|
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 - GeoPappas
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 ... 51
976
« on: December 12, 2006, 06:20 »
The first message at the top of the Recent Topics list is very dark and hard to make out. The text is blue on black, which makes it almost impossible to read.
I looked for a place to change the colors for the site, but couldn't find anything.
978
« on: December 09, 2006, 19:12 »
Is anyone here selling at Art.com?
I received an email saying I had a request from a visitor and that I should log in to my account and go POD Setup, but I can't find it anymore in the new site design!
I was so excited with the chance of my first sale, now I will probably miss it!
Regards,
Adelaide
Madelaide: Is there any site that you aren't on??? How do you get the time to upload to all of those places?
979
« on: December 09, 2006, 19:11 »
Let's be honest shall we? This forum is not only anti iStock it's increadibly anit iStock exclusive.
I don't think this forum is 'anti iStock exclusive at all.
Each person makes their own decision as to how they're going to sell their work and that is their personal decision. No one ... but no one ... can criticise that.
What does happen is that people vent their feelings about iStock here. And the reason for that is because (it appears) if you post anything critical on the iStock forums it either gets locked or removed. So ... naturally people go elsewhere.
If you read it carefully when it was posted, that controversial thread was not negative about the photographer. It was criticising iStock and their decisions.
In any event, I believe anyone should be able to take criticism without resorting to silencing the critic with superior force or sending abusive replies. Squelching criticism (by whatever method) is one of the signs of a dictatorship.
Here, here...
980
« on: December 09, 2006, 10:37 »
But what happens on a rainy day??? 
981
« on: December 09, 2006, 10:35 »
Found Leafs stuff. Cannot find any of you other guys on the sites. Have you got your portfolios linked anywhere?
Links are usually in the signature (at the bottom of a post).
982
« on: December 06, 2006, 05:39 »
Bit of a newbie question here ...
I understand that making adjustments in a different layer does not change the actual image. But then some agencies require that the images submitted have just one layer. So you have to combine the layers you've been working on ... and the image is changed, no?
So what's the advantage of working in layers?
As a final step, you need to combine all of the layers in order to generate a JPG. But this should be saved to a separate file (as well as all other edits). So the original image should stay the same. But the new JPG has changed from the original. The advantage to using layers, is that you can also save the layered file (once again as a separate file). This will allow you to go back and tweak the image or make additional changes.
983
« on: December 04, 2006, 15:14 »
Since iStock had the lowest prices in the industry, will the new price increase force others to follow?
For example, will Shutterstock increase their prices from 25 cents to 30 (or 35) cents?
Will Fotolia increase their prices?
984
« on: December 04, 2006, 15:04 »
In light of the new iStock announcement, and the article our friends at Lucky Oliver have provided, I ran across this article which should spark a little bit of activity on the forum. I'm not sure the gloves are off at this point, but the article certainly stings a little bit...
http://www.stockasylum.com/text-pages/articles/a5wn122006-pro-am.htm
I think that the author is confusing a few issues: 1. It is normal convention to call someone a professional once they start making money. 2. There are various levels of professionals. You shouldn't compare a rookie to Ansel Adams. 3. There are also artists vs. professionals. A person could just be an artist (that doesn't make money), a professional (that doesn't really create any "art"), or both (a person that creates art and makes money from it). So while I don't necessarily agree with all of Bryan's predictions, I don't have any problems with his statement about professionals vs. amateurs.
985
« on: December 04, 2006, 14:57 »
Dear iStock:
Thanks for the Christmas gift...
986
« on: December 04, 2006, 06:18 »
I finally signed up for the StockXpert newsletter so I can now give them accurate figures
Ironically, the new StockXpert Newsletter didn't contain the # of images in their library. But they now have over 322,000 images in their library.
987
« on: December 03, 2006, 13:46 »
StockXpert has added five (5) new Extended Licenses (pricing in parentheses): - Multi-seat license - 5 persons ($25) - Multi-seat license - Unlimited use ($50) - Physical items for resale - Limited run ($50) - Electronic items for resale - Unlimited run ($75) - Extended print license - Unlimited run ($100) The royalty is 50% of the price. Unfortunately, it seems that you either have to opt-in to ALL of them, or none of them. You can do this here: http://www.stockxpert.com/account.phtml?f=profileSee here for more details: http://www.stockxpert.com/info.phtml?f=help&s=11_3What do you think about this?
988
« on: December 01, 2006, 10:42 »
Sure, just click on the iStockphoto link in my signature area below. 
989
« on: December 01, 2006, 08:13 »
Here is a short blurb: "Starting December 4, the following extended licenses will be sold for only 50 credits: I-EL, W-EL, P-EL.
This is a holiday sale that should boost the downloads of these licenses when they are mostly needed, while give us more hints about the buyers' needs for our long term strategies. The SR-EL license price remains unchanged.
You can manage your licenses using the appropriate section within your Management Area: Manage Licenses"In other words: - the I-EL (Increase Max Copies) will be reduced from $100 to $50 - the W-EL (Web Usage) will be reduced from $200 to $50 - the P-EL (Print Usage) will be reduced from $300 to $50 You can read the full thread here: http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_6234What do you think about this?
990
« on: November 28, 2006, 03:25 »
Overall, the average commission on my portfolio has increased since the latest changes @ IS (when they went international, they introduced tags, and they changed the search engine all at the same time).
But the download sizes have come and gone in waves: Some days I get lots of large downloads, and some days I get lots of small downloads.
991
« on: November 28, 2006, 03:11 »
You might want to define your question a little better.
If I answer the question ("What is the site which display the images best?"), then I would have to say iStock, since they have one of the largest thumbnails, their watermark is very good, and they have the best zoom option on the market (that I know of).
But if you are asking about "user interface" or something else, then that is a different story.
992
« on: November 26, 2006, 18:46 »
I have no problem accessing their site, nor have I had a problem recently...
993
« on: November 23, 2006, 06:51 »
His article is very non-scientific. There are too many unknowns. What type of camera was he using? What type of printer?
But the biggest problem with his "experiment" is that he is down-rezzing an image from 13 MP to 5 MP, when in fact he should be up-rezzing from 5 MP to 13 MP to prove his point. If he did the experiment correctly, he should have taken a photo at three different resolutions and then printed them at the same size.
994
« on: November 22, 2006, 16:31 »
I also found it interesting how the original poster "accidentally" double-posted in two different forums. OOPS...
995
« on: November 17, 2006, 10:24 »
ianhlnd:
Any worries of pirates? Have you heard of anyone having such problems?
996
« on: November 15, 2006, 06:33 »
For photography, my favorites are: DPReview.com (Great site for camera reviews and photography forums) Photo.net (Great photos on this site for inspiration) NaturePhotographers.net (Great site for nature photos) FredMiranda.com (Great site for equipment reviews and forums)
997
« on: November 13, 2006, 19:20 »
iStockphoto has now added a new column to the My Uploads screen that lists if a file has been DAed (disambiguated). The column is titled "Disambiguation".
This should help those submitters that have lots of files and have lost track of whether a file has been DAed or not.
998
« on: November 13, 2006, 18:16 »
Words cannot be copyrighted if and only if they are a part of the common jargon or vocabulary. However, brand names can and frequently are copyrighted. If a phrase or name is exclusively associated with a product or company, and that phrase/name is a registered mark, then it is protected. For example, as a writer I have to put a copyright symbol behind the word "Velcro" to indicated that Velcro is a copyrighted brand name for a hook-and-loop fastener. If I fail to put a copyright symbol, I can be sued by the manufacturer.
most sites have the rule that no copyright keywords are allowed either. which includes then chevy, chevrolet...
Actually, words cannot be copyrighted.
But sites still have keyword rules based on non-existent laws...
I believe that you are getting a few terms mixed up. The word Velcro is not copyrighted, but rather a registered trademark. The actual Velcro product is copyrighted. Two separate issues. But as I said in a previous post, words cannot be copyrighted. See here for more info: Copyright Protection Not Available for Names, Titles, or Short Phraseshttp://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.html
999
« on: November 13, 2006, 18:07 »
well if it comes down to proving who has the original, i think i should be able to prove it by having the oldest file......
And how would you be able to prove that? The date/time of the file is easily modifiable... just playing devils advocate here though... i am not really sure what i think about this all. I agree that it IS an exact copy of the original basically making it the original, but it is also not like just handing over your film negatives.
Yes, IMO it is like handing over your film negatives. Imagine there was a way to make an exact duplicate of a film negative in such a way that they were indistinguishable from each other. Now imagine handing over one of those "copies" to someone. They would have EXACTLY what you have. That is essentially what is happening when you hand over a RAW file.
1000
« on: November 13, 2006, 10:49 »
It was a copy of the negative by the way, not THE negative 
I have seen a few people say that sending a "copy" of the negative is not the same. That is incorrect. Sending the RAW file is sending the original. Although it is a "copy", it is also a digitally exact duplicate, which makes it the "original" as well. If someone then uses your RAW image to create another image and sell it on a stock site, you will be hard-pressed to prove that you have the "original copy" since you both now have the same exact file. This is one of the reasons that I refuse to upload the original (whether it is a RAW or JPG) - so that I can protect myself in the event that someone "claims" that an image is theirs.
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 ... 51
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
