|
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 - etudiante_rapide
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 79
951
« on: November 04, 2015, 10:38 »
i am now convinced that there is a renegade atilla-style weed smoking reviewer in ss.
proof:
last month , i have 25 images all rejected for unfavorable lighting, poor compostion, out of focus...
all in 5 minutes. i know 5 minutes because i was still in the process of uploading more photos...
and i saw the rejected images taken off the queque list ...1,2,3..and then whammo 25 all rejected.
the other images were all approved the next morning, by another reviewer no doubt.
last week i uploaded the same 25 images including 5 other new ones, and they all got approved.
someone is earning money without properly reviewing the mass-rejected contribution of us.
952
« on: November 03, 2015, 23:23 »
Wow what a very creative port
This guys going to burn through a cameras shutter actuations just on this one subject lol
That's not all he's burning through. Probably makes it easier to shoot the same shots 1000 times.
With that much weed, maybe he just forgot he shot the previous thousand images 
lmao, and his buddy reviewer friend(s) is seeing every other contributors' work as out of focus now that the effect of smoking weed has taken over their eyesight.
953
« on: November 03, 2015, 18:38 »
lol, what did you upload? let me guess... night shots, window lighting, sunset, street lights, fireworks, outdoor etc.. you must have got that certain reviewer who is daft and thinks all photography has to be flat lighting as everything else is poor lighting. After seeing the pot portfolio I can't take any of their rejections seriously.
oh yes, if everything fails, try sending the reviewer a box of weed. it should improve his/her eyesight and presto, your images are now in focus to him/her 
954
« on: November 03, 2015, 18:32 »
...The concentration on YouPic seems to be about inspiration and getting better photos. And the amazing 10 000 views in less than 2 days on my photography was a wow experience.
Perhaps you have no idea what this forum is about or who the audience is. We sell licenses to our work - views aren't useful unless they turn into sales. It's nice to have people admire our work, but that's not the goal.
right on , joanne. i am surprised chris would even say this. wow, you get your photo credits and everyone knows you are a photographer. this is the same with photo editors in the local newspapers. i once asked if they needed photographs of newsworthy events, to which i got the editor saying the same thing to me, " we don't pay for anything. you get the exposure". i told him, i already have global exposure of my stock photographs, i don't need any more exposure, only money in my pocket. imagine such naive mentality from a business man lol
955
« on: November 03, 2015, 14:58 »
What's with the petition, anybody knows something? How many signatures do they need?
the number is pointless. as i said, twit jon oringer at his twitter site. only this would make a difference. why i say that? it takes as much time and effort to make a 2nd, 3rd, 4th...etc etc etc watermark. if the dept wanted to fix it , it would have been done first time correct. it's like the old age homes where they serve tea and coffee to the seniors who suffer from incontinence. why? when all these nurses and doctors know from nursing 101 that coffee/tea is a diuretic and the last thing someone with incontinence needs it tea or coffee. still , they do it... because they are not interested in humanity or saving lives; only making money off you for your granny and grand-dad. same applies for the dept doing the watermark for ss. the more overtime they do to re-improve the watermark, the more they get paid. only jon oringer is unaware of this. ..the last line, i am sure of it. so, forums and wailing wall is useless. 28 pages, 5 million signed petition etc... nothing will get done other than what you see is being done.. ie. "let's do another stupid one so they are dumb enough to think we are listening"
956
« on: November 02, 2015, 11:16 »
Weekend selection is horrible. Rejected for wrong keywords. 
the magic mushroom 100% approved guarantee set of keywords are as follows... abuse, addiction, addictive, alternative, background, bud, cannabis, dope, drug, ganja, grass, green, grunge, hashish, healthcare, hemp, herb, herbal, high, illegal, isolated, joint, law, leaf, legalization, legalize, legislation, marihuana, marijuana, medical, medication, medicinal, medicine, narcotic, natural, nature, plant, pot, prescription, relax, smoke, symbol, weed
957
« on: November 01, 2015, 19:39 »
There was a new post today by Paul Brennan on the SS forums, saying they're making progress on getting the V2 (black bottom) watermarks online. He gave examples of some of the new ones, which do certainly work a lot better than the V1 (white bottom) ones.
I posted with some examples of watermarks that are still not useful, asking if the information sent to support has made its way to those in charge and urging them to make a commitment to make improvements on those problem areas.
http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/87071-update-on-shutterstock-watermark-progress/?p=1511932
I'd urge those of you with examples of poor V2 (black bottom) watermarks to put a reply into that thread to give him examples. It doesn't appear support is doing squat - if you don't count spewing out boilerplate text, which I don't. Possibly it might get their attention
as always joanne leading the front. maybe Jon is watching you too but this time with more appreciation of your feedback than Canva
958
« on: November 01, 2015, 19:37 »
I like the way alamy have done it, big preview but with a clear watermark. There's no reason why SS can't get this right. They have been my favourite microstock site from day 1 but this makes them look incompetent. Reminds me so much of how istock started to ruin their reputation, I still hope SS don't make the same mistakes but the most basic of things, a watermark, should be easy to get right.
yes, if alamy can do it, why not ss? unless as you say, they are following the footstep of istock to ruin the company. which as i said before too... when all this ss mid-mgt's mismanagement started, with istock rejection review similarities and forum ignoring..etc that they had parachuted some istock ppl over to ss. so the same culture begins at ss.
959
« on: November 01, 2015, 17:16 »
wow, i think i must get ready to move to cali.
i am temporarirly on a long retired vacation out in the boonies, but in the cities i travelled and lived,
the market is like some of you others where you compete with the agents to take free photos.
or in the cities with photo colleges, you compete with the students shooting again for free.
it's not just this and news photos, which is all looking for freebies.
the acting and movie studio , fashion, ... field is full of vultures with yearround ads in the music and arts weekly tabloids "gain experienced in the movie industry"...
where you work for , you guess it, free.
in one city i was in, the movie company has been doing this for years, and no one got to
get paid because he is still hiring for free to "give you experience".
same with the fashion industry.
the busker and squeegee kids are the only ones making money these days
960
« on: November 01, 2015, 16:53 »
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-174525851/stock-photo-boy-holding-his-girlfriend-head-above-toilet.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-200093987/stock-photo-boy-holding-his-girlfriend-head-above-toilet.html
surprised it got approved past the wrong WB or poor composition curator. must have been an employees who took these pictures with smartphone after a company's party. i guess it's time i got my grand-niece to take some shots of her classmates tom-foolery, and i get a few self-portraits of me in the loo, picking my nose, wanking,etc... that seems to be where the target-market is for 2016... those sites that has all those "cheerleaders show more than her cheering skills, nipslip, oops, what who stole my p*nties ... was i really that drunk last night as i woke up missing my drawers"... how low can you go , ss 
961
« on: November 01, 2015, 10:38 »
This deleting files is just 
First they love us all. Now they go business as always planned.
yes, it's normal culture with new companies, not just stock photography. if only they came here or communicated with joanne to say something like ... initially, we accepted everything from everyone, without even pre-entry test like ss , because we were new and had no manpower to curate. our priority at that time was to get the stock site going. now, that we have some stability with clientele and contributors, we are going back to cull the large inventory. .. it is not we don't appreciate your work and all you did to spread the word for us on msg, joanne, it is just this. imaginary email to joanne in this form and something which anyone with PR 101 would know how to reply to joanne... this would show the good faith.  let's hope ss gets their middle mgt sacked and we can all go back to just focus on one decent site ie. the old ss and forget about all those new messiahs but i won't be the one holding my breath for either
962
« on: October 31, 2015, 17:19 »
I gather some people say they prefer images which haven't been digitally altered (maybe so there's no risk of anything odd showing up when printed large etc). In Alamy you can search on this.
As a result, pics marked 'altered' wouldn't be included in any search. Even if only contrast and saturation had been adjusted.
it's as absurd as insisting to know my camera is a nikon , not caring if it is noise ful images so the buyer can still choose it because it is a nikon produced image vs a well exposed noiseless image shot with a PNS. alamy can use a software to check any pixel movement of each image so as to assign them to the unaltered section. or they can just begin to accept only mobile cameras since this is 100% unaltered all in all, just overkill.
963
« on: October 31, 2015, 15:50 »
964
« on: October 31, 2015, 12:57 »
while we're talking of new ventures, is anyone getting any money with the new flickr? as they projected a target market of " licensing niches like mobile photography, since the number one camera on the site is an Apple iPhone." are we seeing a rush of mob photographers like yuri predicted 
965
« on: October 31, 2015, 12:55 »
and talking of getty ,
where is flcikr going these days...
as i read in 2014 "Flickrs move could even position them against smaller image licensing niches like mobile photography, since the number one camera on the site is an Apple iPhone."
is anyone getting any money with the new flickr? or is it like 500px , ...just another socialmedia
gathering traffic???
966
« on: October 31, 2015, 12:07 »
i think we will do better and quicker if we twitted Mr. Oringer at his twitter site
Can you provide his Twitter username?
https://twitter.com/jonoringer
Thanks!
Has anybody tried contacting Jon this way? Does he respond?
Jon does not have to respond. we only twit him under a pseudonym (if you are concern of being another joanne-canva victim)... or use a friend's twitter ... let him be aware of the matter. if after a month, nothing's changed, then we know it's time to move on and find closure that he too does not give a hoot. .. which i do not believe he does not give a hoot,
he just does not know his ppl are as reddove so humourously but no doubt accurately put it
.. spending office time flipping ping pong paddles, drinking the lapsang souchong ... and wanking with their ridiculous beards .
all that i am sure Jon has not subsidized.
967
« on: October 31, 2015, 10:27 »
Signed.I feel betrayed 
Thank you, Thomas! Your signature brought the number up to 496.
Surely we can find four more to get it to 500!
I think you would get more signatures if you start a new thread with a link to the petition as the first entry. I found the link by chance because I did not read every entry in this thread and rarely do because I am busy!
500, 5000, 50,000 it won't matter. a long time ago, i was gathering petitions for a telemarketing agency. the boss,team-leads,dept mgrm, threatened to fire me if i kept going. i overstepped all of them and went straight to the CEO office. she came downstairs and transfered the boss,etc to another dept and we got what we wanted. i think we will do better and quicker if we twitted Mr. Oringer at his twitter site because i am confident he does not know what is really happening down the ladder. most CEOs do not have the time to come downstairs ; they rely on the ppl down the ladder. if they are sleeping on the job, no one will get fired because the CEOs assumed they are doing the job they are hired to do.
968
« on: October 31, 2015, 09:33 »
There could be some real money involved. Marijuana is currently a significant news topic, and with 10,000 images, this guy has basically flooded the search. There's no possible way these were all individually inspected - he has to have some sort of inside track. This deal smells funny, and it isn't the aroma of pot.
yes, as my neighbour tells me, also, in some countries marijuana is considered holy weed and ss could get lots of dls from these zealots for their altar and communes. also they would surely need product labels for their plantation crop which is sold as hemp to countries who believe it is a good alternative to valium,etc the next presidential election could also buy a lot of photos from him if one of the candidate is going to legalize marijuana. it's like those days when alcohol was bootlegging and now we have a govt monopoly of legalized bootleg selling alcohol. who knows, nathan might just be the next president or maharishi of marijuana... a deity of the future and as i said, even receiving a grants for his research on marijuana
possible business project 2016...
let me see if i can find our local druggie(s) ... i could collaborate with them
even make their addiction tax-deductible as a provider of drug images for ss
969
« on: October 30, 2015, 16:36 »
But really what percentage are we crying about anyways thats gonna steal your precious images? I would probably say the percentage of people stealing images would be less than 5%...
lastly, 5% of annual income from ss of 30k =1500 dollars and on the lower end annual income of 3k = 150 dollars
please let us all here know how you intend to compensate us for that "little amount"...since you obviously don't think 5% shortfall in our account is anything to cry about.
970
« on: October 30, 2015, 16:23 »
But really what percentage are we crying about anyways thats gonna steal your precious images? I would probably say the percentage of people stealing images would be less than 5%...
so, because 5% according to your substantiated figure is not enough to warrant a better mark. where do you live in this world? if 5% drivers actually cause death DUI, would you think it is silly to have a law forbidding us to drive under the influence? or given that in your number, 5% of travellers are actually terrorists, airports are wasting their time to have all our baggage and self under the xray machine.
971
« on: October 30, 2015, 16:12 »
I actually buy pictures. Do you? Or are you actually a content producer who has no clue about the other side(buyer).
no, i do not buy pictures, i produce them. no i am not clueless like you claim to be so know all the facts... but i do not claim to be a smartass either. if you are a producer too, i don't see why you are so against watermarks... not unless you think giving away your own products is a good way to become popular. whatever your motive, bully for you. but as you can see, we all besides yourself choose to have a better watermark, obnoxious as it may be to you.
972
« on: October 30, 2015, 10:40 »
i take it that this is more for editorials, as editorials are not supposed to be altered . adjusting levels, cc, removing noise, etc do not consider as altered. but removing or adding something to a scene which never happen, such as blood on the persons in a riot, or a bobby towering over a fallen demonstrator,etc... such as would change the meaning or temper of the situation to become contrived or not actual in terms of reportage. removing my liver-spots off my aged face would not consider altered, naturally
973
« on: October 30, 2015, 10:27 »
I just had a friend post on FB this morning that she saw a commercial on TV for a local college. The stock video they used still had the istockvideo logo on it. Even colleges seem to be saying it's ok to use copyrighted material.
yes, and they all graduate to perpetuate the idea it's ok to use rights-free photographs from ss etc ... worse, find a job with ss to implement more new ways to give away our work
974
« on: October 30, 2015, 09:17 »
perharps , another option would be having a bubble , like you get from some sites, informing you that you cannot copy or use this image without paying for it.
this way, it will not be misconstrued it is ok to use the large preview for free
975
« on: October 30, 2015, 09:15 »
And since some pics are blatantly given away now, customers wouldnt be thievesthey are just regular customers that accept a big xmas present from SS
Yes, and don't forget, most web surfers are neither photographers, nor designer. Most people, still think that all what's on Google is free stuff. A good example for that is Pinterest with many backlinks to Google, not to mention other social media.
yes, like those ppl who profess, " i paid for the dvd/cd, so i bought the rights to give away the movie or music "... i also read somewhere , in a photo magazine, some editor (believe it or not), discussing rights saying rights-free means you can do anything you want with the photos without having to pay for it. imagine how that would translate to many of those ppl using watermarked, or none , following his professional advice. the problem of stealing , no doubt, is due to misinformation, rather than a blogger,etc deliberately stealing your work.
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 79
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
