|
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 - RT
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 77
951
« on: January 30, 2010, 05:31 »
And we hope it's just thumbnails, and that tuweimei.com wasn't given copies of the full size images to "enhance performance of their servers".
That statement is just ridiculous, a) Because then the site would just sell them direct and FT would get nothing out of it b) because of the work involved in the actual transfer process would be huge for both sites concerned, the very point of being an API partner with FT is that you access their servers for downloading the image and c) servers don't get enhanced performance the more you load on them, they actually get slower.
952
« on: January 28, 2010, 17:13 »
The link for Andreas Rodriguez (composite images) points to Sean's iStock portfolio
I'm sure Sean will pass on any commissions through sales gained via this channel 
953
« on: January 28, 2010, 17:06 »
Notwithstanding the disclaimer, assuming Alamy is serious about pursuing something, I'd hate to be defending Spiderpic.
Totally agree, from what I've seen so far Spiderpic are on very dodgy ground and unless they expand their results to show an exact like for like price for the licenses available on each site featured they could be in real danger of misrepresentation. Add to that the legalities of copyright that Sean mentioned above not just in terms of the contributors work but also that of the agencies concerned, the information the agencies publish on their sites is subject to copyright, not to mention the sites watermark that is on every image, they'd win on that issue alone. That's true, but if you don't want or need the additional rights that Alamy offers in their license, you're much better off buying at a micro where you can unbundle the components and pay for those portions you actually can use.
Given the number of existing price comparison sites on the web for all sorts of products and services, I can't see why stock imagery should be a special case and publicizing prices be a no-no. I can't see Alamy having more than the proverbial snowball's chance in h#*l of succeeding with a lawsuit.
Comparing prices for stock imagery is nothing like comparing prices of products, the buyer is not buying an image they are buying a license to use an image and each site has different variations and terms of usage on their licenses, so in theory Spiderpic saying that item A is available on site X for $8 and the same item available on site Y for $365 is misleading because they are not the same item at all.
955
« on: January 28, 2010, 05:53 »
Here's another mystery of Fotolia, us mere mortals are allowed 50 keywords and one account, I just stumbled across two portfolios using the same name in which a lot of the images have over 150 keywords, it appears it's a Japenese agency using the FT API programme, having read the latest blog from FT about keywording this could prove a huge advantage for inputting terms.
No doubt they'll have their ranking boosted soon!
956
« on: January 26, 2010, 18:47 »
I heard on the news today that Great Britain is officially out of recession and only has 7% unemployment. Good for them! Hope the US follows suit shortly 
You're right they did say that on the news today, but having watched a couple of in depth programmes with financial experts it would appear as normal it's not as good as those feeding the news channels would want us all to believe, the service sector showed a 0.1% increase over the previous quarter, what they haven't shouted much about is that the city was expecting a 0.6% increase and not forgetting that the recession was caused by a 4.8% drop in early 2009. So a simple way to look at it is take away 0.1% from 4.8% and we in the UK are still quite a way from rolling in clover. We're due an election in May, I'd imagine there's going to be a few more happy announcements to come in the near future!
957
« on: January 26, 2010, 18:22 »
100,000+ images in one week eh? I wonder how may of them....
or - dogs dressed up as humans doing things - portraits that have been put through portrait editing software at the highest level so that they come out looking like a wax doll - vastly overly saturated landscapes - b+w conversion of the contributors whole portfolio - young inexperienced models for whom wearing a suit or dress (of the wrong size) is a novelty - clones of the 'most popular images' or any number of other things that would appear to be encouraged by the 'mentors' on the forum.
958
« on: January 26, 2010, 18:11 »
Hi Brian,
- Will the Veer marketplace images and the existing Veer RF content from macro contributors all be priced equally or will there be a tiered system.
- Will you ever sort out the FTP problem so those that want to can actually upload some images to you.
- And as mentioned above is there any chance of clarifying the part about making it "more affordable for customers", will that be at the expense of contributor commission, i.e. are we going to get less per sale.
959
« on: January 25, 2010, 11:52 »
But I just (that is 2010, not 2004) sold an RF image at Alamy for $317 (my share $190). I haven't sold ANYTHING at microstock sites for a comparable price tag.
I just had a sale at DT. Electronic products for resale, my share was $17.50.
I'm also a believer that microstock images are very often used in a way that would require an extended licence, but a such licence is never purchased. Either they don't care or are too lazy to read the terms. And it's easy to get the image, just need to spend a few bucks and you have it.
I think the extended licences are quite bogus, by definition Royalty-Free means that you purchase once and use the image in any way you like. (that is not the case in microstock world)
As God is my witness this month (Jan 2010) some of the image licenses I've sold RF on Alamy where for: 77.89 76.00 77.89 62.32 74.78 107.10 152.00 I've had a few bigger one's also but the sub $150 are becoming more and more common and this is the gross sales price so you can take 40% or 60% of that for the nett commission depending on whether it went through a distributor or not. You need to get used to the fact that any regular account buyers with Alamy don't pay anything near the amount quoted on the sales page, and it's a fact of matter that some use Alamy because it's cheaper than microstock. The good thing about purchasing these licenses through Alamy from a buyers point of view is exactly as you pointed out, it is a one off single purchase, these could have cost a buyer a lot more if they'd purchased them through microstock, only a buyer knows their intended usage for an image they license and it's their responsibility to get value for money. So whilst your comments are said in terms of the old romantic days of traditional stock agencies selling RF for big bucks it is very different in the real world and has been for a while, and whilst it hasn't been mentioned yet the RM market is equally as discounted, this month I've had a 10 year full page image license for a book which has netted me a whopping $64.26 and an image in a national newspaper netting me $23.37 both of which are a long long way from what they should be according to the price calculator. Time's have changed, you either accept it as part of the industry and deal with it or find something else to do. As for you comment about 'Morally it's very dubious', well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it however naive it appears to some others.
960
« on: January 23, 2010, 16:48 »
Whatever you decide do not buy Lexar they didn't work in my 5D Mk2 (and a lot of other Canon models apparently), I use Sandisk and have never had a problem.
Found this on the write speed test site listed earlier in the thread...
Note: It's a quirk of the 5D Mark II that after secure erasing, some older Lexar cards must first be formatted in the computer before they can then be formatted and used in the camera.
Thanks, I had found that solution through the web when I had problems with an 8gb Lexar card I had bought, it would work once and then not the next time, sometimes the files would get written to the card and other times they didn't, I gave up and sold it on eBay. I sent an email to Lexar about it and never got a reply. I did some digging around and found quite a few sites that mentioned problems between Lexar cards and Canon cameras covering all ages and models, so I haven't bothered since, it was just to save a few quid over the Sandisks which have never let me down before or since.
961
« on: January 23, 2010, 08:57 »
Simple to fix. Use the 'colour replacement brush in photoshop, select the colour of the sculpture, adjust the setting so it doesn't effect the sky and brush away the CR. You might need to do a bit of re-sampling as you go round the sculpture.
962
« on: January 21, 2010, 07:55 »
Maybe I am the exception, but StockXpert continues to perform well for me.
Same here, and a lot more than I make on BigStock where since the SS announcement I have seen sales crash dramatically, if StockXpert do go under it'll be a shame to see them go as far as I'm concerned but in the meantime I'll just enjoy the sales.
963
« on: January 21, 2010, 07:31 »
I submitted 40 plus great images and only (2) were accepted while the others were rejected with the reason "the quality of the images is not what we desire".
Maybe your interpretation of 'great' is not the same as theirs.
964
« on: January 21, 2010, 06:46 »
The cheap agencies don't make enough money from sales to undertake effective marketing, usually I think because they were absurdly under-funded from the start. So many seem to think that they can start a 'stock agency' from their bedroom with a few $K's in savings or borrowed from family.
Totally agree and yet more and more keep trying despite the track record of failed attempts each year. I blame it on dumb people believing the "if you build it they will come" get rich quick mentallity, when all they need to do is follow the 'if you build it you need to tell them you've built it' basic fundamentals of marketing strategy. IMO it isn't helped by the number of contributors that fall for the 'hey we've built it and are going to do a huge marketing campaign once you've uploaded all your stuff but we can't tell you anymore because it's top secret' approach. Followed of course by the inevitable threads here about how they made $3 with them six months ago "so I'm sticking with them" and then when they collapse the "do'h I never saw that one coming, shame they treated us so nicely" threads.
965
« on: January 21, 2010, 06:39 »
Just check out an events photography company near you and see what they charge, and then decide if you can match their price and whether it's financially viable for you.
Event photography companies nearly always attend my son's rugby tournaments, the photos are normally crap and they charge about 10 for 8x10 photo which is printed on the spot. I've never bought one because I take my own but I often see a few parents willing to pay that much for a mediocre shot of their child in action.
Take shots that most parents can't do with their entry level dslr and you could be onto a winner.
966
« on: January 19, 2010, 16:24 »
Hi Richard, certainly DT/SS/BigStock/YAY and not forgetting Picturenation here in the UK (once they are back online) do take street scenes. I've just recently put up some of Hampstead, London, in the snow). I'm not with 123RF at the moment, but will certainly be looking at them now. I wonder if all micro sites will eventually take editorial? I would love to see Istock do that! Regards, David.
Thanks for the reply David, editorial is not something I'd considered for micros, I don't do that sort of stuff but the small amount of editorial that I do take I put on Alamy, for someone with your background is it something you think will take off or are you testing the water.
967
« on: January 19, 2010, 09:49 »
Try going into PS preferences and un-ticking the 'export clipboard' box, then close down and restart CS4 and see if that cures it.
I had a similar problem with both PS and Bridge slowing down when editing, and the same thing you've described, I searched the internet and somewhere found info about setting up PS properly and apparently what I described above sorts most things out. It did for me and I haven't had a problem since.
968
« on: January 19, 2010, 06:08 »
Why not get a Hassy 503CW, then you could have the best of both worlds if you bought a digital back for it. (Expensive I know but it's an option)
well I am not sure I want to spend that much. but having a camera that I could use a digital back with (possibly eventually) could be nice. I haven't checked out the weights, but I was under the impression that a TLR would be a fair bit lighter than a SLR for medium format, which is an advantage to me.
Yeah not sure about the weight thing to be honest, I had the chance to use a 503 once a few years back, I can't remember weight being an issue, I only mentioned it because I had the exact same thought as you a while back and I did some looking around on eBay, and my desire gradually built up from one MF camera to another to another ending up with the 503CW, and no I haven't got one yet because even on eBay they fetch a fair price. I like old cameras and every once in a while I buy one, last year I bought two mint Kodak brownies, the guy on eBay was selling them as a pair, when they arrived I was surprised to see they are indeed mint, in fact he put a note in saying one had never seen a film, still haven't used them they're in the back of the cupboard but one day I will.
969
« on: January 19, 2010, 05:38 »
Why not get a Hassy 503CW, then you could have the best of both worlds if you bought a digital back for it. (Expensive I know but it's an option)
970
« on: January 19, 2010, 05:34 »
Just had an email announcement from 123RF saying they're accepting editorial images, it started with the line: Yes, it's good news for those of you who've been waiting for this moment. 123RF.com is now accepting editorial content.Hands up anybody that's been waiting for this moment It mentions in the email that they want un-model released street scenes, do any of the other micros that take editorial accept street scenes?
971
« on: January 19, 2010, 05:18 »
Can't see an organised movement happening, different contributors have different levels of success at different sites, Yuri for example has said Fotolia is his biggest seller and I also think it's the highest for Andres, Sean obviously ain't going to quit iStock, and for many SS is top of the list.
People always quote the big 6 or sometimes even 4, I've never understood that as far as I can see there are only the big 3, iS, FT & SS, Dreamstime provides a credible amount for some but I've yet to see any of the top contributors (or most others come to that) state they get anywhere near from DT what they get from the top 3 sites. So I do support the theory that some of the smaller one's might disappear but not the Big 3.
Having had a look at this software I can't see it as being any threat to micro income whatsoever,
- For one it requires the user to enter personal information, including your date of birth. You don't need to do that on any stock site to download an image.
- There's a fee involved, doesn't say what it is yet but I think this will be a big put off for some
- In order for this software to be of any real benefit you'd need to be purchasing quite a few images each month, if you do that you'd already have a subscription on one of the sites.
So IMO this software would be fine for the odd one off purchase, but is anybody really going to go that much trouble to save a couple of dollars.
972
« on: January 18, 2010, 19:53 »
Hi RT,
I would find it pretty hard to prove that you shot a job without revealing your identity. So you are asking him to identify himself. You had trouble believe me about my friend working for AT&T until I told you here name. It is not the question that is the issue it is how it is presented.
Many people feel chased out of here when they try to help and offer advice and I think the entire site loses from that. I know that is how I felt when I first came here and with the exception of three people here I seem to be helpful to others. I would prefer we could make our own judgements rather than have you policing the site for us all.
J
If you're going to make statements about me make sure they're correct: - I'm not asking him to identify himself, I know who he is, we all know who he is and have done from the start, you can't seriously be telling me you still think this is all about an identity, what do you want copies of peoples passports!!! IT IS ABOUT THE POSTING OF ACCURATE INFORMATION -I never queried the story about your friend before or after you mentioned her name, in fact my reply was the exact opposite, why are you making things up? -As for making your own judgement, what's stopping you? and why am I not entitled to state my opinion, this isn't a dictatorship as far as I'm aware and I'm allowed to query things if I so choose, or do you know differently.
973
« on: January 18, 2010, 18:40 »
Jonathan,
I have PM'd you but you are missing the point, I don't care who you are, and I'm not asking you to prove who you are I was just making the point that even you have many identities, and neither I or anybody else is asking anybody to prove who they are only that if they come here and makes some claim of their achievement that they are able to back that statement up, that has nothing to do with identity.
I remember you once accusing someone here of copying your work and you wonder why some of us don't like to advertise our portfolios.
Tell me what have I said that you would like me to prove and I gladly will, if I told everyone I had just shot the latest ad campaign for Adidas I would expect people to ask to see the results, and I would be able to produce an image to satisfy their needs. ( I haven't by the way it was just an example) But for someone to say they've done something and then go onto the complete offensive when asked to give some proof is just ridiculous.
As for being computer savvy or being somebody else, I'm afraid you're not going to win this years Sherlock Holmes award, I'm useless with most things computer related and I'm certainly not anybody else but would love to know who you think I am please PM the details.
This is a bit petty so apologies in advance, but if you don't know who I am in the first place it would be an incorrect statement to suggest I'm someone else.
Now seriously it's getting boring, get off your high horse about identities and accept that sometimes people might actually not believe some of the things others say and strangely they might even ask for examples, another thing you need to accept is that anonymity is allowed here.
PM me with any other messages I'm sure everyone is bored by now, don't forget to unblock me first.
974
« on: January 18, 2010, 17:34 »
Hi RT,
I had no idea that I have blocked your PM. I do not have anyone else blocked on my PM's, I will unblock it immediately so you can reply. That is the idea when you send a PM is so the other person can reply without having to bother the entire group. Even SJ isn't blocked from my PM's. It is some unfortunate error and I will fix it immediately. I welcome your response.
Great I'll reply as soon as you unblock it, you did the same thing once before, and you've done it to SJ as well, clearly a clumsy error. Question, why does it matter if someone proves something to you on a blog or not. Why not just take it at face value, I hope you do drive a Rolls but I wouldn't question you on it because the result doesn't matter as long as you are happy.
Because some of the things people post on threads here are worded in a way that may influence others less knowledgable sometimes unintentionally, and I feel it my duty to point out any errors so that the less fortunate are not mislead, I don't ask for any thanks doing this but judging by the PM's I receive it's a welcome service for some. Like I said you have kept your identity hidden and you offer a lot of your opinion here as well as critique of others. I think that is a bit backwards that is all. If you are such a proponent of people proving what they say is true then please share your identity with the group?
My identity is irrelevant, many people do know who I am and I'll share it via PM with anybody that I feel really needs to know, however like many others I choose not to share portfolio links because I'm not a fan of people copying my work, and any comments I make here would come up in a google search under my business name which I don't think is relevant, something like that wouldn't apply to you because you have so many different identities. I'll happily prove to anyone any claims that I make here, by PM if need be for confidentiality, but I've never been one for boasting. Luckily Leaf the guy that runs this forum introduced those little meters under everyone's name for this very reason, and as you can see it indicates I do quite well on iS, it's a good indication as to whether someone knows what they're talking about or not. I wish he'd introduce a BS meter then I (and the few people you mentioned ) wouldn't have to interject. Just as a reminder the last time we had a discussion via PM I did tell you who I was to which you replied I should share more of my experiences, you've obviously forgotten - old age gets to us all! Again I ask, If you make a post to me that proclaims something about peoples inflated egos and walking the walk who were you pointing those remarks to? Simple question to answer I would think. Would you please answer it.
Well if it makes you happy then yes I do think you've got an over inflated ego, but the line wasn't intended just for you on this occasion. By the way I have a pristine 65' mustang fastback, here is a picture of it.  www.andersenross.com/mustang I only drive it on sunny days. I drive my 2006 Range Rover the rest of the time, now that is bragging and ego based 
Thanks,
Jonathan
I'm not a car person myself and know nothing about American cars, so I'm guessing that's a good one? Maybe one day this thread could turn back to the original subject.
975
« on: January 18, 2010, 15:05 »
Hi RT,
I guess it is just seems odd to me to here from people that won't reveal their own idendity to question that of others. What walk would you like, a hop on one foot, a silly walk a la John Cleese I still don't get what you were trying to say.
Also are you explaining that the post you wrote directly to me and said a comment about egos was not directed at me, that seems a bit odd. I must have misunderstood maybe you could help explain who you were referring to? Once again I think a person can make a claim here without having to prove it to you or anyone else. I think I have shown proof for what I have added to this blog as much as the next guy.
Good luck,
J
Jonathan, Chumley, AvavaSending me a PM and then blocking my reply is a bit juvenille, of course if Jonathan is your real name I've lost count of the number of identity changes you've had here. It's also a shame that you still don't get that phrase, so I'll try and give you a siiimmmpppllleee example: RT - Hey Jonathan I've just bought a brand new Rolls Royce JR - Wow that's great can I see it RT - Nope JR - Can I have a ride in it RT - Nope JR - Have you got a photo of it RT - Nope but here's a photo of my push bike JR - That's good enough for me You see RT made a substantial claim but can't actually back it up, or another common interpretation is that RT bullsh***ed, my way of looking at the above scenario is that RT has not in actual fact bought a new Rolls Royce but he is just trying to impress you hoping you are stupid enough to believe his story despite the complete lack of any tangible evidence, the way I see your attitude to people making statements is that we should all accept that RT bought the car because after all he did show JR a photo of his bike. And that is in short what the phrase is referring to, saying something but not being able to back it up. Is that clear enough for you or anyone else who isn't aware of that phrase?
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... 77
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
