|
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 - stormchaser
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 22
276
« on: November 22, 2009, 00:49 »
I need to change a file from :gif to jpg" and also resize. I found "Batch Photo" (free for 30 days). Changing the end was no problem but can't figure out how to resize. Is there a etter editing sofeware available. I'm completely lost with editing software.
It is odd to need to convert Gif to Jpg. Gif is indexed colour with a limited palette. When coverting a gif in indexed color to a jpg with an rgb palette, all you will get is a really bad jpg looking similar or worse than the gif. On the resize, you don't say if you are going up or down, and by how much. If trying to upsize by almost any amount, your resulting jpg will likely look splotchy and posterized. Since most Gifs are ust plain small to begin with, I can't imagine you needing to downsize during the transition to jpg. You might want to try Gimp. It's free, has resize capability, and many more features. http://www.gimp.org/The full version of Photoshop is the industry standard for graphics. Photoshop Elements may be more in your price range. If this gif to jpeg conversion is a one time thing, you might want to ask someone to do it for you. In fact if you post it to the board someone will likely pick it up and do it. If not, you may want to consult someone who has graphics software and knows how to use it. I think Ifranview will work too. I have not used it in a very long time though and never used it much when I had it. http://www.irfanview.com/
277
« on: November 17, 2009, 21:37 »
Domain info for anyone who is interested
Registrant [2083484]:
DepositPhotos Inc. DepositPhotos Inc.
DepositPhotos Inc.
110 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 1700
Fort Lauderdale
FLORIDA
33301
US
Administrative Contact [2083484]:
DepositPhotos Inc. DepositPhotos Inc.
DepositPhotos Inc.
110 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 1700
Fort Lauderdale
FLORIDA
33301
US
Phone: +1.9549900075
Fax: +1.9549900075
I have no other comments other than I'm not in the mood for another Albumo at this time. Address looks like another mail drop.
278
« on: November 17, 2009, 00:46 »
There are a number of issues here:
2. The distinction between releasing photos of events is whether it is on public or private property. A street march is public property, and anyone and anything in that domain is fair play for editorial. (except of course copyrighted things like coke cans.
Huh?
If you're photographing a street march for editorial, and one of the marchers is carrying a coke can or there's a discarded coke can on the pavement, they'd have to be cloned out? Really??? Would that also apply to e.g. shop signs in city shots (maybe in the background of your street march)?
Sue you are correct in questioning this. In standard practice Editorial images are to be submitted and used AS IS. The Coke can stays. The shop sign stays. Many in micro try and do things like clone license plates. In proper practice, this is not allowed. The most cloning you can get away with is a sensor dust spot in the sky. And even then, for bona fide news work, I would leave that up to the editor. For editorial you can crop to get rid of the Coke can or the license plate, and even then your crop should not change the news context of the image.
279
« on: October 18, 2009, 12:00 »
also check them out on reseller ratings
http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Photo_Loon
there are some good ratings - maybe true or maybe fake and also some bad ratings. Make sure you read the bad ratings and are aware of the potential problems.
You have to watch though how the "good" reviews are worded. Sometimes the good ones are input by employees that watch RR. Watch for things like the same spelling errors and similar phrasing.
280
« on: October 15, 2009, 15:52 »
I believe that in the case of Shutterstock, you need to have a minimum number of images online, something like 600 I think. An the pay is indeed minimal at best.
281
« on: October 15, 2009, 15:48 »
The M9 is a different animal and you seriously have to consider your desires and end use for the images. For instance, you can for the most part forget about shooting high speed action sports and extreme telephoto shots. If that's your gig, this is not the camera for you. Also realize that the camera is a Rangefinder and is Manual Focus. This is usually a deterrent to a lot once they find that out. Expense - note that the MSRP for the M9 is Body Only, and you'll likely pop another grand at least for a lens. There are no real aftermarket lenses in M-Mount, so there are no discounts to be found. Also, the very best lenses are primes, not zooms. All that aside, there's nothing like a Leica. Love my M8 and don't know if I will jump to M9. Although the M9 is full frame and you'll get the very best out of the superior Leica optics. For more Leica info both good and bad, try the DPR forum at http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1038Farkas has good Leica info on that blog, but he's also a Leica dealer. It's best to get unbiased info before investing $7k in a camera that may not be suitable for you. If you have never shot with a rangefinder focus before, my suggestion is get hold of an old film rangefinder cam, either very cheap on FleaBay, or find a camera club in your area and try to borrow one. Something like an old Zeiss rangefinder will do fine. Most old film Leicas still go for a premium price. As far as comparing it to other cameras, in my mind there s no comparison. There is a look to Leica images that just can't be had on any other camera, even the top Canon and Nikon dslrs.
282
« on: October 13, 2009, 22:29 »
The Tamron is a bit sluggish on the autofocus. The Sigma version is a better performer in this respect. Image quality is a tossup between the two, All depends on what you shoot and how you shoot. The lenses are both in the same ballpark pricewise. I think the Tamron is a little cheaper.
283
« on: September 27, 2009, 20:40 »
Take a look at this thread: http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_18691
And then take a look at the photographer that has sooo many pctures of the same series approved: http://www.dreamstime.com/Antoniomp_info
and... look at this:
Antoniomp is favorite photographer for:
Petarneychev (2,668)
hahaha petarneychev is one of the DT moderators/admins/reviewers  (and the guy who said that "a sale is a sale")
It makes me think about favoritism policies 
Nothing really new. I noticed this well over a year ago at DT. In fact one DT contributor who was Faved at one time by one of the DT admins was proven a thief, having uploaded 1000 or so photos in a very short time. A high number of the portfolio images were recognized as stolen. The offending portfolio was finally removed when one high ranking seller there found some of his images had been snatched. See this very old thread http://www.microstockgroup.com/dreamstime-com/here%27s-a-mystery-see-if-you-can-solve-it-on-dreamstime/
284
« on: September 19, 2009, 12:45 »
Leaf,
In IS: " Supplier grants iStockphoto:(...) The right to grant perpetual, world-wide, non-exclusive and non-transferable licenses or sub-licenses to end-users in accordance with the terms of the Content License Agreement"
In FocalPop: "you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare (...)"
If I understand it right, in IS you give them the rights to sell your work as RF; in FocalPop you are giving them the RF rights, including the right to redistribute it. Notice also non-transferable in IS vs transferable in FocalPop.
Madelaide, you got it right.
285
« on: September 18, 2009, 14:44 »
Would this be considered RM then?
There is no licensing done by the site itself. You as a seller agree to the license terms of the buyer. You are also responsible for completing the transaction with the buyer. Also not liking this in the company Terms Intellectual Property
(a) Content License and Access. When you submit content to the Site, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform the content in connection with the Site, in any media known now or in the future. This is simply "working on spec" in its worst possible form. Anyone considering this should read the site Terms in their entirety.
286
« on: September 09, 2009, 13:16 »
Just sucks.
I would actually go a step further and report that paypal email address directly to Paypal. Just explain simply what happened and hopefully PP can shut him down. Because he was able to hack into your account likely means he will do it to someone else if he is allowed to continue. Just a suggestion if you care to pursue.
288
« on: August 27, 2009, 21:20 »
do a search for photogrpahers direst here. they are very anti microstock. imo you will get nowhere if you dont pay for account / hosting. most of the requests are things like polar bear riding a unicycle in the jungle  and terms is usually RM the $ offered is usually less than normal RM pricing and you have to organise and chase payment yousrself etc.
Not only are they "anti" micro, if they find out you are a micro contributor, Photographers Direct WILL boot you. It's already happened to one person I know who tried to play both sides of the fence.
289
« on: August 23, 2009, 11:27 »
Sales actually up here, especially over the last 2 months. I may have a BME this month. Subs only account for about 1 out of about 6 sales. Too lazy to do the math. As for feeding the beast to increase sales or keep them steady, I've only submitted maybe 20 files there in the past two months. So it's not like an increase in portfolio size has been a factor in increases.
FT - I really don't bother there anymore. Tough nut for me to crack.
290
« on: August 05, 2009, 01:15 »
Good grief that graphic banner on the page looks like it was done by a high schooler in love with Edwardian Script.
291
« on: July 16, 2009, 16:28 »
I did mark Delkin because I caught some on sale a few years ago and they have performed well. Still alive and kicking. Otherwise I usually go Sandisk Ultra.
292
« on: June 28, 2009, 12:48 »
Phil,
Hows the grain on this cam? I have the LX2 and really like it, but could do with a little less of the grain/noise. I hear the LX3 is much improved in this respect, so I am thinking of trading up to LX3 or even the Leica version because it has a better warranty and will hold better resale value.
Would it be possible for you to post a small full res cut here of one of the shots? Like where the building edge meets the sky?
With regards to stock, I have had some accepted at istock even with the old LX2 shooting raw. All depends on the shot though. Some from the LX3 are just a n0 go.
Great pics - thanks for posting.
293
« on: June 23, 2009, 00:05 »
On the last 3 uploads, my illustrations were approved quickly but there is a huge lag time in the photo approvals. So people are working there, just don't know what's up with the photos.
294
« on: June 22, 2009, 14:23 »
Just out of curiosity, is this site in the cross hairs of the state and federal tax men. Just read Ken Rockwells new post about how he may be forced to close his site due to Californias tax codes. Looks like the goverment is going to tax every imagineable way to raise its revenue.
I just read the Rockwell post, and it just proves to me how immature and uninformed he is. In NY State, this has been being enforced for awhile, and I know of no site or blog that has shut down willingly due to sales tax enforcement. People will balk at the tax, yes. In the beginning they may try and find a way to beat it. But it is today's fiscal reality. Ken indirectly alludes that everyone will quit buying cameras which is kind of silly. I commented on this briefly in Lisa'a post about Florida State Sales Tax - Here it is... Ken can oppose things all he wants.  I did some reading on the Amazon suit here in NY. Here is an interesting note from Accountingweb. com from Jan 14, 2009
A New York state judge has dismissed Amazon.com's lawsuit alleging the online retail giant had no requirement to pay sales tax in the state due to a lack of physical presence.
Last July, Amazon.com Inc. filed a complaint with the Supreme Court of the State of New York saying it is unconstitutional to require e-tailers based outside of New York to collect the state's sales and uses taxes.
New York State Supreme Court Justice Eileen Bransten said that New York law requires companies to collect state and local sales taxes if the company generates $10,000 or more in revenue as a result of commissions paid to persons in New York for sales referrals, The Wall Street Journal reported. Justice Bransten wrote that, "There is no basis upon which Amazon can prevail."
Although Amazon has no physical presence in New York, the company, through its "Associates Program," pays unaffiliated Web site operators across the country a commission if they advertise Amazon on their sites. Those ads often allow consumers to click through from the advertiser's Web site to Amazon.com. Under a New York law enacted last April, that amounts to solicitation of business in the state, Reuters reports.
Amazon had argued in its lawsuit that the New York law unfairly targets Amazon, is overly broad and vague, and violates the commerce clause of the constitution because it imposes tax-collection obligations on out-of-state entities.
Amazon has been complying with the New York law and collecting sales tax on shipments to New York, but had hoped to prevail in its lawsuit. The company has the right to appeal the New York Supreme Court's decision. The Affiliate Program, in which Ken is a likely participant, is in part how the courts justified the collection of tax. I don't know if Amazon has any appeal underway. Poor Ken. I feel so sorry for him. Note to Pixart - You many want to ask other business people what they are currently doing about shipments to NY. If (and when) this passes in California, they are likely to have similar tax code.
295
« on: June 20, 2009, 11:25 »
If you live in California you should have a read on this from Ken Rockwell this morning
Proposed New Internet Taxes
I'm unsure exactly what's going on, but proposed California Assembly Bill 178 (AB 178) will require out-of-state sites like Amazon (and pretty much every site) to collect sales taxes on everything sold into California.
This sounds like a bad idea to me, so I oppose this. (I bet my wife opposes it more; she shops even more than I do.)
You might want to express your opinion to your California assembly member ....
Ken can oppose things all he wants. I did some reading on the Amazon suit here in NY. Here is an interesting note from Accountingweb. com from Jan 14, 2009 A New York state judge has dismissed Amazon.com's lawsuit alleging the online retail giant had no requirement to pay sales tax in the state due to a lack of physical presence.
Last July, Amazon.com Inc. filed a complaint with the Supreme Court of the State of New York saying it is unconstitutional to require e-tailers based outside of New York to collect the state's sales and uses taxes.
New York State Supreme Court Justice Eileen Bransten said that New York law requires companies to collect state and local sales taxes if the company generates $10,000 or more in revenue as a result of commissions paid to persons in New York for sales referrals, The Wall Street Journal reported. Justice Bransten wrote that, "There is no basis upon which Amazon can prevail."
Although Amazon has no physical presence in New York, the company, through its "Associates Program," pays unaffiliated Web site operators across the country a commission if they advertise Amazon on their sites. Those ads often allow consumers to click through from the advertiser's Web site to Amazon.com. Under a New York law enacted last April, that amounts to solicitation of business in the state, Reuters reports.
Amazon had argued in its lawsuit that the New York law unfairly targets Amazon, is overly broad and vague, and violates the commerce clause of the constitution because it imposes tax-collection obligations on out-of-state entities.
Amazon has been complying with the New York law and collecting sales tax on shipments to New York, but had hoped to prevail in its lawsuit. The company has the right to appeal the New York Supreme Court's decision. The Affiliate Program, in which Ken is a likely participant, is in part how the courts justified the collection of tax. I don't know if Amazon has any appeal underway. Poor Ken. I feel so sorry for him.
296
« on: June 19, 2009, 15:04 »
A few smaller laywers will give you a free consultation, really you just need to ask them, it's just a conversation you need for now, they will either tell you you are liable, or the retailer is liable, but you would have had to pay a lawyer when becoming incorporated anyway, so no harm is seeing if they could give you advice over the phone on a matter.. worth a try I think, why pay a penny if you're not liable for it!!
A lawyer will not really be of any use here. If the item is for your use and consumption, whether it be business or personal. you are liable for sales tax owed. From Florida DOR
If an out-of-state seller fails to collect sales tax, it is your responsibility to comply with Florida law.The suit here in NY by Amazon had to do with Amazon not wanting to act as an "agent" for NY State collecting tax. Amazon lost. Lisa these links may help get you started to understand things further http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/consumer/http://www.kulzick.com/fusetax1.htmAlso google Florida State Use Tax.
297
« on: June 19, 2009, 14:44 »
Lisa,
It is generally known as "Use Tax" and has likely been written into your state sales tax code for a long time but few knew about it, or chose to ignore it. They are likely targetiing photographers because generally purchases run into in high volume dollars and can be repetitive. I am sure that somehow computer junkies will be found out as well, again, high volume and high price tag. After that, they will likely try to round up all of the soccer moms purchasing gobs of stuff on Amazon and Overstock.
Here in NY in they have gone on the campaign the past few years. There is now a line, even on the NY state income tax short form, for Use Tax. The line cannot be left blank. It must be either Zero or an amount of dollars. They explicitly state "online and all other out of state purchases" or something to that effect.
Amazon purchases are now taxed in NY State (Amazon took it to court and lost) no matter where the vendor is. It used to be that if a camera vendor was in NY, yes I would get charged tax if the item was not purchased for customer resale under a resale tax ID. A few months ago I had purchased some kitchen items from a specialty vendor in IL, and yes it was taxed through Amazon.
Even just a few years ago, you could purchase out of state items with no tax with no problem. But now with easy ordering on the web becoming huge business, larger vendors are being sought out and are being "persuaded" to abide by NY State Sales Tax reciprocal agreements. Florida may have a similar scheme in mind.
If you browse through your Florida State Sales Tax Code, I am sure that something called Use Tax, or something similar, is already in the code and has likely been here for at least a few years. It's just never been at the forefront though until now as states start to scrounge for revenue.
I am sure the tax gathering activity ramps up, the issue will make it big in your local media headlines, as more people are being made aware of the collection process. If they are going back 3 years retroactive, my guess is that's when it was written into your tax code.
In NY Sales Tax Code, the concept of Use Tax has actually been in place for many years. It was virtually unknown to those not in business. So NY went after all of the internet buyers who had no knowledge of the code.
298
« on: May 01, 2009, 13:22 »
Interesting. I see Thomas Hawk is a submitter there and is offering this one up for $300 http://www.clustershot.com/thomashawk/photo223709Looks like another cutcaster to me, giving morons free reign in setting their own pricing, plus an "offer" option, like bidding on a photo. Also looks like no need for, or any attention paid to, releases here as evidenced by this one http://www.clustershot.com/thomashawk/photo252276Well this should certainly appeal to the point & shoot crowd. Snap anything and post it.
299
« on: April 24, 2009, 18:48 »
Leaf,
It would be a bit annoying to a new user, but maybe we should make it more difficult to start new threads? Not just posting once in an existing thread, but like having to wait one week for the first new thread?
Regards,
Adelaide
That would put new users with a valid and time sensitive question at a disadvantage. Maybe a Report Spam button that could only be used by users who have been registered at least a month.
300
« on: April 22, 2009, 19:09 »
There are many adults who haven't a clue either.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 22
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
