|
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 - astrocady
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10
76
« on: May 03, 2009, 08:22 »
im not sure why im having a hard time getting this to work. If you stick a gel in front of your light it projects the color onto your subject, why wouldnt this work with a slide? Maybe I should try some different slides.
Im using my canon 430ex with a custom gel holder I made and a sketch on some clear plastic I put in the gel holder. (the sketch is just for testing, ideally I would print an image on a transparency and use that)
You need a lens to focus the image.
77
« on: May 02, 2009, 14:44 »
<snip>
I would say however that it is not that common to have an URL which does not start with "www" and it may be confusing for some to have to remember a subdomain address.
the WWW is really obsolete these days, and can me included, or left off any url, including subdomains. www.photos.whomever.com is the same as photos.whoember.com The only difference is that some programs, like the text editor on the forum and my email program, use the www. to identify something as a link while your type and automatically ads the <a> coding.
78
« on: May 02, 2009, 14:39 »
Adelaide,
I don't know if I"m the best one to answer you because, even though I design websites, because I have the same question. Why the big deal about sub-domains?
In reality, they really are the same -- just a different way of writing out the address. So, use whichever you think is easier to type, or remember -- photo.mariadelaidesilva.net or mariadelaidesilva.net/photo
Both should work equally well password protected.
79
« on: May 01, 2009, 15:47 »
Totally different payout schedule, too, I see. I wonder if they're going to change the payouts on StockXpert? Do the actual subscription prices on photos.com and JupImg vary with size? I know our commissions on StockXpert don't. IS didn't say anything about sizes vs price. This is going to get interesting! 
80
« on: April 30, 2009, 11:30 »
Have one account in your name and another in your spouses name. No one will know who actually took the photos.
So with each upload when you confirm that you are the sole copyright holder, you would be lying/cheating. I don't think that's good advice in any business relationship.
Couldn't you just give the copyrights to your wife on those images? Isn't that how the corporate accounts work?
81
« on: April 30, 2009, 11:15 »
StockXpert has been steadily climbing for me. They're up to #2 or 3 now. All photos.com and jupertierimages sales and 30 cents each, but increasing none the less. Surprising.
82
« on: April 29, 2009, 08:05 »
I really hate to pay that high price when I'm wanting to get a Mac computor. Most software companies will send you a new disk if you change operating systems -- or even if you damage your original disk. You are, after all, paying for the license, not the software itself.
83
« on: April 28, 2009, 12:56 »
I agree
84
« on: April 28, 2009, 08:40 »
Paula,
I am just back from viewing your website. WOW!! You've got some lovely picture.
Thank your for sharing your work, and also for sharing your experiences with Cushy Stock. If it only included a spell checker I'd be all over it.
Steve
85
« on: April 28, 2009, 08:03 »
Warren,
That concept is used quite a bit on the internet. I was recently searching for a free web template, and Google sent me to several sites that had one or two offered as free, and a whole bunch that they sell.
Having a separate page with a META title and description of FREE screensavers, and also using the work FREE (with or without caps) in the page text, will allow you page to be show on the search engines when some searches for free screensavers. Then you simply have a few thumbnails of "premium" screansavers on that page and links to "view more images here".
With a nich market like vintage motorcycles, I would also search Google for any vintage motorcycle forums and make a post about your free stuff there (in their appropriate category, of course ;-))
Just some thoughts off the top of my head.
86
« on: April 26, 2009, 08:34 »
Very nice! Thanks for sharing. 
87
« on: April 25, 2009, 09:55 »
it could be they believe it is ok to use the photo without paying for it as long as they leave the watermark in place -- and that you only have to pay if you want a clean image. This think is not without precedent. There are may software programs available for free or reduced prices IF you leave the advertising in place, but for a small amount you can get a copy with no advertising. This forum is another example -- don't like the ads, join as a premium member and they're gone.
88
« on: April 25, 2009, 09:30 »
And how about this one:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-9463408-olympus-digital-camera.html
I was looking at Cora Reed's website yesterday and I noticed a lot of her pictures had Olympus Digital Camera as titles (showed on mouseover with firefox), so maybe it's something weird that Olympus does. Edit: I posted this before I saw holgs message 
89
« on: April 25, 2009, 09:25 »
Best wishes to you, Whitechild!
90
« on: April 24, 2009, 07:29 »
Still waiting for that first sale.
91
« on: April 22, 2009, 17:17 »
Yes there is solicitation on MSG lately, for people to check their blogs,
I'm one of those who posted under "Blog Updates". I had no idea I was being so rude and disruptive.
I don't consider blog updates as "solicitations". Please don't stop. Being unemployed and short of photo-inspiration, I enjoy good things to read!
92
« on: April 22, 2009, 17:11 »
My grandmother, and my great-grandmother, were named Cora. Don't think I've ever met another. So here's a [really big] welcome to you!
93
« on: April 22, 2009, 08:12 »
Don't know about on this forum, but I can certainly say that my email junk filter has been working overtime lately with all the get rich quick scams of people trying to take advantage of desperate people.
94
« on: April 17, 2009, 07:45 »
best day so far this month. I wonder if customers got a notice about new search engine and overall traffic was up do to promotion? 
95
« on: April 10, 2009, 12:54 »
I don't think I have ever sold anything but isolations on FT.
96
« on: April 09, 2009, 08:28 »
All of my pending files have been approved.
97
« on: April 08, 2009, 12:31 »
We are changing our reviewing process in order to meet different market segment demands. From now on we will have a stricter approach to various subject matters and only the best will be approved. The main reasons are that we have an abundance of the same subjects (more or less) so this will encourage our contributors to concentrate on the type of images that our clients are looking for. This will potentially help with your sales as well as image views and in the long run help with review times. <soapbox on> This is what gets me -- clearly they have a list of what they want and what they don't. Why not give us that list? Why not tell us directly instead of using the rejection process and keeping us guessing and wasting both of our times? <soapbox off> I have only uploaded one small batch this month and all five are still "pending" (for over a week now -- unusual for them). Was going to contact support about that, but if they're in a rejecting mood, maybe I'm better off leaving them in the que for a while longer LOL
98
« on: April 08, 2009, 12:14 »
It's been a while since that happened to me (don't submit that many people pix) but as I remember if you just go ahead and attach the release it'll automatically get reviewed and approved without re-uploading.
99
« on: April 08, 2009, 12:11 »
yea, I get that too. The extra $ for XXL size is ONLY for photos.com
100
« on: April 02, 2009, 11:52 »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
