|
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 - Iriz
1
« on: January 22, 2009, 14:58 »
Hi All,
I want to introduce you all to my new website, Image Revolver (http://www.imagerevolver.com). Image Revolver sells wall art as gicle prints and self-print downloads. True to the microstock creed, we believe that affordable art should be available for the masses and supplied by the masses.
We also believe that offering great art in a truly affordable and convenient way will result in healthy profits for artists. To that end, we offer images in standard sizes (8 x 10, 11 x 14, 16 x 20 and 20 x 24) to eliminate the need for costly custom printing and framing on the customer end. Additionally, we offer the art not only as prints, but also as self-print downloads (PDFs) for everyone that wants to save a bit of money by printing art themselves.
Were currently in Artist Beta mode and have begun to invite artists to take part. I want to welcome you all to join and to offer us suggestions and constructive criticism. We see our artists as business partners and take your opinions very seriously.
Looking forward to seeing you around the site,
Yis Tigay
* We have not opened the site to non-artist users yet, so you will notice that you need to sign up in order to browse art on the site.
Like the look and feel of the site but not gone on the fact that I have to register to browse. I think you'll find that's somewhat shortsighted; just because you have a product offering, the assumption that you are entitled to my personal details is dangerous one. But good luck, you lost me within 5 seconds.
2
« on: January 22, 2009, 10:07 »
Have any of you considered she might just be another microstocker moonlighting on the side. Although I do get the distinct feeling most of her stuff would be of ceilings and skies. 
3
« on: January 21, 2009, 11:04 »
I am so thankful that this forum (MSG) exists for exposing such frauds, because this line from the email:
"(Remember the distance or colour does not matter but love matters a lot in life)"
nearly got to me. I mean, for a while I was believing that someone with such depth of feeling could not possibly be a scammer/spammer. Thanks for clearing that up. 
You have got to be frickin' j o k i n g m e ! ? ! Are you saying you nearly got suckered in by one of these low-tech slappers?  The header was enough for me. I couldn't even be bothered reading the rest but the thought that some mangy minx from manilla has managed to bend the emotions of some fellow snapper is just too hard to fathom. No disrespect but I regard most of the people on this forum fairly switched on. Or at least I did until now
5
« on: January 21, 2009, 10:09 »
6
« on: January 21, 2009, 06:55 »
Honestly, I thought I was the only one. I'm broken.
LMAO very good!! 
7
« on: January 21, 2009, 06:50 »
12 excellent (I don't agree with 7 of them)
3,061 good
332 ok (some of my best here)
Sounds suspiciously to me like they're using the same reviewers at Photocase.com 
8
« on: January 20, 2009, 17:29 »
Oh that'd be shuttersluts dot com
9
« on: January 19, 2009, 18:35 »
SS made money yesterday, making money today, but killing the tomorrow IMO... And so does the other incredibly clever agencies like FT, StockXpert, DT, 123rf etc.. I didn't talk about them much as Their subs dl volumes are very low comparing to SS.
That's a reasonable assumption. The other thing to consider is this, whenever you've got too much food in the fridge you end up not using it or throwing a lot of it out. Or at least that's what I do. So you might use a similar analogy for stock. Yes I've bought a few images myself but all of a sudden some other ones look a lot better and the whole cycle starts all over again. Those who subscribe to the "eat as much as you can" model tend to hoard and therefore it's not so much about the quantity or quality but getting as much value as you can for whatever the sub cost. That's why microstockers will continue to make money. These hoarders never have enough if you get my drift.
10
« on: January 19, 2009, 14:20 »
Do not come to Photocase.com, you will only waste your time and ours.
Absolutely correct, that's about the most honest thing you've come out with yet! Took you long enough
11
« on: January 19, 2009, 13:46 »
Hardly surprising considering their headline statement on the front page;
"Great British content, as well as international imagery from our global community of photographers."
LOL!!
12
« on: January 18, 2009, 07:41 »
I think it's about time our coffins were modernised.I would like to see them made in different shapes and manufactured out of latex rubber or pvc.
I would also like to see headstones upgraded to include audio output and as you visited a loved one with flowers we could press a button and hear our deceased voices.
Next you'll be putting in burger vendors and coffee machines for those who want to dig their own plot. While I like the idea of audio output, some nocturnal types do like to visit cemetries at night and I can only just imagine what would happen if you had an audio malfunction. Increasing the body count overnight is one downside the other is how do you control the content. "I told you I was sick" is what I want on my audio AND on my mother's "where the f**k have you been for the last 6 months, don't you bother visiting anymore??"
13
« on: January 18, 2009, 04:30 »
Well on a quick browse through, I found this
http://shuttervillage.com/Sweets_g141-Processed_Fruit_p2839.html
being offered as RF. Makes me wonder how much these people know, ohow much their photographers know, about proper licensing and business practices.
This site is just a total embarrassment and a prime example of all that is wrong about the Irish Government not to mention their rip-off economy. Dreadful, dreadful photography, the majority of which, looks like it was captured on cell phones - and very cheap cell phones at that! http://shuttervillage.com/House_and_Lifestyle_g412-Souvenir_from_Holland_p2787.htmlKtools provides the underlying architecture and while there are not many providers in this space, this also happens to be the cheapest. Their category section is full of what amounts to a collection of snapshots from somebody's holiday albums. Ahhhhhhhhhhh....I hate it. Now that's my Sunday rant over with for this morning Please by all means do submit. 
14
« on: January 16, 2009, 18:47 »
There is actually a horizontal slot in the vertical stabilizer where the rudder moves in. You can just see the smaller jets horizontal stabilizer through this slot.
Like heck there is!
15
« on: January 16, 2009, 08:15 »
16
« on: January 15, 2009, 10:11 »
Does anyone know if they accept illustrations (raster images)? They certainly have lots of them on sale, but their application form only mentions photos.
Thats' a very good point I have lotza those!`+&%~```
17
« on: January 14, 2009, 07:19 »
There are also lots of people who use blogs this way and earn referral money from it. Here's the guy who's made a fair chunk 'o change from me: click.
That snapper for those interested uses the moniker "ximagination"
18
« on: January 14, 2009, 06:34 »
Let's be honest here, there are very very few players prepared to shell out big bucks for another portfolia not of their own making. The majority of microstockers haven't a bean for starters and secondly they're too busy ripping off each others best sellers in a desperate attempt to bolster their earnings. Any discussion of this nature is just pie in the sky and wishful thinking so enough already.
19
« on: January 10, 2009, 05:02 »
congrats to all involved. And Lee, once you get that vid out to us, our "fearless" leader will no longer also be our "faceless" leader .at least to me, as I've written to leaf several times, ( I used to live in his hometown), but never seen his self-portrait) 
Faceless is he? Not any longer:
Sorry Tyler, couldn't resist.
Blown highlights, prison convict attire and 70's sideburns with 3 day old stubble!! Are you sure this is our leader??? Serious makeover required before this guy gets stopped by customs
20
« on: January 10, 2009, 04:40 »
Ok so the moral rights bit isn't as scary as I thought. I know it's only five images but I figured that having a few there would let me get a foot in with a few ok shots and see how it goes, with todays market I doubt they can afford to keep it with fees for long.
The site does have a lot of flaws though after more investigation, huge amounts of properties including a pizza hut and no sign of a property release, with the T&C too it looks like they would throw the photographer to the dogs if they got caught out. I haven't checked the model release side of things yet.
Picture Nation is now two years old. Not a "new" site! I have 1000 photos there and have made some good sales. Comission is 40%and you get 30 for a high res sale (they are not microstock). The flaws you refer to are not. They accept editorial photos such as high street shops, famous celebrities etc which do not require property or model releases. Their customers include newspaper groups and the BBC! The 10 fee is in fact new and most of us have paid it as it is a good site. I am just amazed it hasn't been mentioned on this site before. Totally recommend them. Hope this helps. Regards, David
Welcome representative of Picture Nation. You're doing a fine job. Now, can we can have the real truth and nothing but the truth from someone else please.
21
« on: January 03, 2009, 17:25 »
Iriz, I'd like to see some of your best images and make some constructive comments on them - just to show you how differently You and me look at same image! Also, there would be quite interesting to us two to make some photo challenge about some subject ? Better sellable image wins that extra prize and if you dare to do it - my challenge call is open!
Milinz, with respect, how you view an image and how I view an image are so far apart that not even the Lord would be able to see your point of view without the aid of Hubble. Were you even within spitting distance I'd have no difficulty rising to your challenge but for that reason I'm not going to be drawn into another ego boosting exercise. There are one or two people on here who already know what I produce and might offer you an opinion, but for now that's all you need to know.
22
« on: January 03, 2009, 08:33 »
On the other side of this story, I really can compete with cream photgraphers in most categories.
I am as good as you or someone else who do stock.
I think not. Your photography is, ehmm, how do I put this, without meaning to offend......? shite! Great illustrations if you're into loadza bling like my 5 year old daughter is but I'm afraid your perception that you're up there with the best of photographers is not immediately evident. Would you like to provide a few examples maybe because there is always the possibility that you haven't uploaded your best stuff yet and I'm dying to see it as I'm sure everyone else is now that you've sold some sausages for $300!!!
23
« on: January 02, 2009, 17:29 »
Load of bollox, can't see that working!
24
« on: December 29, 2008, 17:14 »
Thanks Hali.
Milinz, I am not sure whether it is appropriate to discuss this here, but since you came to MSG to discuss before getting a word back from our support team I will assume you are willing to communicate in this forum -
You have 26 submissions in the system.
- 1 flower shot, rejected with 'This is a nice image, but because there are typically so many images in this category, each one must be exemplary to be marketable as midstock.' . I think most everyone can relate that flower shots are a saturated theme and it's hard to market them in a general sense. They do of course sell but there is a reason they are downgraded by most agencies in terms of desirability.
- 2 closeups of sausages on a grill, rejected for 'The composition of this image limits its stock value.'. I have asked the Reviewer for a more particular explanation, however due to time zone differences they are currently out of office. As soon as I hear from them I will expand on why they were rejected. I have my own opinions, and we all of course work from (as close to as possible) standardized guidelines for reviews, however we don't employ robots we work with humans so i'd like to hear what they have to say.
- 23 files marked as 'Deleted by Artist', in other words, you deleted them while they were in the 'Describe' stage.
So, I don't know how this constitutes rejecting your 'whole batch'? It looks like 3 files got rejected, you didn't like the reasons given, and removed the rest. Is this the case?
At any rate.. while we would go broke trying to write an essay on every reject we do, I am happy to give beginner and pro photographers alike the benefit of the doubt and re-check when someone feels the rejects are unfounded. I can say that I don't recall any reviews being overturned for opinions such as composition.
Now that all seems very reasonable to me. Milinz, you are clearly trying to make yourself out to be the victim here and despite your chasing the sympathy vote I cannot empathise with one word of that you've written. Get over yourself and put a filter on your ego before you give yourself a stroke.
25
« on: December 28, 2008, 17:35 »
epixx thx
iriz, what is dye sub? can you explain? and yes, i have quick a lot to print,
mostly full colour images. i like to prepare a presentation for gallery .
been collecting for 3 years and never got the time to edit to print.
now i have to get some print out or else my plan to present it to a gallery will never become real.
That'd be dye sublimation, produces magnificent A4 prints but my Kodak 1400 is very prone to dust bunnies.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
