|
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 - Lcjtripod
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14
101
« on: August 22, 2009, 17:51 »
Hasselblad, Bronica, 120 Twin Lens Reflexes, Rollieflex, Rollie SL66, I could go on and list about a hundred more. They are all film cameras, someone asks ..... yeah, most, but now some of the above and more like Leaf have Digital Backs that blow away ALL the DSLR's on the market today. For only $18,000.00 to about $40,000.00 you can shoot square and do it better than the rest.
Interesting. I wonder what it's like to compose in camera to a square view...
Go to a camera store and check one out. You just might take a liking to them. I love 'em. They are a little bigger than DSLR's! This one with a 250mm lens.  -Larry
102
« on: August 22, 2009, 17:21 »
I still shoot a large portion of my images either horizontal or Vertical when the shot calls for it.
Really? You have a camera that shoots square? Let us know what it is...
If you have been in photography very long, you would know the answer to your question. Hasselblad, Bronica, 120 Twin Lens Reflexes, Rollieflex, Rollie SL66, I could go on and list about a hundred more. They are all film cameras, someone asks ..... yeah, most, but now some of the above and more like Leaf have Digital Backs that blow away ALL the DSLR's on the market today. For only $18,000.00 to about $40,000.00 you can shoot square and do it better than the rest. The film versions can be scanned with pro scanning equipment like Epson 700M Flatbed film scanner or drum scanned. Can you get them on the RF sites? someone asks. Yes, I do have them on my sites. And I cropped some of them to 2X3 proportions, just for fun. Yup, some are square also. Who need that? Did you ever print on CD's, DVD's, or the covers. (They are kinda square.) -Larry
103
« on: August 19, 2009, 05:42 »
Hi Larry~
I disagree with the above poster. I believe you are mistaken. I have uploaded 3 or 4 luxury homes there and HAVE NOT had to have a property release. These are single family homes, taken from a golf course.
My canstock link below somehow doesn't show all my images. I've provided this direct link so you can see the photos I'm speaking of:
https://www.canstockphoto.com/portfolio.php
PS: I would LOVE for you to sign up and get referal $$  I need all the help I can get! :-) Please just click on my "see my portfolio at Canstock" link in my signature ~ THANKS!
No, I believe that you are mistaken. You photographed private property from private property and did not have a release, yet on the user agreement for Canstock, you agreed that you did have all releases on file, even if not submitted with the uploaded images. Here it is in part below copied from their site. I am not an attorney but It looks to me if they get taken to court for using an image withour a release, they will blame YOU, as you agreed when you signed up that you would have the releases. I decided against using Can Stock for the reason below, copied from their user agreement.
b. By uploading his or her Data File, the Supplier warrants that he or she owns all proprietary rights, including copyright, in and to the Data File. To the extent that the Data File contains images of recognizable people or persons, the Supplier also represents and warrants that he or she has obtained a complete and accurate model release in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Schedule B. To the extent that the Data File contains images of identifiable property or property for which it is necessary for the owner to permit the uses allowed under the End User License Agreement, the Supplier also represents and warrants that he or she has obtained a complete and accurate property release in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Schedule C. Supplier is responsible for keeping all original releases and maintaining accurate release records, and shall submit such releases to Company upon request.
It means I HAVE ON FILE a full release for ALL persons and PROPERTY in every image uploaded and I do Not!For this reason I will not upload any images to Canstock as most of my images are sports with people, houses, etc. I suggest that everybody read the user agreements on any site before they upload to them, as you may be sorry! -Larry
104
« on: August 17, 2009, 10:37 »
It now works again.
-Larry
105
« on: August 16, 2009, 20:11 »
Yep. FTP seems to be borked. The images transfer out of the FTP site but don't (at least yet) show up as unfinished files. Guess I'll wait for somebody to show up at work tomorrow.
Sounds like a good plan to me. Just glad it was not just me. -Larry
106
« on: August 16, 2009, 19:41 »
Tried all day to upload to DT and no luck. both FTP and Java not working.
Anyone else?
-Larry
107
« on: August 16, 2009, 07:13 »
I have not signed up with them for two reasons: I have been told they are insistant on property releases even when all identifying information is cloned out. That kills my Real Estate sales.
Model releases required even if the person is a little black spot in the distance and his Mother could not identify him. Kills my Golf shots.
Without the above being corrected, I'm just not interested.
Am I wrong?
I am interested but nobody answered my questions posted earlier.
If you are the one to answer them I may sign up and name you as a referral and you can earn some money off of me.
Thanks in advance.
-Larry
108
« on: August 13, 2009, 20:23 »
I'm finding the new uploader confusing. I just uploaded 3 editorial images for the first time and forgot to check the "for editorial use only" box on all 3. Noticed it just as I hit the submit button on the third photo. I hate that you cannot go back and edit stuff while it's sitting in the queue. I could go back and make sure I did everything correctly. Instead I have to email support. Unless I am missing something and you can now edit all information once submitting.
Many folks hate that you cannot edit anything until after it is approved. That is IF it is approved. And the Snapshot Reviewers are now back on BigStock. So I won't be there anytime soon. -Larry
109
« on: August 12, 2009, 19:03 »
The guy doesn't know when to quit.
I see I'm not the only one looking for that ignore button.
Thanks for the reminder .... I just hit the ignore button and see that I am number 6 to do so. Insult someone else. -Larry
110
« on: August 12, 2009, 08:24 »
Unfortunately some will be happy to read this. :'(
-=-=-=-
Gammas Bankruptcy Shows Shift in Photojournalism
Lament for a Dying Field: Photojournalism
It makes me sad. Gamma was the first agency I ever worked for as a stock photographer, this was back in the late 60's and all through the 70's. I shot the opening of Walt Disney World for them. I still have copies of the photos but due to Walt Disney Productions restrictions back then that still are in effect, I cannot use them for any commercial pourpose. I have some shots displayed in my house but that is as far as I can go with them. Most of the changes in the photography business leaves the photographer with far less dollars today. If you want to make money in photography, shoot weddings, put all the images on CD's and shoot Video right along will the stills. Instead of a wedding album, provied a bound wedding book. Charge (in the USA) at least $1,500.00 for the wedding package. I put my kids through college and lived off of weddings for 25 years. At times employing as many as a dozen freelance wedding photographer to help me. My biggest mistake: I never had one wedding couple sign Model Releases nor did I require the photographer to assign copyrights to me, even though I provided the film, cameras and customers. Live and learn. -Larry
111
« on: August 11, 2009, 06:13 »
This bears repeating anyway. It's good to see a real world example of this.
Any story that starts "My friend ..." or "I've got a friend who has this problem ..." is not necessarily a 'real world example'!
'Friends' don't buy their buddy's images from an agency.
Gostwyck, you insulted me once already (if you remember), and I guess you don't remember because obviously you like to insult people very often. I am very lucky I don't have to say some bad word for you because your own words speak for them selves. I only have to sit and watch people laughing at you.
The "Friend" who bought images from me is a person who is closing his account on BigStock, and he had $15 there. He asked me if I'd like to buy few images from him on DT in return because he needed few more dollars to be paid on DT. I helped that person to be accepted at SS, and we are still in touch. He didn't need my images for some project. He is not a designer, so I could send him every image I have in full size, and that would mean nothing to him.
Next time you make some conclusion about anything or anybody get out of that tiny little box of yours. Stop making a fool of your self.
I don't have nothing more to say to you.
Whitechild,
I think it was nice of you to help your friend. Furthermore your reason for helping was a good one. I have done the same thing before but for a different reason. From one site I had a friend buy one image at regular price and a second with an EL price. Reason: To check the honesty of the site I was dealing with. In both sales I collected the correct amount. I will be doing this again soon with more than one site. If we the contributors do not check out the honesty of the sites ..... who would? I have a friend in another country that I would go to extreme means to help him and I know he would do the same for me. For other folks they should have their facts straight before they condemn a person or their actions. People have been put to death because some people did not have their facts straight and send an honest man to prison. Think, then talk. Good luck to you and your friend, -Larry
112
« on: August 09, 2009, 14:36 »
No room for new sites for microstock. The big 6 already have it in the bag.
Oh Yeah?
I remember when Railway Express had it in the bag until UPS came on board.
I remember when film could not be replaced until digital came along.
I remember when when Kmart was king, until Wal-Mart came along.
I remember when Polaroid would replace film!
I remember when General Motors was not under Government Motors control.
Things change folks! Do not ever underestimate the new guy. (or gal)
-Larry
113
« on: August 09, 2009, 14:22 »
Yeah, I didn't like it as much as the auto-populate from the last image, but it isn't horrible. It works better for the categories, but those were pretty simple to navigate anyway. The real time cruncher is to come up with those 7-word descriptions. The only change that I really would have loved to see is to be able to edit your submitted files. It's easy to make mistakes when you upload files. I think you should be able to fix those mistakes when you catch them.
YES! It would be nice to fix your mistakes as you find them instead of waiting until after they have been approved. A spelling corrector would fix 99% of my mistakes! The 7 word description is easy for me. Who? What? Where? When? Done! Do you agree that having both uploaders would be a nice improvement? -Larry
114
« on: August 09, 2009, 11:12 »
I was uploading today and just noticed they have a bulk edit tool. WOW.. finally! I always dreaded uploading there since those catagories and one at a time editing took so long. Their bulk edit tool really speeds things up, well done bigstock.
One warning though: make sure you click 'only edit categories' if that is what you want. Most sites only edit catagories by default, but bigstock for some reason edits EVERYTHING by default, so if you click on 20 images they will ALL have the same keywords, title, and categories unless you click 'the box'
Tried it! Hated it! I do not bulk upload so the OLD upload system worked fjust perfect for me. I could auto repopulate the information (any) from the previous image uploaded and that was fast for me and worked great. I asked them (BigStock) to keep both upload systems, but I see now that they did not do it. So for me, I now upload about half as fast as before. That sucks! Also if you make a mistake it will still count against your approval rate, so be careful! None to very little instructions for using the uploader and filling in the information fields. No mouse over information that is useable. BigStock ..... Please put the old uploaded back on and let your photographers choose the one they like. I do not think that would be a difficult thing to do. -Larry
115
« on: August 07, 2009, 06:43 »
Canon T1i and I love it! I use Canon Image stabilized "L" lenses only.
24 mm-105 mm L IS
70 mm 200 mm f2.8 L IS
Note: On the new Canon T1i the noise level at ISO 100 and 200 is the same as the Canon DII Wow!!
But I will still buy the DII when the prices drop a little.
-Larry
116
« on: August 07, 2009, 06:05 »
Put SS and IS ahead of the others Larry!
Pick your best 10 for SS' initial application and you will be selling them like hot cakes 
cidepix , there is only one diff about BigStock.
BigStock pays us a higher end commission than IS and SS.
You think so?!
BigStock actually pays you %20.
Check for how much they sell the credit packages. You are in for a rude awakening perseus. 
Sure you get %50 of 1 credit. But they charge customers a ridiculous $2.50 per credit.
Good morning sir!
Prices for BigStock image sales as quoted from their home page: Image Pricing:Image pricing is flexible and our prices are the lowest in the industry based on the quality and file size you receive: First you purchase image credits. With these credits you can download images - larger image cost more, smaller images cost less: Smaller images, 900x675 px = 1 credit Medium images, 1600x1200 px = 2 credits Large images, 2800x1800 px = 4 credits Extra large images, 3800x2900 px = 6 credits Image Credits Cost Your Price Per Credit 1 $2.50 $2.50 10 $20 $2.00 20 $35 $1.75 30 $45 $1.50 100 $140 $1.40 300 $300 $1.00 As you can see very clearly that only a very few persons would buy one credit for $2.50. Most serious buyers would buy 300 credits at a dollar each and the photographer gets a full 50% commission on those sales. Go ahead and list all the other sites price packages and commission rates here to compare. Yes, I get more downloads at other places but more DOLLARS per month at BigStock. ... and to me that is the only figure that counts. The money you can put in the bank. Additionally image views mean nothing and pay nothing. Furthermore I also will not jump through hoops and submit images for some pimple face kid to decide if I am good enough to be on their site. I just flat refuse. I have not tried once and I NEVER will. -Larry.
117
« on: August 06, 2009, 16:41 »
Larry,
I know you are a big supporter and are doing well there. If I were doing as well, I would be a huge supporter too. I'm just wondering, what is your secret.
I've been there just over a year now and have accumulated only $10.50. I have just over 200 images; not a lot, I realize, but with just 113 images at 123rf I have reached $15.98 in just two months. I have 3 months and 155 images at StockXpert and just over $10. Dreamstime is averaging an image a day now with 225 images. Cutcaster is doing nothing now but I did get a payout before it died.
Many, if not most, of my images are the same across all the sites. What is it that I need to do to sell images at BigStock?
And, I'm not being a smarta$$, Larry. I really would like some insight.
Thanks,
PS: actually, cutcaster is selling only editorial stuff for me. is that the kind of discovery I need to make at BigStock?
Warrenprice, I took a look at your port (every image) and for the most part I see nothing wrong with it as you have a good variety and shot well. But do you have sports where you live? How about big fancy houses with long paved driveways? Kids playing and being just kids? etc. Take a slow walk through my BigStock port and see what sells for me. Most importantly what does not sell. Keep on shooting, sales will come. -Larry
118
« on: August 06, 2009, 06:59 »
for my images, BigStock outsells in dollars and in the number of dl's than ALL the other sites I am on put together. That's right, ALL of them. For the last 90 days BigStock is about 25 DL's and $30.00 ahead of all the rest put together.
-Larry
You must be on really bad sites Larry
Your port is great, there is no way BigStock can be the best website saleswise. They maybe great people, but the sales aren't the greatest. You have 2000 something photos on BigStock, and 500 something on dreamstime. If you upload the rest of your port to dreamstime, they will make much more than BigStock.
And what about IS, SS, StockXpert, FT? You must join them as well, Than you will see that BigStock is at best 6th best site saleswise. At best!
Hi CIDEPIXI tried uploading all of my 2,400 images to DT but they reject like crazy. So everytime they reject a batch of images I went through my portfolio and deleted images similar to them and did not try to upload any of them just to get another rejection. I am now uploading currant images to DT and still can get only a 70% approval rate. And as for the other sites you mentioned. I upload to one or two sites at a time, I am on 4 sites now and will add more later. BigStock is still my Number one in sales dollars.-Larry
119
« on: August 06, 2009, 06:48 »
Humm I just dont understand why I dosent have one sale. Even just one will show something is going on at BigStock. But zero sells show me just a dead side with many uploder and less buyer.
I just checked your portfolio on BigStock. Your correct you have no sales ...... BUT you have no images to sell either. Put some photos on BigStock and I am sure the sales will come.
-Larry
120
« on: July 31, 2009, 10:14 »
Perseus, If you decide to go exclusive with any site ...... what if they go belly up and close the doors. Images gone, site gone.
What do you do now?
Think twice before going exclusive in this unstable market and each site trying to under sell the other until somebody goes broke. Soon!
In another post (soon) I will tell all what I found out from a big buyer about stock photo sites in general. An eye opener!!
My two cents my friend!
-Larry
121
« on: July 15, 2009, 07:49 »
Over three years and thousands of DLs and ZERO charge backs for me.
-Lucky Larry
122
« on: July 13, 2009, 10:18 »
Whoops! What do I know? I did not know that we had two (count 'em) horizons. I have used levels on tripods for over fifty years with every kind of camera from 11x14 view cameras to pin hole. Never been a problem yet!
What I meant was that it's not always the natural horizon that has to be straight. Let's say you have a still life on an old crooked table, and you want the table to look straight in the photo. Or let's say you are shooting a painting that is on the floor leaning against the wall.
OK .... Un natural horizons .... kill the levels. -Larry
123
« on: July 13, 2009, 10:02 »
Easier way: Use a tripod with a level.
It's not as precise as shooting tethered and using a grid on the preview. And it's not always when the "horizon" is parallel to the natural horizon (that makes the level un-usable)
Whoops! What do I know? I did not know that we had two (count 'em) horizons. I have used levels on tripods for over fifty years with every kind of camera from 11x14 view cameras to pin hole. Never been a problem yet! -Larry
124
« on: July 13, 2009, 09:23 »
Now I remember: one thing that is easier to do tethered is to get straight lines straight, to get a straight "horizon". It's always better to shoot everything straight in camera instead of rotating the image in Photoshop.
Easier way: Use a tripod with a level. -Larry
125
« on: July 12, 2009, 11:34 »
that's strange, I inserted the images but they were deleted.
oh well, I thought I could embed my photos here for you to see.
Without them, this thread is redudant. Sorry !
I can see them and they are nice and sharp. I have an old pair of glasses I no longer need ..... you want me to ship them to you? -Larry
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
