Quote from: jsnover on July 08, 2011, 01:13

(I know you're currently in the penalty box).

Ah, that explains his sudden chattiness over here.

Ali! What happened this time?

The iPad's storage is so limited and the transfer of data back and forth from it make it less ideal in a high volume workflow.

I do import photos on to my iPad when I have it with me shooting (which is most of the time), but only for looking at in down time, or quick edits and posts to FB or email. Then I import off the card to my main computer when I get home and periodically clear out the iPad to free up space.

The iPad OS only shows the embedded JPG in a raw photo, so it may not be the best for deciding what to delete.

Edited to add this relevant article from Terry White:

http://terrywhite.com/techblog/archives/7606

Well, I think the copy itself is dumb, but the way the ad looks on the page it is essentially unreadable and the only thing that stands out is the word Fotolia. If you didn't know who/what fotolia was I can't imagine you'd take the time to painfully read the rest of the copy. I even paged right past it when I was intentionally looking for it.

There appears to be great 'controlling' job going on right now on the thread for the conference call. They are up to four pages now and, I kid you not, there is not one single negative/scepitical post listed, not a single one. ISP contributors might not be brainwashed but their certainly being controlled in what they are allowed to say. I posted a polite 'disappointed' comment a couple of hours ago and it has been removed. I can't help thinking that others have been too. Perry, you're right, it is impossible to criticize ISP on the forums.

I had replied to your post over there, but my post quoting yours was removed as well. The post of yours that I replied to was not just a "polite disappointed" comment, it appeared to be accusing Sean of having submitted his response to iStock for approval first and then forgetting to remove this bit:

"I don't know - was that sufficiently vague but descriptive, helpful but not specific? (Andrew, edit me if I said anything)"

And that you seemed disappointed about him needing to get approval first. I replied that I thought you had misunderstood the situation and came to a faulty conclusion based on that assumption.

FWIW, I do not believe anyone submitted any replies for approval to iStock first before posting. I believe Sean posted that last bit intentionally as a joking way of giving Andrew permission publicly to edit his post if he said anything he wasn't supposed to say based on the NDA. Since there is no edit from anyone but Sean in that post, I'd say no editing took place. I can assure you that even moderator/admin edits are shown publicly. In all my years moderating those forums I was never asked to get approval on anything I posted in the forums before doing so, and I'd be surprised if they started that now.

So, my assumption (which could be faulty as well I grant you) based on all of that was that someone simply wanted to avoid further faulty-assumption making based on having just read your post, so they removed both yours and mine. Hope that helps shed some light.

Apologies if I've now gone and misunderstood you.  

And best of all, apparently the blogs are still being run buy Sylvanworks, who in this alternate universe is still an Istock administrator: 

It took them about 2 years to remove Peebert after he left, so I figure I'll be there until at least 2012. Yes, I have told them about it.

Well, there are two ways you could use collections to group photos together (and you are correct that it just creates a reference to the photos, and no additional copies are created on disk). One is to create a regular collection and simply drag and drop the photos you want to go in that collection. It is easiest to do this from Grid view.

Another option is to create a smart collection. Think of a smart collection as a kind of saved search. You come up with the criteria that defines the smart collection and then all the photos that match that criteria are automatically added to that smart collection. If something about a photo should change causing it to no longer match the criteria it will be automatically removed from the collection. So, in your case, you could perhaps use a keyword that you apply to all natural landscapes, and then you could further refine it as your needs dictate, such as with capture date, a color label, and so on.

FWIW, I gave the PP a fair run when it first launched just to see how it went. I opted in all that was eligible of mine, but I think only about 150 or so ever made it over there. I opted out last October and it took until Jan of this year to get all the files finally off. Over the course of last year I earned less than $100 from the PP. My understanding of the sort on PP sites is that it favors newness, so my files, being the geezer that I am, were at a disadvantage. I won't be opting back in under the updated structure.

... Dan Heller made the same argument, that microstock priced itself way too low at the outset and are paying for it to this day. ...

I think what gets left out of most of these types of op-eds is the fact that microstock was started by content consumers (as in potential customers) doing an end run around existing content suppliers because they didn't want to pay high prices for content they discovered they could create themselves. In other words the agency didn't start out with the goal of making money, but rather saving money on content they needed for their web development needs. The oldest micro-agencies were founded by people with web development businesses/backgrounds. iStock's biggest evangelist at the beginning, long before Guy Kawasaki, was Zeldman.

I missed this in person, but I thought the Chase Jarvis keynote was very interesting considering how non-traditional his path to success has been, and thought some of you folks might too.

In all my years of micro experience, I've never witnessed the level of acceptance as I had in the rather informal ASMPstock meetup that Shannon organized that Friday. I was very pleased to finally get to meet Shannon, Lee, Ellen and Jonathan in person, but to sit around in a group of largely "traditional" stock photographers discussing (among other things) micro without fists flying was completely unexpected. 

Quote from: FStock on October 07, 2010, 02:57

Rest assured that FStockphotos will not be going anywhere anytime soon!

Somehow, that doesn't sound very reassuring.

OK, that was really funny. 

I picked one up to use with my LX3 about a month ago and have been having fun with it, but agree with what gostwyck is saying (though I found the transfer speed to be about 30 seconds for an 11MB file). It is much slower than shooting tethered via cable and I wouldn't suggest using Eye-Fi as a replacement if you can shoot that way, but I think it has some good uses when that isn't an option.

Here's a rather novel use.

I believe the geotagging is based on where your Internet connection is as opposed to where you were shooting at a given moment, but I could be wrong about that as I haven't looked into that part too deeply.

You can also set it up to also directly upload to various online photo sharing sites (flickr, facebook, smugmug, etc.), which might have appeal to some folks.

For me, I was more curious about finding solutions for shooting tethered for cameras that don't otherwise have a tethering option (such as my LX3), and while the 30 second wait was a bit of a drag, it was easier than popping the card after every shot to copy it to my computer and import it into Lightroom. Instead with Eye-Fi I was able to set it up to save to a folder watched by Lightroom and have it automatically import while I was shooting. I could not ever do that before with that camera.

I have been having fun with it though. I took my LX3 out just shooting for fun, along with my Verizon Mifi, and was automatically uploading to Flickr while I was out. Could be useful on trips for sharing with friends/family. When I came home I just set the camera next to the computer and went off to do other things. Came back and all the shots had been automatically imported into Lightroom.

So, I think it is novel. I think it has potential to solve some problems for some folks. Was that worth the $129 I paid? Not really to be honest. I mean, I certainly don't need to shoot tethered with the LX3 when I can do it with my DSLR instead.

It does suck the life out of your camera battery much faster.

It is much slower than you'd want in a studio setting.

The $129 model is currently the only one that will transfer raw files (I think), so you'd have to decide if all that novelty was worth the price for you.

Now, if that transfer speed ever drops under 10 seconds it might be a whole lot more useful.

Just wanted to pop in and thank everyone for the kind words. Thanks also to Lisa for the book plug, though please only purchase it if you think you will find it helpful (I'm quite sure Lisa could write a book of her own). Though my role is changing I do hope to see you all around the interwebs.

One of the benefits of organizations like the SAA is also in access to resources, training and discounts on things related to the profession. I haven't looked into the SAA benefits in a while (since as was noted, they historically had a pretty hostile view of microstock), but their current president actually seems much more open to micro. I saw him speak at a PPA event earlier this year, and he seemed like a very knowledgeable, down to earth, hard working guy, and reminded me a lot of all the microstock contributors I've met over the years.