|
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 - Fran
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11
1
« on: July 12, 2013, 12:48 »
0.40$ for a L is getting pretty ridiculous.
The buyer therefore paid somewhere between $0.50 and $0.67 per credit depending on your royalty rate. That seems very low. Was it a subscription sale?
No, normal sale. I used to get 2.75$ for a L.
2
« on: July 11, 2013, 13:06 »
0.40$ for a L is getting pretty ridiculous.
You sell XXXL at SS for .025-0.38$ no?
ETA: I guess Shutterstock raised their rates, I got a negative for this. Please do tell me what an XXXL subscription sale goes for these days?
I resize to 5mpx for SS.
3
« on: July 10, 2013, 22:29 »
0.40$ for a L is getting pretty ridiculous.
4
« on: July 05, 2013, 09:07 »
Don't think I'm going to watch a film that long on that subject. What's better than capitalism? What's the next "ism" going to be? They all seem to fail eventually and get replaced by something else but if that takes another 200 years, we might as well make the most of what we've got now.
Need to define "better" first. If we define it has "more efficient", than any economic system where access to goods doesn't happen through a market is "better" and more efficient. In fact, no company works internally using a market to mediate access to internal goods and services.
5
« on: May 08, 2013, 14:42 »
congrats to all! I wonder what camera you all used?
Sony A200 
8
« on: February 15, 2013, 16:22 »
I've been setting up Lightroom to do all the uploading. Very straightforward and it integrates swiftly with my workflow.
9
« on: February 12, 2013, 17:40 »
See, that's where I have to respectfully disagree. If you are getting 100% of your revenue from one source, you can call yourself an artist or whatever you want, but they are the boss. And he's fired.
I disagree. There's no employee contract here, he was exclusively represented by an agency, which, very unprofessionally, decided to unilaterally close the relationship. Legal, perhaps, ethically and professionally highly questionable.
10
« on: February 12, 2013, 15:04 »
There is something to be said for keeping your head down, not stoking the fire, nor pissing off your boss if you still want to keep your job.
In this case it's not an employee-employer relationship, but the agency is representing the artist's work, is not employing him.
12
« on: February 11, 2013, 14:49 »
iStock/Getty's lack of professionally in dealing with contributors is appalling to say the least.
Sean, i very sincerely wish you best of luck in your next choices, and I'm also sure this is going to be nothing more than a good thing for you.
13
« on: February 05, 2013, 20:59 »
So they send your images uploaded in a two week timeframe, and amazon chooses which ones they will sell?
If I understood it correctly, they send all the images, Amazon will only sell canvas for those images, and apply a 15% commision on the price. Theoretically it should happen automatically every two weeks, but for some reason they disabled this procedure and the synchronization needs to be done manually by FAA.
14
« on: February 05, 2013, 18:21 »
Thanks for the heads up! I just tried and got this answer from the customer service. I have now synced your images over to the Amazon site. They only appear on Amazon.com and are set at around 15% higher in price due to Amazon wanting money if you sell. The 15% is theirs.
It takes around 4-5 hours for them to appear in the HOME category from when I have synced them. You can find them by putting your name in search, on Amazon
We cannot pick or choose which images go up and they only place canvas prints on the site, not any of the others.
Until this is again automatic (we had to make it manual for a while) please contact me in a fortnight if you have made changes
Hope this helps and, if you need anything else, please do not hesitate to contact me
15
« on: February 04, 2013, 19:34 »
This keeps getting brought up, but other than Dan at Warmpicture, nobody has actually done any follow through.
If this actually gets off the ground, I am sure many of us would be eager to participate. I know I would.
If anything like this starts with a good commitment, I'm very happy to give technical (engineering) support.
16
« on: July 17, 2012, 22:57 »
Thanks, Luisanto. I missed that totally.
@Fran: you must have thought my posts irrelevant, as I thought you hated the use, as I didn't see that it hadn't even been bought. Sorry. On the contrary, you gave me lots of info. Thanks!
17
« on: July 16, 2012, 09:15 »
@Fran: I still don't understand why you were so sure they hadn't bought the image in the first place? I'm not saying whether they did or didn't, but without that visible DT watermark, is there some other way to know for sure?
I wasn't 100% sure, let's say I know my fellow countrymen. The blog is quite famous in Italy to be fairly dodgy. It was an educated guess.
18
« on: July 16, 2012, 08:58 »
Yes, they changed the image. It's unfortunate to see that they haven't understood the concept though (don't steal images).
Thanks everyone for your help, greatly appreciated.
19
« on: July 15, 2012, 11:37 »
I didn't see a watermark, however that wouldn't matter. I mean since you could just pin it on Pinterest (approved by the agencies) and embed it from there, ergo any watermarked image is essentially free game.
Do you think it's still worth a try or not?
20
« on: July 15, 2012, 11:17 »
True, that if they really got a license (which in fact i doubt), right?
21
« on: July 15, 2012, 10:51 »
Thanks, it's very clear. I'll contact Dreamstime and see what happens. As you say, if it comes to the worst, I will have to be happy they didn't credit me.
23
« on: June 03, 2012, 12:49 »
Hunger Games is surprisingly good with a second layer of meaning that is very interesting. Recommended.
Dark Shadows, usual Tim Burton and Johnny Depp gothic movie, good as usual.
24
« on: May 30, 2012, 19:14 »
]
I always auto focus, using the center focus point, then recompose. Never have any problem getting tack sharp images using that method with either the 5D or 5DII.
Only problems I ever have are shooting in natural (low) light and getting a bit of camera shake.
Lisa, do you also recompose when shooting wide? I've had lots of OOF problems when recomposing in this scenario. Any tip?
25
« on: May 30, 2012, 13:21 »
Interesting!
- AF indoor (Sony A900), but I've been trying for testing to do MF + magnification in the EVG when using the NEX-7 cause it's oooooh so good.
- MF outdoor when shooting landscapes cause they tend to not move (and not laugh at my jokes)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
