|
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 - Contakt
76
« on: April 29, 2008, 17:45 »
The inactivity timeout time on the site is ridiculous. There have been times I had to re-upload the 5 images 3 times because I didn't press the process button in time ... 
I simply doesn't understand why this stupid setting cannot be changed, it's a parameter and raising it's value should need 10sec. I contacted support every time I had a time out, the first letter was sent about 4 months ago, this shows they really doesn't care. 
I simply don't understand why the site exists full-stop never mind the fact that I've seen grass grow faster than their uploads.
77
« on: April 29, 2008, 15:12 »
I'm glad this is back on topic but I think you've left out a very important reason why Judge Ross is there at all in the first place.
If this key feature is not educational and is not instructive then what is it there for other than to amuse and add stickiness to a site?
IMO, this humiliating circus act by Judge Ross, masquerading as honest critique, is a thinly disguised attempt to demonstrate to customers that they're on top of their game.
All of this at the expense of misfortunate snappers like Lior who are thrown to the Lions as a form of cheap entertainment but that's my take on it for what it's worth. Because why else would you dare alienate some contributors in such a horrendous fashion? It's because they are expendable that's why and are treated with nothing short of contempt.
The fact that Josh comes on here with what amounts to PR appointed spin is a tactic that we as a business specialise in. It is not to be applauded in any sense of the word and the fact that it's risky is par for the course. Sure it's difficult for any business to stick its neck out but I'd much prefer Josh put his hands up and said Judge Ross is potentially a mistake that we need to look at. That approach to me would be much more deserving of applause.
78
« on: April 29, 2008, 13:49 »
Do you and MIZ get your medication from the same doctor?
Now now pauliebignuts, don't get nasty. Be the nice person that you so advocate because this could be a very clear case of the kettle calling the pot black.
79
« on: April 29, 2008, 12:33 »
But I must say it's such a relief to be able to spell check again.
You mean to tell me you're not rjmiz 
Shame you got found out mate, forums are never the same without you.
Ahhh now RT you know me better than that. I didn't get found out. I just dropped loadza hints just to see if they were watching. And anyway Contakt annoyed the F**k out of me. His spelling and grammar were gawd awful. I mean who . writes like that anymore. He was a complete and utter moron but watch Paulybignuts jump all over me now 
80
« on: April 29, 2008, 12:19 »
Yeah well sometimes when you're delivering the goods they sometimes come with a rocket attached and that's why we have what's called freedom from censorship.
But I must say it's such a relief to be able to spell check again albeit short lived. Soooooo come on, let's get this over with Leaf. Delete me so I can alter my IP and have another go at that po-faced thespian over at Crestock.
81
« on: April 29, 2008, 12:07 »
Those who know me, know that I speak my mind and have been banned from more than one forum for doing so but it won't shut me up either as you can see.
I can think of 3 you have been banned from. It made me laugh the way you disguised some of your posts but it was pretty obvious who you are. I was going to report you but there isn't much point as you will just register under another name. You really do post too much though LOL.
LOL trust me I'm not your worst enemy sharpshot but it was nice sniping at you undercover while it lasted
82
« on: April 29, 2008, 10:46 »
Here it is:
https://www.crestock.com/todays-worst-image.aspx?id=327
While some people do find the 'worst image' feature quite entertaining, clearly the intention of Crestock is far removed from humiliating any photographer in any way. This is apparent as it would only be the owner of the photo who would be able to identify the image. There have been contributors in the past who have benefited from this compare and contrast approach of displaying images. However, i think, generally the level of ability of most readers on this forum tends to render this slightly less beneficial. And, i certainly think, that Crestock and the industry as a whole has moved past this and we will be looking to provide more stimulating and relevant content, in the very near future.
Thanks,
Josh - Crestock.com
Those who know me, know that I speak my mind and have been banned from more than one forum for doing so but it won't shut me up either as you can see. I have no doubt that a lot people find Judge Ross's comments highly amusing but you've left out one very important caveat. It's humor at the expense of others. The reality is, Judge Ross's condescending critique is borderline abusive at worst and misguided rubbish at best. None of the comments I have seen to date are in the slightest bit educational and from my perspective seem more designed to humiliate rather than educate. For you to come on here and suggest otherwise is not only an affront to many people's intelligence but to go as far as to say they might not notice is only adding insult to injury. For what it's worth, Judge Ross is a surefire way to alienate some of the v very best photographers on this forum. I don't claim to be one myself but if you think you can get away with satire at any level and without any regard for the reputations you are hurting well then you are sorely mistaken Mr. Josh.
83
« on: April 29, 2008, 05:56 »
if there's one dope thats going to hasten the death of any stock site its that arrogunt wigged gobshite waving his gavel around like he knows what hes talking about. so incensed wuz i by some of his off the wall critiques i simply stopped uploading, which reminds me i must delete whats already up there.
You sound familiar. Contakt = Editorial?
Oooh dear have I been unmasked. You had better tell all the boys and girls and leaf real quick coz u never know what may happen!
84
« on: April 28, 2008, 14:44 »
to quote a former poster who was banned from this forum, i';d love to c things from his point of view but i don't think i could get my head that far up my ass
85
« on: April 28, 2008, 08:36 »
Maybe one of the reviewers on there doesnt like men  to b honest they' are a bit cheesy those shots no offence
86
« on: April 28, 2008, 06:36 »
In the early days of Crestock i complained about the humiliation to the photogs with that worst image of the day.
They replied to me that the photog in question is asked if image may be portrayed as worst of the day.
Still, i think it is no good to do so... this has been one of the reasons I quit crestock in the early days already.
Patrick H.
Golden rule of biz never "EVER" humiliate your best ppl.
87
« on: April 28, 2008, 05:31 »
if there's one dope thats going to hasten the death of any stock site its that arrogunt wigged gobshite waving his gavel around like he knows what hes talking about. so incensed wuz i by some of his off the wall critiques i simply stopped uploading, which reminds me i must delete whats already up there.
88
« on: April 28, 2008, 02:34 »
89
« on: April 27, 2008, 10:32 »
"Animal lovers and rights activists have claimed that the dog died from starvation after the show, but Juanita Bermudez, director of the gallery, insists that Natividad was untied at all times except for the three hours the exhibition lasted, was regularly fed by the artist, and escaped after a day. Vargas said that the piece meant to test the public and that none of the exhibition's visitors intervened to help the animal. He would not reveal whether the dog lived through the exhibition, but did say he has received dozens of death threats."
Why won't he confirm of deny that the dog lived or died? We know why of course and no surprise the gallery is claiming otherwise because we know full well animal rights activists have plenty of petrol is why!!
90
« on: April 27, 2008, 03:53 »
These are probably the worst photos I've ever had to look at. In 2007, the 'artist' Guillermo Vargas Habacuc, took a dog from the street, tied him to a rope in an art gallery and starved him to death.  For several days, the 'artist' and visitors to the exhibition watched this defenceless animal die a horribly slow and painful death. Unbelievable as it sounds, another identical exhibition is planned for 2008. To learn more, please visit the following link, http://www.gallereze.com/petition/petition/index2.phpSign the petition and forward this message to everyone you know; not just animal campaigners, but friends and family too. Contakt
92
« on: April 25, 2008, 10:37 »
I don't get this at all Miz. Didn't you get run from Shutterstock for complaining about reviewers on their board, and yours? Are you saying you have learned from those mistakes, or that you are the only one allowed to make them? 
What is with arrogant holier than thou ppl like u that wanna kick a man who is down an has already come clean. Get off his back fella he's taken whats bin said on board and ur ivory tower attitute by trying to rub his nose in it is jus snake in the gras stuff.
93
« on: April 24, 2008, 09:32 »
dusnt' make any diff. The shot is chocolate box crap and no matter how many it sold any shot is open for critique and improvement. So miz your experiment tells us nothing other than ur engaged in some adolescent game to prove your peers are what? Wrong sometimes? right sometimes? A bit of both? Who givs a flying f**K what ppl think, just get on with it man and stop all the BS!
94
« on: April 24, 2008, 09:13 »
Miz you're behaving like an out of control wacko constantly seeking negative attention. Get a grip on urself and go buy a book on self-awareness afore mouthing off anymore. All ur doing is making urself look stoopid!
95
« on: April 22, 2008, 18:02 »
so whats the story on this site? New, what? Don't see a lot of images.....  =tom
For kickers try uploading and c if u can get past keywording... then c if you can change the title. Bunch of jokers!
97
« on: April 22, 2008, 08:26 »
u will forgiv me fur saying so but that isolation looks like it was done with a chainsaw. I'm not saying its not sharp but just unnatural if u get my drift.
98
« on: April 22, 2008, 07:14 »
After that, I still have hopes for the site. I keep sending them things every week.
yeh, i'd send them a bag of sh*t in the post next time and c if they can spot the difference between that n their site. i'll bet u hundred buck they'l try and upload it.
99
« on: April 21, 2008, 05:06 »
Yeah, surprising they haven't taken this more seriously... unless they are still planning on checking into this further and taking further action. I can see Fotolia not wanting to be brash in their decision, but on the other hand this seems pretty blatant.
If it ends up that the punishment is simply a slap on the hand that will only encourage others to try and steal images and see how much they can get away with with little fear of any serious consequences.
I simply cannot believe that is taking so long to deal with thes gangsters. what is up with thes bozo amdins?
100
« on: April 20, 2008, 16:39 »
Ouch. Watch what you say. Contakt I suggest you delete your last post before you get banned from that site. Even though I'm sure it was an attempt at humor it comes across as a personal attack and PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BANNED FROM AGENCIES FOR WHAT THEY SAY ON PUBLIC FORUMS.
yeah the word is predjudissed but I swear to god i am so pissed off @ seeing so many images still up there on DT belong ing to hard work peeps I don't care if they barn me. Let them. I dont wan b associated with knackers who permit theft an turn a blind eye.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
