|
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 - Epsilonth
1
« on: July 05, 2016, 06:42 »
They earn from lawsuits. Basically, they make it easy for pirates to steal images then sue 'em later.
2
« on: June 30, 2016, 20:42 »
---
3
« on: May 09, 2016, 14:56 »
I'm starving also waiting for the payment. Spent too much in Japan last week lol. Just be patient. We can complain after 15th.
4
« on: March 13, 2016, 04:32 »
Some members seem to have more fun trolling here than doing actual photography work.
There's little to no moderation. There're too many idiotic members here. There's no motivation to contribute anymore. I see this forum dead in a few years if not months.
5
« on: February 16, 2016, 11:59 »
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
This may be actually possible.
7
« on: February 15, 2016, 14:59 »
Looks good. Can you add function where the program automatically pick reverent category then submit? Especially for dreamstime. It's really a pain to submit there.
8
« on: February 15, 2016, 14:35 »
Picscout is a rip off. They take 60%, $20 monthly fee, $10 per case. Which means you'll likely get less than 35%. Provided that you win. If not you lose $20 per month and $10 per case. The * company wins either way.
The only thing I can think of why they take $20 monthly and $10 per case when they already take 60% is that their winning chance is low.
So let's get this straight: you don't want to chase down infringements yourself because while you want to get paid for what you do it's not worth doing the leg work yourself, cause it's a waste of time. But you also don't want to pay anyone else more than a pittance to do it for you. hmmm.
I confess I find this site amusing. Half the threads are complaints about how little we get paid and how the world steals and under values our work and the other half of the threads are about how to get services for nothing. Paypal shouldn't take fees for providing their service, companies shouldn't get more than a few dollars to track down copyright infringement, what's the cheapest web host, where to get software you don't have to pay for. Endlessly fascinating.
Less than 35% cut plus a lot of chances for a total loss is pittance to you hmmm. I find your way of thinking inadequate. Please do exercise your brain cells more. If you cannot contribute just get out. There's no room for attention seeker here.
9
« on: February 15, 2016, 09:04 »
double post
10
« on: February 15, 2016, 09:01 »
Picscout is a rip off. They take 60%, $20 monthly fee, $10 per case. Which means you'll likely get less than 35%. Provided that you win. If not you lose $20 per month and $10 per case. The * company wins either way.
The only thing I can think of why they take $20 monthly and $10 per case when they already take 60% is that their winning chance is low.
11
« on: February 12, 2016, 09:49 »
I've a lot of infringed images. Any copyright infringement tracking agency you guys can recommend? I'm not wasting my time going over them myself.
12
« on: July 10, 2015, 07:24 »
Welcome to the internet. I'll be your guide.
Srsly, I bet they're spending their precious time taking/editing/uploading photos.
13
« on: May 24, 2015, 13:17 »
Nope. Edges are too blurry, unsharp depending on focal length, etc. generally not a good choice. There are better ones for the same or less money out there.
Could you please enumerate them? I am looking also to buy this lens just because I've heard that is sharp. Or if this lens is sharp then which range?
Everything above 60, 70mm got a blurry look (and no, a tripod did not make any difference nor did a Shutter speed of 800 or studio shots). Edges had been mostly bad. Many images looked too "soft". I sent it back once, they said that everything was alright. Then my second photographer tried some micro adjustments, but no solution. Finally I removed it from the production lenses.
There is always the possibility that I got a "bad" lens or a "monday morning version" - as someone else said - so it might not be representative. However, I doubt that it had to do with my technique since various people produced images in the same quality and I do not encounter that problem with any other lens faster than f 4.
Some People here said that they are happy, other said they had problems with it, so I would investigate further....as Noodle said, why not rent the lens and check?
Have you had a look into the Tamron or Sigma alternatives?
After AFMA the lens worked a bit better. I've considered sigma's version too. Try this. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=918&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
14
« on: May 24, 2015, 02:55 »
I wouldn't call it a sharp lens but it is sharp enough for stock photography.
15
« on: May 18, 2015, 10:47 »
Shutterstock should do something about this. They reject file because they want an editorial caption, but we have to upload the same file again to change the caption. It's a pain and nonsense. Please Shutterstock, do something!
I've all but given up on SS because of that, a LOT of my content on P5 is editorial branded as it's severe weather, events, on-campus stuff and they reject almost everything first on the needs an editorial caption point, I have 24,000 clips on Pond 5 and I don't have the specific date, time, etc for each one and don't have the time to manually fill it all out even if I did, I batch upload. It's not always pretty and I am working on cleaning up the titles and keywords but SS is a lost cause, lost a few days already trying them out, staying with Pond 5.
http://www.pond5.com/stock-video-footage-sound-effects-music-after-effects-photos-illustrations-images-3d-models/1/artist%3AWeatherENG.html#1
Not sure if applicable with video but for photo you can use "circa" 2014 etc etc
16
« on: April 28, 2015, 02:12 »
Half my ODD disappeared, too.
18
« on: April 27, 2015, 06:15 »
Thanks! That clears things up.
19
« on: April 27, 2015, 00:03 »
Out of curiosity. Are property releases still valid after owner transfer? Signature there would be previous owner's.
20
« on: April 27, 2015, 00:01 »
If you stop uploading others win, you lose. Either way agencies always win. Sorry it works that way.
21
« on: March 24, 2015, 17:12 »
Can't believe they cannot implement such simple thing. Nobody is going to waste time doing 1000s images one by one.
22
« on: March 24, 2015, 05:26 »
Am I missing something or DT still doesn't have batch edit/submission??
23
« on: December 28, 2014, 14:15 »
In studio situation you'll have to stop down anyways. The best option price wise would be Canon 85 1.8 or Sigma 85 1.4A. Sigma version is really good. I have 70-200 2.8 II IS. While fantastic, it is too heavy to handheld w/o monopod for long sessions.
24
« on: December 17, 2014, 21:20 »
I guess people are preparing for holiday. 
25
« on: December 17, 2014, 06:50 »
My vids are in pending review for a month now. It has never been this long. Is it just me or you guys are experiencing this, too?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
