|
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 - Seren
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14
101
« on: April 18, 2008, 09:20 »
Can anyone point me to where the video exclusivity deal is written about? I must be being blind today, or a pleb, but I can't figure it out.
102
« on: April 18, 2008, 09:16 »
Why is this such a big surprise, and whats the problem with it anyway.
Of course they're going to pick a good photo from an exclusive, they'd be stupid if they didn't.
Or did anybody really think that the result would be " Hey here's our three millionth image, it's a duck on a village pond submitted by our bronze cannister non-exclusive with a total of six downloads in his portfolio of twelve images"
And more to the point exactly the same would and should happen on any other stock site.
Not a suprise, not a problem, I just dislike it when companies run "competitions" that are so obviously rigged. There was a big thing about "winning" the 3M file, and there would be something for the contributor that did. Why not just make an anouncement that they think RenPhoto is awesome and they deserve a new camera...
103
« on: April 18, 2008, 06:35 »
See your point, feel that way a bit myself.
When I recinded my exclusivity at iStock, it was because other companies could easily pick up the extra 5% of earnings. Now my top earner appears to be trying to turn away it's customers...
Lets hope the price increase makes up for it.
104
« on: April 18, 2008, 06:33 »
I had my ability to post removed after disagreeing with iStock about a few things on the forum...
I think it was about the new copyright / trademark rules.
I pointed out that they were only protecting themselves from people with mega bucks (such as ford) and that they were disrespecting the designers of small companies by not cracking down on everything.
I felt that they should have had a slightly more "all or nothing" approach, since it's so easy to run through the library and in pretty much every picture pick out something copyrighted or designed by someone (except isolated flowers, clearly...).
105
« on: April 18, 2008, 06:24 »
Since I can't post at iStock, I'll ask here.
I don't want to go (back to) photo exclusive at iStock.
I assume iStock has a footage exclusivity program?
Can I just go exclusive with footage and not pictures?
106
« on: April 18, 2008, 06:23 »
Maybe its 3 million files accepted but users may have deleted some old ones.
That's true, didn't think of that. I've deleted a few. =D
107
« on: April 18, 2008, 05:22 »
I think they key is though, you don't have to add 50% every eight months to maintain the same payment amount. iStock are obviously always gaining new customers and putting their prices up.
By the end of this year I want to hit 2000 files online at istock, that's that's my challenge...
108
« on: April 18, 2008, 03:55 »
Don't get me wrong, I love iStock (most of the time) and I think it's great that RenPhoto got the fab prize she did. And I also feel that iStock are free to play the game however they want, their business, their rules and all that.
BUT, aren't there some strange coincidences here?
Firstly, the counter hasn't hit three million yet. The front page says that there isn't three million files in the library.
Secondly, it's an amazingly wow photo. I love it. It's very classy. But seriously, how often do photos like that crop up? Especially on the long awaited 3M file. It wouldn't have been good marketing if the 3M file winner was a shot of an isolated apple on a slightly off white background.
And I guess at the end of the day, they wouldn't want to be giving away fab prizes like cameras to someone who would use them to shoot for the competition. So for it to go to a diamond exclusive seems right.
I'm not bitter, I'm just not a fan of "competitions" when they're so obviously rigged.
But hey, if somehow it is used in marketing and increases my sales then it's all good.
109
« on: April 18, 2008, 03:19 »
I have to live on my payouts, so I don't have a choice. If I could hang onto them I would.
110
« on: April 17, 2008, 09:54 »
I got confused when you called it just camera ...
Look at the quote I referenced in my post about mobile phone cameras. ;-)
111
« on: April 17, 2008, 06:24 »
What  It's closing down and i just got an extended license sale of $25!!! What do we do? delete all the photos there? 
That's what I did. I haven't had any sales there yet, so I just deleted everything. I don't want people to buy my pictures, and me not get paid for them.
112
« on: April 17, 2008, 01:58 »
Seren, are you sure 5MP images are not accepted? My PS images 6MP; they are accepted; i have not cropped them though ....
They're not accepted from my 5MP phone camera because the quality is awful. It takes worse photos than my 5D at ISO3200. That was my point - camera phones aren't good.
113
« on: April 17, 2008, 01:39 »
Well - i've had photos on 2 other sites that went under and cash in my account - all the "notice" i got was that the site wouldn't load one day - and poof - all my money was gone and who knows what the heck happened to the image library! How do you think that made me feel?
Some people are just never happy no matter what.
If a company in my "day job" business sector went "we're closing the doors in a month, all the cargo you have with us will remain our property" there would be small claims court cases (or even law suits). Just because other sites just disappeared, doesn't mean that Lucky Oliver is awesomely amazing for posting a note on it's home page. They should do what is right, and what is right is paying contributors out their money. They should have also alerted contributors to the fact that they are closing, other than the site. What is someone is away on a six week safari in Africa (I know at least one microstocker who does it regularly) and can't check their site, but gets emails sent to their mobile / blackberry (as they do)? They're going to potentially have alot of money sitting there that they don't even know they're not going to be paid.
114
« on: April 16, 2008, 10:43 »
Cell phone cameras suck, but soon I'm sure they will begin to have 5-6 megapixels and start taking stock-worthy shots ( My camera takes 5MP shots... no way they would ever get accepted at any of the libraries. Perhaps one day, but then I'd rather spend 300 on a camera, and get a rubbish phone free on my contract, than spend up to 400 for my phone... Phones make phone calls, MP3 players play music, GSP devices do location finding and Cameras take pictures. I don't forsee a product in the near future that can do all those things and more well. At the moment they just do all those things badly...
115
« on: April 16, 2008, 09:54 »
i've been deleting mine through out the day
I would... but their site doesn't work with my work computer running internet expolorer! Oh well, I'll try and find a customer services email or something and send them one. Last thing I want to do is sell a picture and not get paid for it.
116
« on: April 16, 2008, 09:39 »
even now i just seen PAS with 10 mp . i couldn't believe it,
the only thing for these little "non-pro" cameras are you mem card can only take like 20 shots.
but yes, they can be useful at times.
I think my PAS is about 12 MP, it's not true you only fit 20 shots on a card, mine takes SD cards the same as some dSLR's. I just bought a couple of 2GB cards for a fiver each. Plus my PAS can shoot RAW, just the same as my 5D, so it opens up a whole new world of possibility. Plus, totally disagree with Miz's comments about f22, mine shoots at a true f2.8 with it's Leica lens.
117
« on: April 16, 2008, 07:25 »
Because I don't want to take my 5D with f2.8 lens on nights out when I'm getting drunk with my friends...
Love my compact, spent alot of money on it, and it gets shots accepted at the stock libraries. Wouldn't use it all the time though.
118
« on: April 16, 2008, 07:12 »
It was posted first on the LO blog and on every page of the LO site - before it was posted "all over the message boards" - you just happened to log in elsewhere first.
No, not everyone looks at the sites each day. For instance at the moment I am without my laptop so I just flicked onto this site at work. An email should have been sent to ALL contributors at the same time as the blog being posted. Also, ALL contributors should get their payouts. Not just if they've made over X amount. You cannot keep money that doesn't belong to you.
119
« on: April 16, 2008, 06:54 »
I like the fact that the site doesn't even have the common courtesy to tell it's contributors BEFORE it gets posted all over the message boards. Jeez, what a way to find out!
120
« on: April 15, 2008, 10:36 »
I would think that if they opened iStockAudio then they would invest in a substancial amount of servers.
Although I have sound effect files that are smaller than some of my photo files.
121
« on: April 15, 2008, 05:21 »
Well of course they have to take a certain stand against presets, but it depends how far they go. For instance I have a load of my own "presets" from my studies that I could load up into Logic Audio and get fairly unique results from. But of course, there are only so many ways to manipulate a sine or cos wave, and you're going to get repetition between people!
122
« on: April 15, 2008, 04:26 »
Just checked, they are just for music, not sound effects.
123
« on: April 15, 2008, 04:24 »
Pump Audio is connected to Getty (owned by them) but last time I looked it seemed to be mostly music. Perhaps I'll investigate them a bit more. Last time I looked they told me they weren't accepting new contributors, perhaps they've opened it up again?
124
« on: April 15, 2008, 04:06 »
Well, I hope they do it. Although I have a feeling it was an April Fools thing.
I did my A Levels in Music Technology, and have most of the gear to produce high quality sound effects (wouldn't involve me buying too much more kit, and I have access to lots of musicians!)
I'm seriously thinking about aquiring the gear now actually, perhaps even booking my schools old recording studio one evening and creating a few hundred effects ready to go.
125
« on: April 14, 2008, 11:44 »
Of course I see the highlights in the sky in the image from a technical point of view, I meant I don't "see" them anymore because I'm so used to looking at white skies. Today is the first blue sky I've seen in months.
And I don't think editorial = celebrity, I think editorial = news.
And I'd make a crap reviewer, because I wouldn't have the patience to sit and do it for 0.08$ an image.
None the less, that is an excellent picture in my opinion, and clearly in the eyes of others too.
This "overfiltered" rejection seems to have some people stumped. I had a cross processed file in my portfolio at iStock for a while till I removed it, and pretty much all my images are "filtered" in some way (according to iStocks definitions). The key to it is to start with a perfectly exposed image at ISO100 then you have an awful lot of leway with what you can do to it before you hit noise and posterisation.
The only overfiltered rejections I've had on iStock were the first shots I took with my 5D and new lens - the combo produced particually saturated images and now I know to turn the saturation down slightly when shooting certain types of light. Or perhaps the reviewer didn't believe that the UK could have such glorious blue skies in Winter...
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
