|
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 - Calamity_John
1
« on: June 16, 2009, 10:41 »
.. "folding their collection into Istock" .. do you really think they would take the time?
What would be interesting to see is how (if) this is being presented to the buyers at JUI and photos.com who are suddenly going to start seeing images disappear. Especially since from the IS end it is not whole portfolios that are moving just the dregs from the portfolios of people that opt in.
What initially seems really bizarre to me is that they seem to have decided to close down StockXpert but feel they can use places like photos.com in some way.
However, if they are killing StockXpert .. why go through this intermediate step of doing this? .. my guess is irrespective of the future of StockXpert this move is about clearing out competition to generate some sales for the IS images to be placed their. I ca'tn figure another way that there is any sense to it.
and just to continue stream of consciousness with another however ... However, the encouragement to join IS and the lack of a single positive statement about StockXpert is very very telling.
2
« on: April 02, 2009, 15:39 »
I have never posted something to the "academy board" section .. that said .. the few times I have looked at it (and to be fair most similar places at the other sites) .. what I have seen is since true perfection is an infinite goal anybody can take a photograph and find some justification to rationalize their preconception.
3
« on: April 02, 2009, 15:29 »
hmm ... they don't shut down their forum because some people "abuse" it .. they seem exceedingly able to shut those individuals out of the forum (or more) .. I would think if certain contributors violate your terms of service you simply take action against them .. the explanation that we want to be just like everybody else is kind of ridiculous as well. I always thought you were typically better positioned if other people were following you instead of you following them ..
4
« on: April 02, 2009, 15:17 »
what fotolia has taught me is if the image is isolated on white they almost always accept it .. no matter how horrid my technique .. if it has anything to do with nature they almost never accept .. anything else is a toss up ..
5
« on: March 02, 2009, 09:35 »
With music the "urtext " (original document in the composers hand) may be in public domain .. but there are a great number of items an edition may add that would give the publisher copyright .. especially early music before our modern notational system became fully fleshed out .. modern editions are "fixing this" .. with Baroque music (1600-1750) there are ornaments written in shorthand that some modern editions will write out and accompaniment parts that were quasi improvised that are "realized" in modern editions ..
6
« on: February 10, 2009, 12:43 »
my limited experience at FT is if the image has anything to do with white background my acceptance rate is up around 80-90% if it has anything to do with nature down around 10-20% and anything else is pretty unpredictable ....
7
« on: February 08, 2009, 13:54 »
C_J, Do you use a flash extender (better beamer or whatever they are called)? ... not yet .. but I am thinking of getting one for the migration of all the wee little birds up here in a couple months .. do you really need autofocus? .. it is a big deal for me at least ... for birds ... in flight .. and also especially little ones that don't sit still .. and speaking of size and weight .. I am not sure of the weight of the sigma .. the nice thing about my 400 f/5.6 L is that the 5.6 is horrible but at least it really cuts down on the weight .. it is under 3lb .. but something else I would look at is your tripod with the weight .. and have you seen these ... http://bushhawk.com/and just because you can never spend enough ; ) I really like the large holster from Kinesis http://kgear.com/c/C640.htmlagain have fun. John
8
« on: February 07, 2009, 23:18 »
Have you thought about maybe dropping around $120 and renting the both of them for a week ? May or may not be worth it. lensrentals.com has both and just glancing over their right now .. some pretty strong opinions on them as well ... I often find myself at fredmiranda.com for an overwhelming number of reviews of various levels of "informed" .. on the sigma 50-500 Philippine bird photographer Romy Ocon has some interesting tests in his pbase gallery http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/rootspecifically here comparing it to the Canon 100-400 and 400 f/5.6 http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/lens_shootoutI use the "affordable" Canon 400 prime for my nature stuff .. and it is often not quite long enough .. but I console myself with the concept that "not quite long enough" is a never ending game .. just something more to save up for (maybe in some far off epoch if my shots with my 400 earn me 5 or 6 thousand maybe I will get a 500 : ) .. I was driven to the prime over the zooms with comparison to how the zooms were performing at the far end of their ranges .. and the concept I would probably have it cranked out to the far end most of the time .. I had the same thought as you on teleconverters and can tell you that over time I have come to despise my two teleconverters .. (they are canon and go with my lens) .. but the stop(s) of light .. the reduction of auto focus speed (auto focus at all unless I tape off some pins) and image quality are enough to make me just rather crop .. I have no idea of how Nikon's are with these issues but I would get some opinions ... good luck and have fun .. We had a Pileated Woodpecker in our yard last night .. I never did get a shot without bracken in the way .. hope he comes back.
9
« on: February 04, 2009, 10:09 »
I wish both sides (Fotolia and Pixmac) would define this clearly for us. Maybe they have and I have just missed it. There are all sorts of complexities .. say for example (and I have not done this) .. that I submit an image to Pixmac first ... and then later on submit it to Fotolia ?
The incongruity of the
1 year on Pixmac restriction
the fact that I have no exclusive obligation for the image
and the Fotolia / Pixmac symbiosis
could cause the universe to implode.
John
10
« on: February 02, 2009, 10:53 »
I noticed that the tightening of reviewing standards seem to relax a bit in late December .. I had gotten to a point where I was only sending them things approved by IS .. but things seem to be easier there as of late (or maybe I am slowly just a touch enough better to past muster at BigStock) ..
I despise the use of the word "Snapshot" by their reviewers .. and the thing that strikes me is that they must have enough experience in this industry to understand how that word can be taken .. so in my opinion they are making a conscious decision to try to amplify the impact of those rejections by using that word ... to what end I have no clue.
John
11
« on: January 27, 2009, 20:19 »
you know the other very strange thing about your post is that I consider myself a pretty newbie photographic hack .. and I just counted and I have half a dozen balloons at FP .. all but one posted within the last couple months .. and none of them are God's great gift to micro (maybe it is my fault) .. and also I have 636 images up at FP and have had 1 rejection .. the idea of FP rejecting 8 out of 10 of anything seems pretty out there .. on the other hand the image they rejected of mine they own the only rejection for that image .. I think it is on 8 out of 9 agencies .. so maybe that says something good about your images. good luck .. John
12
« on: January 26, 2009, 13:06 »
congratulations .. nice of them to send you some copies .. very nice image. take care, John
13
« on: January 26, 2009, 12:59 »
hi Gaja
Thank you for broaching this issue ..
I too struggle with lighting and am the parent of a disabled child.
and have been trying to figure out if and what kind of "place" (for lack of a better word) this has in my microstock portfolio ..
our son is severely autistic .. he is 15 .. 5'11 .. 250 lb and functions at about an 18 month old level (to oversimplify) ..
with the prevalence of autism I would guess there may be enough of a market for images on that topic .. but I am not sure about my desire or ability to really capture the essence of it (for microstock) ... how I feel about doing a model release for my son given his functioning level etc.
I have taken some baby steps using my daughters to do some really common symptoms and themes .. but I haven't really gotten what I want out of that ..
anyway thanks for going down this path.
take care,
John
14
« on: January 25, 2009, 08:39 »
My last two batches of 10 have also been 90% and 100% rejected (respectively) within minutes of upload .. mostly for "too literal" or "demand only the best images in this area" .. and no matter how I look at which ones that have been accepted it looks very random to me .. given the speed of the process love at first sight I would guess ..
15
« on: January 21, 2009, 14:01 »
I had this happen at Fotolia once (where nothing was being reviewed) .. after I moved .. in the mess of changing my account data (email .. etc.) I ended up with my account not being .. verified .. I can't remember the exact term .. you might take a look in your "my profile" area and see if anything is different .. they spotted it quickly when I emailed them to ask why nothing was being reviewed .. good luck.
16
« on: January 20, 2009, 16:37 »
I about fell out of my chair when I checked in on CanStockPhoto today .. I just had a $19.80 Fotosearch download for a "fotosearch regular size medium" .. and checking on their forums it seems there are at least a few others as well .. if that would suddenly turn into a trend it would resurrect my opinion of CanStockPhoto in a hurry .. in a very non scientific reflection on my once a month upload to that site it seems to me like their reviewers may be easing back off as well.
John
17
« on: December 20, 2008, 22:26 »
We moved from Colorado up to Northern Minnesota .. Duluth .. this summer .. surviving my first Northern winter since I was a teenager .. don't know if I am going to make it : ) it was -22F (-30F) a couple days back when I was walking my kids down the block to get on the bus .. brrr. .. as I am sitting here looking out my window we are in our second 10 inch snow in two weeks .. pretty .. as long as I have no need to get down the road .. thanks for the summer pictures.
take care,
John
18
« on: June 15, 2008, 12:10 »
I got so fed up with the combination of my landscape images and Fotolia that about a month ago I decided to send them only landscapes that had "run the gauntlet" and been approved at IS, SS, DT, BS, 123, and StockXpert .. I sent them 9 images that were 100% approved through those other six agencies and some others .. and Fotolia rejected all 9 (I should add they were not all in one batch).
Their actions (at least toward my images) speak quite loudly on this issue ..
so in the least you are not alone.
take care,
John
19
« on: May 01, 2008, 20:50 »
Well since I am still pretty new I wasn't going to share this month (too small of sample to be relevant) .. but after figuring it out I have to .. I don't have the most lucrative results but I bet I win for the funniest .. and/or most bizarre ..
60.41% 123
21.85% - SS
6.31% - FT
4.57% - BS
2.91% - FP
1.83% - DT
1.66% - Scanstock
0% - LO, SV, MP, & IS ; )
I got this ridiculous percentage breakdown from:
A. I started some months ago just playing and uploading my landscapes to BigStock, 123, & LO to get my feet wet .. then around Feb. I started adding in the top four (one every few weeks FT .. DT .. SS .. and IS - just a couple weeks back) .. slowly trying to learn to take more stocky shots as well .. and trying to be conscious of approval % before moving on up to the next agency .. (so the result is as the site is better my portfolio is smaller .. )
B. So as seems typical for newbies even thought this was my first month at SS. they were by far out doing my larger (but not really stocky) portfolios on the other sites ..
C. and then a few days back some generous soul went crazy on my 123 portfolio .. and spent a couple hundred non sub. credits on a pair of my images .. (still knocking on wood that this isn't a computer glitch .. but it has been six days now .. knock knock knock) ..
D. Hey and I just got into Stockxpert today (on try #2) ... a bit of nice news .
take care .. and thanks for all your helpful posts ..
John
20
« on: April 28, 2008, 10:33 »
From the current house bill .. "Before using an orphan work, the infringer has to file a notice of use at the Copyright Office. The notice must include a description of the work, a summary of the search conducted, all identifying information found during the search, a certification that a good faith diligent search was made, the name of the user, and a description of the intended uses. Failure to file the notice means that the user cannot raise an orphan works defense if the copyright owner claims infringement. The Copyright Office must maintain an archive of notices of use." lifted by me from the April 24 ASMP update. http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2008/orphan_update.phpJohn
21
« on: April 22, 2008, 22:35 »
I hate to say this .. because you put so much work into side B .. and maybe this is just me .. but in my experience the #1 thing people do with your card that causes them to keep it is write stuff on the back
I agree with making the fotolia link stick out more on the front ..
good luck with it.
take care,
John
22
« on: April 20, 2008, 15:34 »
Thieves like this are slipping between the cracks because the crack is so large. ......
The solution would be the formation of a professional organization to which professional stock photographer's pay dues that includes a "legal fund." for just such situations. Until the risk/reward ratio is addressed, this will continue on a routine basis. Now, even when someone is caught, their files are pulled but the matter ends there.
The crack is not only large but complex since we are dealing with umpteen legal systems and typically cases where the thief and victim are crisscrossing national (if not continental) boundaries ...
23
« on: April 20, 2008, 11:13 »
John,.....no single malt in the coffee I hope
no I would never desecrate a single malt that way : ) .. stimulants in the morning .. depressants in the evening .. the circle of life .. .. actually I am going to be without drink for a while .. I haven't been submitting enough to get enough rejections to fill my single malt piggie bank .. need to get some shooting time in here ..
24
« on: April 20, 2008, 10:38 »
and improving the "Download-ability" of my images. I have not recieved an answer yet. I don't think he knows
what "Download-ability" means.
The MIZ
You need to disambiguate your prayers.
25
« on: April 20, 2008, 10:03 »
No but the person submitting them might, when you upload any image to any of the site we all agree that we hold the copyright to the image and that it doesn't breach any third party rights.
This is the agencies get out clause, they make all these rules and regulations to protect themselves from adverse publicity, take your example, although Dreamstime couldn't be held responsable they would get some relly bad publicity.
.. but still no matter how well written the law or contract there is a certain reasonable responsibility that the law will apply .. some of these images we are discussing are so blatant it seems as at about the same level of a bartender serving a drink to my 8 year old daughter .. no matter how well done her fake ID was .. the courts would not just let the bartender off the hook if he said he checked it. John
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
