use a shot, where there needs to be a model release or property release, where the image comes from who knows where. The liability issues are too scary. That is why the Getty/Flickr Request to License program is working. Buyers can trust Getty to secure the right releases, clearances. And for the zillionth time, usually paying more for a difficult to attain image is expected. Not getting it for fee if you ask nice and suck up to the photog.
939
« on: August 11, 2010, 17:16 »
In most cases the owner will grant permission for free or for a small fee. At the established agencies you get to see what the gate keepers approve of and nothing else.
The reason why itunes works so well is because you are converting music thieves and traders into music buyers. Because songs became so cheap and easy to purchase they became an "impulse" purchases and it was no longer worth the hassle of trading them.
Microstock seems to be going the exact other way and the only people impulse buying are those with subscriptions.
Microstock sites need to come of their high horses or they will rapidly become irrelevant. The world is rapidly changing for better or worse. They need to accept this.
So here we get to the real reasons (often free). It's not a problem, a) searching an endless stream of relevant and irrelevant material b) contacting individuals c) talking price and asking permission d) paying individual(maybe). Is this really that easy? The idea of attracting impulse buyers seems a poor business plan.
940
« on: August 09, 2010, 14:12 »
Just curious, what can they do with our bank acount number?
I the Nigerian dead millionaires scam, I suppose they ask us to send them some money for the legal papers, but here I can not imagine what they do, unless they rob you when you arrive at the location. A Brazilian guy was robbed in South Africa like this, he had been contacted by an "import company" and went to ZA to sign a contract or whatever, and was held by the scammers.
No, not like that. You get big transfer or check more than your price. You keep the fee and send back the extra. You get big bonus for favor. But check is stolen and bank hold responsibility for you.
Yes this is a very old scam.
941
« on: August 06, 2010, 13:45 »
No, gostwyck is totally right. The only people who call it a pyramid scheme are those who are unsuccessful due to their own failings and it is just sour grapes. There are plenty of new contributors who have come in only to become successful.
Btw, IS has no such referral program aside from a one time buyer referral bonus.
Conversely those that defend it against any similarities to a pyramid scheme sit atop the scheme loftily suggesting everyone else is a sourpuss.
942
« on: August 06, 2010, 11:06 »
Microstock is not unlike a pyramid scheme. Those at the top stay there, those at the bottom rarely see the top. It's a generality but I think holds true for the most part. Then comes into the mix what buyers want. Microstock can get so boring so fast. Yes there is Vetta but it is still so dull compared to traditional macro. The world moves in fads and microstock capitalized on a fad. Not saying its dead or anything but it's only a matter of time before the same old, same old provided by micro isn't wanted much. There is talk of a second dip in the recession. No help there.
How can it not become more difficult for individual photographers?
943
« on: August 02, 2010, 16:50 »
This reminds me of Alamy "wait we want the keywords this way, whoops we meant that way".
944
« on: July 30, 2010, 17:45 »
flat, flat light. You should work the contrast some to make it pop. As well as the slant.
945
« on: July 30, 2010, 10:00 »
[
You would need a large format camera, not the DSLR equipment most of us are using. These negatives are from a 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 inch glass plate camera. That is a BIG negative with LOTS of information!
Even so, you can be sure there would be noise (i.e. grain).
946
« on: July 29, 2010, 12:35 »
50M is the best size if customer need the biggest size...
So if you selling there RF photos will you allways sell maximum size?
I don't think so...
Maybe 50MB file size is more imortant for RM pics...
50M prints an 11x17 double page spread at 300dpi. A standard the stock industry felt was the best overall maximum size to have. It was the same standard for RM as for RF and had nothing to do with a license type. Your statement should read " Maybe 50M file size is more important to macro pics than micro..." as they are rooted in print advertising.
947
« on: July 29, 2010, 10:54 »
how about in getty and corbis..or other RM agencies, are they requesting upsized images as well? I have no idea what is the reason to upsize an image..
It's a historical thing. Back when it was determined that the best size to have a digital image file was around 50M based on usage sizes in print. These early files were derived from scans. Digital cameras developed but none were really good enough from mainstream stock until the 1Ds. The 1Ds files at 11MP(33M) could be upsized to 50M nicely meeting the 50M requirement already established. Other agencies adopted this de-facto standard.
948
« on: July 28, 2010, 11:54 »
I've sold enough images in the 50M range in the past year to make it worthwhile uprezing to this size if you can do it properly. I thought about this too. Even if not true-size, would a buyer be more interested and give preference to a larger file?
Will Alamy QC be more picky now, so that large-size files need to be ultra sharp like they could not be before when upsized? (That is, only images created in large MPix cameras woud pass QC in large size).
It seems they are more picky with noise etc. but if you're carful you can still get a decent upsizing. However, for most modern cameras this just isn't a consideration anymore. If anything we are now downsizing. I don't know how I would make out submitting my older upsized images today. They do sell though.
949
« on: July 28, 2010, 10:34 »
Speaking of old masters there is a small but worthwhile show at the West Vancouver Museum of Cartier-Bresson if you live in the Vancouver area or are visiting. I'm sure he wouldn't be much of a master either in this day and age but what heck stop by and see it anyway.
950
« on: July 28, 2010, 10:17 »
Isn't it only a print made by the artist at approximately the same time as the negative most valuable?
Probably, but in this case those glass negs sure seem to be worth a lot. I guess it's that "never before been published" scenario. I'm off to the garage sales 
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 ... 72
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
